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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (29932)	2/3/1999 10:27:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

More killings are following the abortion logic- they are of abortion doctors, and nurses, and guards. Unless you are a fetus in someone else's belly my not-wanting to interfere in another woman's wish to terminate her pregnancy shouldn't scare you. However, someone who thinks its ok to kill big people, like us (assuming you are a big people) should scare you. I understand you could be concerned, even angry- but scared? That is just part and parcel of the irrationality we have all come to know as Bob. I am against late term abortions. I happen to think they are very close to killing infants- if not the same thing. But I am not going to take the matter into my own hands. I support bans on late term abortions, with an exception for life of the mother, but I am not going to kill people or condone killing people who do not agree with me. That is anarchy and that is SCARY. I have not been brainwashed by anyone. I think as completely for myself as any individual living in a society can- we are all influenced by others, but I think I am less influenced than other people. Perhaps this is a foolish conceit, I can't be sure. I am sure of very little. You are sure of almost everything. IMO the person who is the most sure is usually the greatest fool.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (29932)	2/3/1999 11:13:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Bob, Are you so pro-life that you oppose all capital punishment? If not you are a hypocrite and liar. On earth, death in which all ends is justified by life itself -- we are just debating the duration of the interval between. Death is often justified by the injury that continued life will probably cause. I think that unibombers, Dahmers, OJ's, and other evil people may well be killed as prophylatic measures if not economic. Soon, too soon for you, I'm sure, the shrinks will be able to predict with confidence that this man or woman, this youth, this child, this baby, this fetus, because of its inherited traits in its genes, because of chance deprivations and environmental stress, is a sociopath and will kill or rape multiple times. The law will be forced to punish those whose makeup (born violent pedophiles, murderers or rapists) makes them villains. Should it wait until it actually kills, or carries out its predicted task of killing innocents? We'll argue about the validity and reliability of the predictive method, of course. You, friend proclaimed of victims, will not be satisfied -- no preventive deaths for you. I, setting scientific tolerance limits from psychometry, will be willing to preemptively kill one who has only a 5% chance of being innocent, in order to save the 19 kids who (with 95% confidence would have been killed had the sociopath lived free. Hope the sosh is from your family and the saved kids are from mine!

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (29932)	2/3/1999 2:13:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

There are two scary sides in the abortion debate, in my opinion. Ideology reigns on both sides. You are scary. It was inevitable, when Roe v Wade was passed allowing abortion on demand up to the 26th week, that it would come to this. I got a phone call from an acquaintance at Planned Parenthood when that happened. When she told me the cut-off time for abortions, I was horrified. I asked her how such a thing could have happened. I still remember saying to her that it was insane to have legalized a procedure that would cause nurses to run out of the operating room crying. I couldn't believe it. I believe strongly in abortion rights. But it is obvious to me that the sides in this issue share a confusion. Neither is able, actually 'willing' would be the better word, to acknowledge the distinction between an entity that is an early fetus with the potential to become a human being, and a human being. I had a miscarriage once, at about six weeks. That was not a child. It looked like... well, I don't want to gross anyone out, but I picked it up and looked at it, and that was no human being and no one not blinded by religious ideology would bother to assert that it was, any more than they would bother to serve scrambled eggs and claim it was a chicken dinner. But I know that what is removed during a six month abortion is not fairly called a fetus, either. That has become a baby, except in technical medical terms, where it is still defined as a fetus. It is sometimes hard to know where to draw a line in life. It is done all the time, of course, because we have to do the best we can; and if sanity prevailed, we could come up with a reasonable line in this case, too. If I were in a position to, by fiat, declare that abortions past a certain month would not be permitted, I might choose three months. I certainly wouldn't choose six. At the same time, by fiat I'd do all in my power to help the unwanted babies born under this dispensation escape their current likely fates. I would be happy to have my taxes raised to make this a high priority, nationwide project. It makes me awfully uncomfortable talking to people who oppose abortion and don't seem to give a fig forthe fates of living children. Bob, it is scary to have you try to force women in the early stages of pregnancy to carry that unwanted cluster of cells in their abdomens until it becomes an unwanted human being. (Which is, of course, forcing many desperate women to die at the hand of untrained, unsterile abortion amateurs; and guaranteeing the births, and subsequent torment, of many unwanted children.) (And I always have in my mind what the abortion debate would look like if the cells that were turning into dependent children in millions of abdomens were as liable to take root in the abdomens of the male parent. I mean like, LOL.) It was a great boon to the religious right who, like Bob, want to force women to carry an early pregnancy to full term, when the law was passed that would allow them to obfuscate the difference between a six week old fetus and a six month old one, and gloss over the fact that in fact, a very small percentage of abortions are performed in late pregnancy. The zealots call little blobs of blood "children," just as their most militant opponents call six-month, unborn babies "fetuses." If Roe v Wade had made 3 months or so the cutoff, the religious zealots would be exposed for what they are. It isn't babies they care about. It is "souls," which their religion tells them are deposited at the moment the sperm meets the ovum. I have no respect for them at all. If they were offered a law to permit abortions up to the end of the third or fourth month, they would fight it, not caring to prevent those late term abortions such a law would prevent because it would weaken the emotional appeal of their religious case, which seeks to have the state enforce on the entire citizenry (female citizenry) their religious belief that a mystical event takes place at the moment of conception, regardless of what their fellow citizens may believe.