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: i-node who wrote (487359)	6/12/2009 6:17:30 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572359

>> What inode's position also suggests is that he places more importance on the fetus than the well being of the mother. Not at all. If the mom's health is jeopardized I don't have a problem with her making the decision to have a late-term abortion. The instances in which this is the case are EXCEEDINGLY RARE -- which is obvious from the fact that only a few physicians in the country are willing to perform the procedure. First of all, late term abortion is a misnomer.....I suspect an intentional one. Most 'late term' abortions occur right after the first trimester. As for Tiller, he aborted babies where they were hopelessly disabled and would likely die upon birth, where a mother's health was in jeopardy and in a few cases, where the mother's mental state was precarious. None of it was done frivolously. The reality is that it just isn't medically necessary in very many cases. It is just way, way extreme to not place limits on these abortions. Everyone knows what we're talking about here. If a woman/girl wants an abortion she needs to make that decision early on. When it comes to Tiller's practice, you don't know what you're talking about. Society should demand that much.