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 (48302)	7/10/2013 8:52:00 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 85487

Requiring the same standards as clinics that do knee operations for example are definitely a way of suppressing Gosnell type situations. Your position is that since there are people who don't really want any abortions, we have to make sure that NO rules or limits are ever placed on it. That we don't even require clinics to have the same safety standards as every other medical facility that performs any surgical procedures. That is EXACTLY how Gosnell happened. The important thing for you self-defined good people is to oppose everything and anything those other unenlightened people support even if it creates Gosnells. It is the toughest issue for the liberals. We liberals often say we might be wrong on this one. Gee, you're the first liberal to say he might be wrong on abortion. Most consider abortion right down to the moment of birth (and maybe just beyond it) to be "holy ground" as one of your national leaders put it. That remark is important, because she was stupid enough to come out and admit abortion is a GOOD thing to her. Most liberals do think it's a good thing. Given that you recognize there's a moral issue involved in abortion, why can't you agree on at least limiting it to the early stages when you can hope the baby isn't formed enough to know pain? And why can't a guy who thinks the government should regulate everything else, recognize the need to regulate abortion? Gay marriage is a simple civil rights issue. I hope you can see that some day. If it is, so is incestuous marriage, poly-marriage and anything else people can dream up. If 4% of the population needs something different, that does not hurt anyone else, it makes no sense not to give it to them. Gays need marriage as much as you do. Why do they need marriage? Why is it a need for people who can't ever bear children? Marriage is about cementing the bonds of the institution by which society reproduces itself, establishing parental rights and obligations, and protecting and transmitting property for the benefit of natural heirs. Marriage isn't really about society formally and legally recognizing a bond of love between two individuals. That's nice, but not necessary. Companionship alone is a good thing, but there's not a need for a legal institution to enable it. That there are exceptions like sterile couples and adoptions isn't important ..... those are just that, exceptions to the rule. You don't define an institution by exceptions but according to the norm. There's one other thing ... the above accepts the assumption that gays are really just like heterosexuals. They aren't. Homosexuals are a LOT more promiscuous and faithless when it comes to "unions" between them. When homosexuals "marry" they're just roommates or housemates. It's all about living arrangements. Would you settle for a civil marriage? As it happens, my wife and I were married in a court house by a judge. But you mean a civil union. The answer is yes, if we knew we'd never have a family except for the two of us. I know there are couples who never have kids but most of those aren't for lack of trying. Married heterosexual couples of child-bearing age who purposely choose to never have kids ... I have to wonder why they bothered getting married.