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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4588)	1/3/2017 5:47:41 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 354123

>>>I'm cool with that. I'm fine with anyone thinking it's immoral to abort at 20 weeks so no doing it. I'm fine with your friends' daughter doing whatever they think best. I have an issue with forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. If that's not what you're advocating, we're cool.<<< Oh good. Here is another chance for me to piss off both sides. I don't think the government should in anyway be involved in something so personal to a woman. And to the other side I say that includes using your tax dollars to pay for clinics, programs, pamphlets, and other political costs. Religion can have it's say, and if that is persuasive to one but not another, so be it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4588)	1/3/2017 7:26:42 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354123

>>You apparently have not been reading my posts on inalienable, natural rights. I agree that we persons have them. And some of them are actually codified by our government and enforced. Sorry, I have not. I'll look back and pick some of that up. >> But, perhaps you can explain how a 20 week fetus gets to be a person prior to being born, at which point at least the codified rights attach. Because it's bornable? Maybe. My views have changed as medical technology has evolved making younger fetuses viable. When I talk about rights, yes, it is an opinion, not a scientific proposition. And the thing that started me down this path was, without a doubt, the barbaric "partial birth abortion" procedure which some worm have fought so hard in support of. While it is a small number, it is clear to me that these procedures HAVE BEEN USED to legally commit murder. The fact that a baby has its life taken before exiting its mother's body doesn't sway me. It is rarely, if ever, a medically justifiable procedure. >> But somehow it's OK to aggress a pregnant woman by pushing her to continue a medical condition, then into mommyhood? If you don't mind I will pose a question to you before responding. I once knew a young woman who told me if she got pregnant she would simply get an abortion. She then went on to inform me that she previously had had six abortions. Which amazed me. My question is, does this scenario matter? Should society have no role at all in this debate? Is there no point beyond which we say, "Enough is enough?" For me, there is. Call it nanny-statism or moral overreach, or whatever, but I do think there is a time that it seems like it becomes a kind of killing. I obviously don't purport to have an answer for anyone but me, and even that is tentative. Bottom line is a lot of people believe we should not encourage the use of abortion and I fall into that group. Not an absolute ban, but we can say to women, "Abortion is a limited option. If you're going that route you need to get busy."

To: Lane3 who wrote (4588)	1/3/2017 8:20:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354123

But, perhaps you can explain how a 20 week fetus gets to be a person prior to being born, at which point at least the codified rights attach Because its a human, and new distinct individual. To the extent that viability is a concern (its not a central issue for me, but it is for some), 22 or 23 weeks might be a better point. As for prior to being born - well then it could be 39 or more weeks under the traditional measurement (or 37 or more since conception), with development the same as a newborn.