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: epicure who wrote (4622)	1/3/2017 10:28:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354103

And if people "feel upset" by the killing of two year olds they should not kill them.

To: epicure who wrote (4622)	1/4/2017 11:22:03 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 354103

Here's some weird thinking for you grassroots citizen group, wants to change Idaho law to make people who perform or have an abortion face a penalty of first-degree murder. I find that less weird than much of what comes from the ProLife cohort. As much as I try to understand their agenda, I find all sorts of internal contradictions. It's just not coherent. As you mention, the best way to reduce abortions is to promote contraception, yet the very same folks who abhor abortion fight contraception availability. The weirdest thing I have seen is in the Indiana law, the one where you must bury or cremate the product of an abortion or miscarriage. It includes no murder penalty for abortion. The only penalty is on the provider, not the woman. And the penalty is that the provider is subject to a wrongful death suit. You've been to law school; I have not. That doesn't make any sense to me in two ways. First of all, a wrongful death suit comes from the estate of the deceased. So, we have to have an estate for an embryo. Get your head around that. Normally the family would speak for the estate. In this case, next of kin would be the woman who aborted, who would be seeking compensation from the hit man for the killing she contracted. How weird is that? I suppose the state would have to appoint someone else to represent the estate. Dunno where it might go from there. The other way it doesn't make sense is to not penalize the woman. Again, my knowledge of the law, if you can call it that, comes from cop and lawyer shows on TV, where DA's typically are lenient on the hit man when he helps convict the one who issued the contract, who is considered the worse offender. If an embryo is a person, then the woman is a murderer. Trump stuck his foot in it when he expected a penalty on the woman, one of the rare times when he was coherent. Found himself re-educated quickly. To incoherent. I, too, understand that abortions are very upsetting for some. But the movement's approach, IMO, exacerbates the problem. I recognize that a lot of these state laws are just trying to make a point, to needle, recognizing that the law won't be implemented, but is there no effort to think things through?