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: Ish who wrote (28338)	1/16/1999 11:26:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<At ease pez. That was in regard to PBAs where the mother's health is not a concern>>?? OK I'm a reasonable person. Enlighten me.Why a birth due in two weeks the mothers health can not be of "concern" where as one due in six months may be of "concern"? BTW what qualifies you to answer this question in the first place? That is, what is your medical training in this regard? pez

To: Ish who wrote (28338)	1/16/1999 12:29:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Sorry Ish, you line of reasoning doesnt wash. Barr is an extreme anti-abortion advocate. An inconvenient pregnancy comes up in his personal life and his excuses for "killing the defenseless baby" are : 1) It was her decision, 2) Possible health concerns. Her Decision?? Oh I suppose that whenever one of these CC nutcase guys has to deal with an unwanted pregnancy the standard excuse they can all use is "it was her decision to get the abortion". Kinda convenient, since these rabid abortion foes are all male so what a clever out. OK now the health concerns. Are you and the Christian Coalition then saying, that for any early term abortion its ok with you as long as there are "possible health concerns" on the part of the woman involved? Funny that was not acceptable to you before. But now it is? No way, Barr is not getting out of this one so easily.