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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1364673)	6/29/2022 3:26:25 PM
From: sylvester80	1 Recommendation Recommended By pocotrader Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570369

OH MY GOD! FRAUD POS tRUMP LIE SOCIAL DWAC CONTINUOUS SINKING. DOWN -90% NOW IN LAST 8MO.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... thanks for YOUR MONEY gullible trumptard da_LOSERS...

To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1364673)	6/29/2022 6:50:27 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570369

WFoL, The SC did not outlaw abortions. It simply threw the decision back to the states where it belongs. Like I said, that's purely an academic argument. Of course the decision goes back to the states when federal law has nothing to say about the issue. Does it belong there? That all depends on whether you think an unborn child is a life in the state of Kentucky, but not California. I think abortion should be banned after the first trimester. The counterargument against that would be, "Well what happens at the beginning of the second trimester that magically turns an unborn child into a life?" Same thing with making abortion a "states' rights" issue. What magically happens that turns an unborn child into a life when it crosses state lines from, say, Illinois to Kentucky? Tenchusatsu