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: greenspirit who wrote (15919)	11/25/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

The problem with idiot Carl Sagan's argument is that it would rationalize the killing of mentally-handicapped adults, let alone babies or fetuses. The people who are pro-abortion need to quit looking for ways to avoid taking responsibility for taking a human life. If one is going to advocate freedom of choice, then one needs to take responsibility and admit that the choice is one of convenience. No one is forcing them to choose an abortion, except those that purposefully withhold information on other options including adoption, contraception, etc.

To: greenspirit who wrote (15919)	11/25/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Michael, your "balanced stand" isn't what most people who spout off here about abortion are looking for, by all indications. There are some, but there are indications that many like to eliminate legal abortions all together, the so-called PBA thing is by all appearances a stalking horse to push the issue in the most inflammatory way possible. I'd be happy to see abortions eliminated too, by preventive means, education and better birth control. That path doesn't seem popular among right-to-lifers in general, unless it's via the Orwellian Junior Anti-Sex League path. I will repeat my usual citation on the matter. agi-usa.org The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over a 20-year period that prior to fetal viability, a woman has a constitutional right to decide to terminate her pregnancy in consultation with her physician. Even after fetal viability, she must be able to do so to preserve her life or health. Although it is very difficult to determine when a particular fetus is viable, 2324 weeks of gestation is generally considered a minimum for viability. . . . The CDC reports group all abortions after 20 weeks of gestation into one category. After the CDC figures are adjusted for underreporting, approximately 16,450 procedures, or roughly 1% of all abortions in 1992, were estimated to have been performed beyond 20 weeks since the woman's last menstrual period (see Table 1). Do you think the right to life lobby would be happy with a reduction of 1% in the number of abortions? I highly doubt it myself, and my impression is that most of the people who've written anti abortion messages here wouldn't be happy with that either. You may be the exception, you can sound out the others if you think I'm misstating their sentiments. And the so-called PBA ban wouldn't eliminate all of that 1% either. "Survival on it's (sic) own" is a slippery matter by itself. A 23-24 week baby might survive with massive intervention. Medically, doctors will do everything they can at that stage to delay birth. The actual number of abortions done past 24 weeks is very low compared to fetal death for other reasons. Table 1. Induced Abortions, 1992 . . . 2324 weeks 4,940 2526 weeks 850 26 weeks 320 Table 2. Fetal Deaths, 1992 Gestational age Number 2023 weeks 8,152 2427 weeks 4,567 2831 weeks 3,635 3235 weeks 4,107 I don't know exactly what the story on PBA is, according to this article the term is a recent invention of the "right to life" lobby. The fetal death statistics, which do not involve abortions , seem to indicate that procedures for extracting late term fetuses are necessary all too often. Personally, I don't trust the anti abortion activists to promote legislation regulating medical practice in the matter. I would applaud them if they chose to support legislation promoting better prenatal care, which might do something to reduce the fetal death numbers reported above. But that doesn't seem to be on the agenda, when there's so much good propaganda mileage to be had by the other route. You might want to take up the "balanced stand" issue with Ish, who in the usual substantive debate fashion popular here has translated my views on the issue into approval of so-called "PBA". Ish, of course, has explicitly expressed his approval for gunning down abortionists. I say you're all fear mongering, as K has accused me of on the issue. Oh, and to preclude the inevitable stupid "what unit" response from Ish, I have not served in the military, though I respect both the institution and those who have served. Perhaps everybody here could state whether they've served or not, and whether they think that having served in the military should be a prerequisite for stating one's political views. My understanding is a lot of popular Republicans would have to shut up too, if that prerequisite held. With respect to the "unit" answer above, I'm sure I'll get some Limbot responses pinning some straw man view on me that I never expressed. I anticipate more of K's "substantive debate" on that one too. Cheers, Dan.