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: one_less who wrote (10895)	10/23/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

brees? You want to take this up with the inimitable mrknowitall? As in Message 6125780 , addressed to me? Maybe invite Dwight and Johannes to join you? Nor do I believe you are accurately representing the position of the pro-life side of the issue. You are conveniently using the position of the furthest fringe in an attempt to stereotype the majority of those who are far from the fringe. What is your motive in doing that? Fear mongering, perhaps? Am I misrepresenting you as an absolutist? If the representation is true, am I engaging in fear mongering anyhow? I seem to actually agree with Mr. K. somewhat on the abortion issue itself, that better birth control (or reproductive prevention technology , as the newly Buckleyesque Mr. K puts it) would reduce the number of abortions significantly. And that would be good. I do have some statistics on hand on various issues, but I wouldn't want to pollute the substantial facts crowd here with my usual "feelings and emotions".

To: one_less who wrote (10895)	10/23/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Can you consider just for a moment the possibility of support for the idea that a culture founded on monogamous long term relationships is not such a horrible thought?< He'd sooner slash his wrists. >Of course then that might open the door to ideas about marriage or families being a good thing. OK, sorry I know I've gone way over board here.< The horror of it, men and women sacrificing their lives to one another within the unbreakable bond of marriage, perhaps even to raise children with belief in the same? This backward system of the conservatives, particularly the religious fanatics amongst them, is so repugnant that I am now writing another check to the likes of the womyn of N.O.W., and the federally funded population maintainers of Planned Parenthood. That'll teach you, fella.

To: one_less who wrote (10895)	10/23/1998 1:49:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

Infanticide, I'm bringing this issue back because I've given it further thought. At first I thought it was kind of an alarm bell term that anti-abortionists had resurrected. Infanticide was standard practice in ancient times and typically it meant putting female babies to death. This practice has long been outlawed in most regions of the world. It just occurred to me that China has the one baby per family legislation now. Something the population control and pro-abortion people are real happy to see. We now have the ability to peek at the sex of the baby in the uterus. So, with the current openness to abortion we can also select male babies to go full term and female babies not to. How do you think the selection process will go. Will history repeat itself? It has already started. You may want to take a second look at this.