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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (25078)	8/26/2012 8:00:11 PM
From: greenspirit	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

This line of thinking leads to people who support genocide, because it creates the condition where living human beings are considered property. A child that is 9 months in the womb is no more the sole property of a woman, as is a 7 month old who was born prematurely and laying in an incubator in the hospital. Let me ask members of the Democratic party on this board a direct question and see if they have the courage to answer. Do you support Obama's radical position that a child who survives a botched abortion and is living in the hospital should be murdered? Of the two positions, Akin vs Obama, Obama is the true radical. Care about children... Care about the needy.... Care about the poor... As long as they are not living babies apparently. I hope Democratic party members working for the major media outlets want to talk about this until election day. Because, the American people really need to know who cares about the most helpless members of our society, and who wants to pile them up in garbage cans to be tossed out with the trash. And to think, this is the same Nancy Pelosi crowd who said a few months ago Jesus Christ would support them.

To: koan who wrote (25078)	8/27/2012 11:32:26 AM
From: TimF	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

And if we want to make it a vote thing, IMO, only the women should be allowed to vote on that one. I think that's just crazy. The pro-life position makes, sense. The pro-choice position makes sense. (each given certain assumptions about the status of the fetus), but your position doesn't. Either abortion results in the killing of millions of innocent humans, in which case its a major important human rights issue that is properly the business of all; or restricting it is a human rights violation against the women, in which case its also a major human rights issue that is properly the business of all. If the former then its properly the business of all to try to stop abortion; if the later its properly the business of all to prevent restrictions. Either way its not something that just some sub-group can get some say in. One could view the status of the fetus as something that changes at some point during pregnancy, and not at either conception or birth, but that doesn't really change the point from the last paragraph, it would just mean that restrictions against it where a violations of the woman's right before that point, and a violation of the fetus's rights after that point.