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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (82738)	9/7/2008 2:10:55 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541570

I think pretty much everyone dislikes abortion, especially women who have abortions. It is very invasive. I can't even bring myself to let a doctor shove his finger up my ***, good thing I'm a guy. I can't imagine anyone being comfortable with abortion, I'm not even comfortable with having my teeth cleaned.

To: epicure who wrote (82738)	9/7/2008 2:23:30 PM
From: bluezuu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541570

If people are just doing it on the basis of what they think about sonograms and viability- then you are back to "I just don't like it"- which is even weaker than "My God says you can't do it". Court has struggled with Blackmum's trimesters as they make no sense. Supreme court already used viability. ---------------------------------------- 1. Consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained and reaffirmed as to each of its three parts: (1) a recognition of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose previability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure; (2) a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman's life or health; and (3) the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. Pp. 1-27. law.cornell.edu

To: epicure who wrote (82738)	9/7/2008 2:33:41 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541570

Non-religious docs and nurses, because of sonograms and increased viability, become open to the idea that 'maybe this really is murder, or killing.....if one wants to make that legal distinction. They then choose not to participate in killing another human being.

To: epicure who wrote (82738)	9/7/2008 3:10:08 PM
From: Stan J. Czernel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541570

I'm not sure what you base it on... It seems to be a useful issue when it comes to setting people against each other and creating single-issue constituencies. This is a curious issue, because both sides are holding out for all the marbles - via the law. I would love to live in a world where all pregnancies are planned, and all children are welcomed into loving homes, into a world were all resourced are focused on giving them a bright future. Why can't both sides resolve to create a society where the fewest abortions happen?