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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (15601)	1/18/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Holly, if you want to drop out of the discussion on partial birth abortion, that is fine, and certainly your prerogative. However, since partial birth abortions are not at this point against the law, I am curious as to the logic behind your assumption that there might be medical malpractice and criminal prosecution issues, and this would ensure that none are being done electively. I am much more interested in finding out what is really going on in regard to any issue, and deciding how I feel about it after a fact-finding process, than presenting a particular point of view based on beliefs I already hold. That is why I read widely, including the views of the pro-life movement, and on this issue I don't believe I yet know quite enough to decide how I feel. But certainly, by definition the partial birth of a viable infant who is then stabbed in the back of the head with scissors, and has his brain sucked out so his skull collapses, is infanticide, and the details of the procedure are simply medical fact, not meant to inflame or incense. I have seen similar diagrams in a variety of mainstream newspapers and news magazines--it is not simply pro-life propaganda. Regarding the AIDS/HIV issue, my own opinion is that when the medical community is running from behind trying to decode a new disease, they are doing absolutely the very best they can, and have nothing but the best intentions. Of course their knowledge base and public health recommendations will change as more as known, but their motives are beyond reproach. In San Francisco, which is the only place I know anything about, the disease raged on partially because gays themselves, who were heavily politicized here, resisted changing their sexual behavior, especially at our bath houses, which they insisted remain open even though random sex with multiple partners and no protection against infection was the status quo. They also resisted any tracking of infectious status by the public health department, even though that is standard with other sexually transmitted diseases. My own memories of media coverage are vague, but certainly there are a lot of journalists in San Francisco--which is the epicenter of AIDS/HIV--who covered it from a number of angles, so I am not sure specifically to what you are referring insofar as you are alleging media misinformation.