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 (254541)	10/9/2005 6:29:15 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574326

Abortions are not "killing a child". That's a huge lie. Early term abortions especially are not even close to such a thing. Saying such a thing turns science on its head and assumes that some fertilized egg is a "human being". What's next, claiming that sperm cells are humans? It's just ridiculous and again goes to the rightwing's real goal of abolishing sexual freedom because they are so ashamed of sex themselves. Very late term abortions are so rare as to make them irrelevant. So are the only ones which could in any way be called "killing a human". They're usually only carried out to save the life of a mother. An awful choice but very-very rare. Let me tell you what kills children. Starvation, toxic pollution, disease, bombs, war, poverty, guns, crime. Of the above list, which ones are the rightwingers in the US fighting to stop? Some maybe to a degree, but Bushies actually defend pollution, try to cut foreign aid to poverty-stricken nations, diss the UN, start wars, hike up drug prices to stop disease and by dissing sex education and birth control, they actually create mjore abortions than they prevent. This has been proven by recent stats.

To: steve harris who wrote (254541)	10/9/2005 6:41:36 PM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 1574326

GW Bush reputedly had two girls aborted in the 70's. Does that make him guilty of double homicide? If so, why are you supporting him?

To: steve harris who wrote (254541)	10/10/2005 4:08:34 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

There's a big difference between cutting your arm off and killing a child. True, but the point was no one is in favor of abortions or amputations; rather, most people support the right of an individual's decision to have those operations if they choose. You said you think it's a child once it's viable. I propose to you a one year old isn't viable because it would starve not being able to feed itself. I was trying to suss the logic of the Supreme Court's decision, and viable apparently means able to survive outside the womb with proper medical support. The average one year old is certainly viable with minimal (if not zero) medical support. Test it. Abandon a one year old in a mall somewhere, he's going to survive without medical support. The US averages 1500000 abortions a year, 80% to unmarried women. It's birth control. Yup, it's certainly not a birth multiplier! Your point?