Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (242612)	7/21/2005 6:34:33 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574177

state should decide States don't get pregnant. Only those who do have the choice about how to deal with it. TP

To: steve harris who wrote (242612)	7/21/2005 8:24:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574177

Steve, I'm still waiting on an abortionist to show me where in the constitution is says women have the right to kill their unborn children... "Protection against unwarranted search and seizure," which to them means you can kill your child if it's done in private. Of course, even to them the protection no longer applies if you consider your child to be a life. And no expectant mother ever refers to her unborn child as a "fetus." Tenchusatsu

To: steve harris who wrote (242612)	7/21/2005 11:11:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574177

I'm still waiting on an abortionist to show me where in the constitution is says women have the right to kill their unborn children... It doesn't. Roe vs Wade provides you with that explanation. You do know how to read, don't you? The supreme court should have never taken the case. At worst, each state should decide whether they want to go to hell or not.... At best, there are people in some states who are a bit backward and unevolved. Why leave such an important matter to them?