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: epicure who wrote (15952)	11/25/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Oddly enough many of the people who so fervently want to protect the unborn have no problem in blowing up doctors,nurses, security guards or innocent bystanders. >> I don't see any evidence of this. A few people have committed the murders you cite, but there is no evidence that "many" right to lifers have no problem with it. That is hyperbole, IMO. Along the same lines, it always amazes me that the fervent pro-choice crowd is equally rabid in their opposition to the death penalty.

To: epicure who wrote (15952)	11/25/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>>Oddly enough many of the people who so fervently want to protect the unborn have no problem in blowing up doctors, nurses, security guards or innocent bystanders. This seems completely illogical to me.<< X, You have to remember that if you take the view of the pro-life movement to it's ultimate conclusion, those "doctors, nurses, security guards..." are killing innocent human beings, thus taking a life in that situation could be rationalized, committing one crime to prevent potentially hundreds of others. It would be the same attitude as killing the executioners at Dachau or Treblinka in the hope of preserving the lives of the innocent. Most people would "wish for" the death of the executioner, but few would have the courage of their convictions to carry it out. It is a dilemma of profound proportions if you reason the pro-life stance to it's ultimate end.. bp

To: epicure who wrote (15952)	11/25/1998 1:45:00 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

X, I would tell you that in any debate, written or oral, you would win hands down, as I do not have the education to compete with you. Let me just offer a couple things. One is that this issue is not a popularity contest, because by and large the folks who are set against abortion are usually vilified, and made a laughing stock by "intelligent folk". So it's not like we are going be very popular anyway. The Democratic from of government we have in this country, and for which we should all be truly thankful this holiday, allows the majority (or at least the majority of those who vote) to decide when one human can end the life of another. This is true whether the matter is criminal execution, assisted suicide, or abortion. You are right, that is the country we live in. Does it mean I have no right to a differing opinion without being ridiculed? We can see what the country is headed for just by looking at what we watch. Springer, Cops, 60 minutes on Kevorkian, all shows depicting violence and death. How long before we actually see abortion on TV you think? Or see a live execution of another? And we wonder how a child can kill another with no remorse? How is that possible? Oddly enough many of the people who so fervently want to protect the unborn have no problem in blowing up doctors,nurses, security guards or innocent bystanders. This seems completely illogical to me. Since you probably have better knowledge and access than I about this, would you care to post charts and graphs on the number of abortions vs the number of "doctors" killed? I would be interested in knowing that. BTW, I am on the far right side of abortion, do not mind saying so, and I have never thought about committing murder to stop murder. But laws do not have to be logical nor do they need to be moral- they merely have to represent the majority opinion and be Constitutional (as defined by the present US Supreme Court justices). Do you really believe that the "laws" represent the majority or do they more represent whoever carries more weight, ie special int. groups, lobbies, etc.etc? If life is really sacred (and this is an area I admit I know nothing about) than their protests should be peaceful and they should be marching with equal vim and vigor for condemned murderers and waging campaigns to end war and brutality world wide. But they are. There are always protests on the day of executions, and there are marches for peace and against brutality, they go on every day. If you watch any news, you see just lately a lot of folks standing up for the rights of the Dali Lama and the Tibetens. But I wonder if it is really fair to associate the "rights" of an innocent unborn to a murderer. What law of the land have the unborn broken? What war did they cause? Well as one once said, there is nothing new under the sun. Thanks. dan