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: Alighieri who wrote (487993)	6/14/2009 8:22:16 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575189

We have new rules of vigilante guilt now...have we? Even if we were to accept your prior absurd insinuation that a grand jury was tampered with by the governor? It isn't absurd. The Grand Jury's review was impeded by a Kansas DA which Sebelius is in charge of. There were allegations that Foulston (the DA) "avoided and tried to thwart a thorough investigation of Tiller for years, and the Kansas Board of Health Arts offered continual delays and cover up in the case." The statute says this: The Kansas late-term abortion statute, K.S.A. 65-6703, states that the doctor performing the abortion must have 'a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine that: (1) the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman The intent of the statute is clear. However, the grand jury said THIS: "However, the medical records reviewed by this Jury revealed a number of questionable late-term abortions with regard to the diagnosis of 'substantial and irreversible impairment.' As the law is written and interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court, late-term abortions will continue for many circumstances that would seem, as a matter of common interpretation, not to meet the definition of 'substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." We have a man who performed thousands upon thousands of abortions. This particular woman's [girl's] story certainly suggests the statute in Kansas was violated: youtube.com The notion that there was "substantial and irreversible impairment" is clearly at the very least, in doubt: youtube.com Finally, it is a fact the man is dead and therefor will never be convicted. But that doesn't mean he didn't violate the law and the facts clearly indicate he did. I realize that killing unborn babies is okay with you, but with a substantial portion of the nation's population -- including many who have abortions during a more reasonable time frame -- it is and ought to be considered criminal. I don't support vigilantism, but this man was not doing the country or the women he was treating or the near-children he was killing any favors. This barbaric practice must be stopped except where the mother's health is truly in jeopardy and few of the abortions this man was performing met that test.

To: Alighieri who wrote (487993)	6/14/2009 11:33:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575189

Christiane Amanpour of CNN did us proud. She was one of several reporters asking questions of Ahmadinejad. She asked if Mousavi was safe and that Ahmadinejad would guarantee his safety. He went into this long winded answer that lasted 5 minutes and said nothing. At the end of it she said.....I still have the same question......will you guarantee Mousavi's safety? This time he answered it but in a very roundabout way. Essentially, he said he would not guarantee Mousavi's safety. Clearly he and the ayatollah see Mousavi as a real threat.