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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10513)	12/5/2010 7:40:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"I countered that the woman is given a choice both before and after the pregnancy, but the fetus has none at either time." The woman has a choice before, after, and DURING the pregnancy. She has myriad choices--because people make choices! I guess that scientific fact escaped the author of that ridiculous post! "but that it should be allowed early on," Who is going to disallow what a woman does inside her own body?? "it is certainly not a constitutional right." It is infinitely beyond the reach of all constitutions. "The message society is sending today is that it is okay to live irresponsibly and treat unborn life as cheap when it is an inconvenience" That is pure unadulterated crap and distortion and outright skewing! Extreme religions may treat "infidel" lives as cheap (and every human is an infidel and worthless and evil to some fanatic nut job somewhere--usually in a building that has four walls and unique design)--but for prospective mothers and their doctors and their families it is a solemn and usually heart wrenching experience to lose or to give up your fetus. "I think this must be terribly confusing for his daughter." I think so, too. I have to suspect the story is contrived or disfigured or twisted or distorted. "losing many years I could have been using being a positive force in society" Insulting and ignorant bastard!! So much for anyone even attempting to respect his little spew under his (now proven) pretense of being rational and objective!!!

To: Brumar89 who wrote (10513)	12/5/2010 8:12:01 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

>In the same manner that marriage for heterosexual or homosexual couples is not a constitutional right, abortion is not a constitutional right either.< Does this mean that you believe that government's role should begin and end with the Constitution? Marriage, be it traditional or other, is not covered by the Constitution. But marriage is a civil union with legal consequences, e.g. taxation and estate. Is there any reason/excuse for government to hold gay couples who seek both the benefits and responsibilities of a civil union to hold them to a second standard? I would like to see such couples granted access to the same rights and duties we now accord traditional hetero couples. Without involving the Constitution (unless one wishes to advance the odious argument that gays are not full citizens!) I see no barrier to treating homosexual couples, male or female, as entitled to the same rights and duties as the rest of us. I don't see how any other position would advance the cause of civil liberty. <edit> Brumar89, are you and "walterm" the same person?