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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10722)	10/22/1998 3:07:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Johannes, You have really distilled the abortion issue as it stands in the country today to it's essence. The survival of the unborn child is quite literally at the whim of the mother. The truth is that neo-natal science has revealed Roe v Wade to be as devastating as Dred Scott. When that decision was rendered for example there was nearly no chance of the viability of 5 or 6 month fetus. We now pay 100s of millions of dollars annually to allow these babies their chance at life. Why? Because the mothers of those children choose the life of their child. A woman seeking an abortion at that point in her pregnancy chooses the death of her unborn child. Our laws are currently written in such a way because of Roe v Wade, that you really cannot make a principled, cogent argument on the legal status of the fetus. How is it that when a pregnant woman murdered, the murderer can be charged with a double homicide? Why does that fetus now have "human rights" conferred upon it? Is it because we assume the mother would have carried her child to term? Not a valid assumption in this day of "partial birth abortion". I truly believe that, in many, many years, but perhaps in some of our lifetimes, we will look back at the carnage of legal abortion as a representation of a societal barbarism without parallel. bp

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10722)	10/22/1998 8:35:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>> The issue in the moral analysis of these cases all involve motive. <<< I think this is wrong. We always recognize that a reckless disregard for the results of our actions needs to be punished if it results in particular outcomes. If I get drunk and kill you while driving my car, I am to be punished. I accept this. There's many a loon who goes through life committing one bad act after another, claiming that they didn't know, they didn't mean it, they wish they could undo it. This is unacceptable. They had a motive, and that motive was to go willy-nilly through life avoiding responsibility, with the inevitable consequences. Given your philosophy that abortion is murder, why would you rate the reckless act that kills a fetus less important than the reckless act that kills someone in their car, resulting in a manslaughter charge? I think I may know why, though I apologize for the presumptuousness. These are acts that people you know commit, through smoke, drink, and support of polluters. I believe your posture to be at least partly political, not purely moral, but in any case certainly inconsistent. You seem to be avoiding alienating those conservative elements who would do these things. You will not put a name to it, though you seem overanxious to put a name to the actions of those you disapprove of. Presumably you are not a Catholic, since the Church's position is that even the birth control pill is against life, the Church, and God's Will. Here is my posture: A father who gives his child a birth defect through second hand smoke, though supposedly unwitting, is less worthy than a father who supports a woman's decision to have an abortion, allowing that it is primarily her decision. I would not have taken this position 20 years ago, but everyone has seen a story on TV or read in the newspaper about cigarettes and effects on children (like SIDS), and fetuses by now. And I believe that those who purposely stay so unconcious to the media as to have missed this are liable simply for their deliberate ignorance. One other question: Is the bombing of an abortion clinic murder if it kills people inside or nearby? Chaz