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: Elroy who wrote (254428)	10/9/2005 8:45:12 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571808

"I think you mean to say that the only one who has the legal right to abort a fetus within the given time period is the mother carrying the fetus." Which makes sense when you think of it. You can't, for example, walk up to someone and remove their kidney without their permission, regardless of how badly you need a transplant.

To: Elroy who wrote (254428)	10/9/2005 8:46:55 AM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571808

en.wikipedia.org The supreme court ruled creating the 24 week figure. I was also trying to use a "nuance" to point out the fallacy with the law. A woman can abort her fetus because it's not an unborn child but a man causes the death of the fetus, it's murder because it's a "fill in the blank?"? Kinda like where I live, it's against the law to not where a seat belt but it's ok if you ride a motorcycle and not wear a helmet. Or we don't have casinos here in Arkansas, but it's ok to blow your paycheck at the dog racing or horse racing track... Liberal logic escapes me...