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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (13979)	11/9/1998 1:12:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Johnathan, I believe the bible thumping part of the Republican party does focus on abortion too much. Yes, we need to find a middle ground. When you ask people who are pro-life the difficult questions, the answers they give are hardly reasonable given our history in this country. 1. What punishment would you hand out to woman who have abortions performed at say, 4 weeks pregnant? 2. What kinds of punishment would you hand out if doctors performed any abortion? 3. What about when the life of the mother is really at stake? 4. What about in the case of incest and rape? Should a twelve year old raped by her stepfather be forced to carry a child? These are not simple questions to answer. A middle ground should be found. Once the child can be removed and survive on it's own outside the womb given today's science, then they should be allowed to survive. Otherwise it should be the parents choice. And yes, I believe in most cases the father should have a part in this decision. Treating every woman tortured over the decision whether to abort a fetus like a 1st degree murderer is extremist. Most Americans I believe agree with this premise. The other extremist position by liberals and Democrats of aborting a fetus actually in the act of being born is wrong too. Or the other one of allowing a teenager without parental consent to have an abortion. How in the world we can have every law under the sun regarding teenagers needing permission to go on field trips at school, ride in certain busses and then say, oh, it's ok to go have an abortion is ridiculous to me. Michael

To: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (13979)	11/9/1998 10:43:00 AM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Johnathan, my view of abortion is that the current law we operate under permits it, and it is unlikely we will ever see any significant change to limit it because the moral relativism of the left has achieved critical mass. Once it became politically incorrect to stigmatize promiscuous, out of wedlock sex, it was inevitable that those who promote and then defend those mores have to de-stigmatize the resulting inconvenient pregnancy and thus provide the "alternative" of abortion. It is precisely why our government does not allow the imposition of religion that the left staked out the anti-religious ground in the abortion battle - it places anyone against their view as a religious nut and therefore shields them from the imposition of any law that appears to have a religiously-based source. We have lost the abortion battle. What this means to individuals personally it is not my position to dictate - as I have said before, the woman and the facilitators will have to deal with the consequences that we, as a slowly degenerating society, are no longer equipped to mete out. I can condemn all I want, but it will only solidify the opposition. Therefore, I have done, and will continue to do, what I can and recommend to others - get involved with young people and when necessary, provide the resources that allow young women who have made bad decisions to make a better one in bringing the baby to term and putting it up for adoption. Saying that voting for a pro-choice Republican is a sell-out simply fails to deal with the reality. The left has successfully stigmatized religiously-founded conservatism, and in the freedom from guilt, freedom from responsibility, freedom of choosing anything, they have effectively mastered the art of creating a majority. Our problem in voting is interesting - in order to achieve success in some areas, we are forced by lack of choice to subject ourselves to supporting people that don't share our views on all issues. This year, I actively supported a candidate (who won handily) that I have a running dialog of disagreement with on one issue. What I garner from the dialog is that the representative knows that I am a supporter, but that he does not have a mandate on all issues among his constituents. That is the basis for our system and despite the flaws that those of us who are politically active see close up, it works. Not always as quickly as we'd like, and we take backward steps almost as many times as we take forward steps. I think voter apathy is a function of being misguided - the thought, IMO, is that some people feel they are already among the majority and that the majority will win. It is a product of polls. If the constitution would allow it, I would ban ALL politically-oriented polls. Think of it, congresspeople having to actually talk to their constituents; the newsmedia ostracized from manipulative reporting on what we all supposedly think; the public having to look into issues for themselves instead of relying on what the media tells them the "majority" believe. The possibility of that happening is probably as great as outlawing abortion. Given the current trends of thought in this country, the powerbase simply won't allow it. Mr. K.