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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71367)	9/1/2009 12:15:07 PM
From: Oral Roberts	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224729

Amazing there Kenneth. When he was polling well you were daily posting his numbers like they had true meaning. Now that he is coming to earth and descending below that poll numbers are now meaningless. Talk about out of touch with reality.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (71367)	9/1/2009 12:17:20 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224729

Aborting girls Several pro-life and Christian blogs picked up on an interview last week in which Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned sex-selection abortion and acknowledged that it's a major problem in such countries as China and India. "Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high," Mrs. Clinton told the New York Times. "Unfortunately, with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they'd rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes." Catholic blogger Jeff Miller was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it didn't. "As you would expect the NYT does not have a follow up question in regards to sex-selection abortion. No question as to how if abortion is a 'right' then how does doing it because of the sex of the child then make it a problem. Either it is a human person or it is not. The sex of a 'tissue mass' would not matter. Does the women have a so-called choice just as long as the reason is not sex-selection?" Mr. Miller wrote at his site, the Curt Jester. Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek underlined Mrs. Clinton's phrase "abort girl children simply because they'd rather have a boy" and wondered aloud at the reaction among pro-choice and feminist sites at that phrasing. "This is problematic for hardcore pro-aborts, because Hillary is admitting preborns are distinct and separate human beings and also that some abortions are wrong. Can't find any pro-abort blog taking note of this traitorism," Mrs. Stanek said at her self-titled blog. One feminist to make note was Laurie Carlsson at her site Speaking of Women's Rights, where she criticized "traitor" language, which Mrs. Stanek also used in an interview with Lifesite News. Ms. Carlsson's own comments were somewhat noncommittal, calling the issue "neither simple, nor clean-cut along lines of political beliefs or moral values." "How does this fit into the feminist perspective of a woman having autonomy when it comes to her own body? Hillary Clinton recently spoke out against sex selection and her comments have been labeled by anti-abortion groups as 'traitorism in the ranks of the abortion advocates.' Is it not possible to have a nuanced view on such a highly contentious issue as abortion? The most important thing, it seems, is to allow the debate to have its own framework. To recognize that the world of assisted reproductive technology is ever-changing and that the way in which we approach a dialogue on these issues must change along with it," she wrote.