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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (325549)	4/19/2020 8:42:03 PM
From: Cautious_Optimist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361271

But I didn't like it when my wife had an abortion since she would not have aborted the pregnancy if it was a girl ( since we had 3 boys prior). Plenty of people who support abortion rights do not support it as a method of gender selection. I have heard of this in China and India; but I am under the impression that it is not supported by abortion clinics in the USA. Perhaps someone can educate me, other than google.

To: Rarebird who wrote (325549)	4/20/2020 12:43:49 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 361271

I think the pro-life group is a victim of poor laws and poor theology. In 1970 the prevailing christian thought was that the soul was equivalent to self awareness. This was the quality that set mankind apart from the other lifeforms. It was thought that a fetus which died for any reason prior to being self aware became suspended in Limbo, which was neither heaven nor hell. Abortions, stillbirths, miscarriages, or death shortly after birth, especially before baptism was not dooming the soul as the soul was still just a potential which went off to limbo for another chance. Also in 1970 many churches, and other religious institutions, had a policy of running orphanages, especially those that specialized in white babies from young unwed mothers. They encouraged orphans whoes parents had died to be adopted by relatives, but unwed pregnancies were scooped up into the tax free "homes for unwed mothers" and the baby's were born there and the institution placed them up for adoption for enormous fees and a promise that the new family would be tithing members of the church. It was a very lucrative business. Roe v Wade cut the rug out from under the baby selling racket. The pool of white babies dried up leaving only poor babies of color to wind up in the unwed-homes, so they shut down. Lots of money lost from fees and from the required membership and contributions from prospective parents who didnt want the babies that were available. That's why the church position changed to proclaim abortion as a sin, and thousands of years of dogma changed to give a theological underpinning that the fetus was already a self aware soul from the time the sperm and the egg first shook "hands". Now the pro birth cause has become it['s own dogma for which few remember the origins.