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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (328195)	3/8/2007 1:33:53 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578260

re: No expectant mother ever refers to her unborn child as a "fetus." Or as an "infant". re: The only difference between killing a newborn and killing a fetus is that the one who killed the newborn waited. In your opinion... which is a minority view. All of which doesn't make abortion "infanticide".

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (328195)	3/10/2007 7:13:59 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578260

JF, > A fetus is not an infant. No expectant mother ever refers to her unborn child as a "fetus." So what? No mother ever thinks her baby is ugly. Yet, there are many babies that are butt ugly. JF isn't talking about emotions. He's talking about scientific fact. A being inside the mother's womb is called a fetus, not a baby. Of course, as a scientist yourself, you knew that.....please stop letting your ideology undermine the integrity of your posts. Neither did the jury who convicted Scott Peterson of double homicide. The only difference between killing a newborn and killing a fetus is that the one who killed the newborn waited. Huh? You don't see any other difference between a living breathing human being and an embryo in a sac of special fluid that may have gills and a tail at any given moment? How do you make any sense out of anything?