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: Krowbar who wrote (31786)	2/28/1999 11:18:00 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

<<No, I haven't seen the Clinton rape tape. I probably won't, but my wife spends endless hours watching all of the talking head shows on this subject, and I'm not about to. I prefer to read what happens politically in the paper. The only TV that I usually watch is Discovery, The Learning channel, and occasional smut movies. BTW, I finally watched a whole movie without going bonkers. "Something about Mary". That was great!>> It is really difficult to even try to determine the truthfulness of someone's story by reading about it in a newspaper, filtered through a writer's opinion. I think really good newspapers are great, because they cover more stories than the tv news does, in greater detail. However, if you plan to be an informed citizen and express your pro-Clinton political views on the Internet, to me it would be more fair if you listened to the actual interviews with people like Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick before you determine that you don't believe these people. I have certainly listened to everything pro-Clinton as well as anti-Clinton before forming my own opinions. << You kind of sidestepped the issue about late-term abortion for badly deformed fetuses. You already stated that you wouldn't abort. The question is, would you make it illegal for other women to choose abortion? What are the other alternatives to a family spending years caring for a severely retarded baby that doesn't respond, other than paying others to do that. If you ever visited one of those places you would not find very loving care. There was ironically an AP story in Saturday's paper about 6 doctors accused of abusing patients in a Pennsylvania home for the retarded, leading to the deaths of 3 patients over a 2 year period. Abuse is very common in these places. You are calling fetuses babies again. That is neither medically nor legally correct. That is a wrong wing tactic.>> I didn't sidestep anything, Del. I said I did not believe in late-term abortion being legal unless the baby is dead or the mother's LIFE is in danger. I think it makes the society more barbaric, and cheapens life in general when we can just go in and stab a less than perfect baby in the back of the head and suck his brains out, and that is considered morally acceptable. Perhaps if the people lobbying for that instead spent their energy on improving the quality of life for children who need to live in institutions, it would be a win-win deal. It's not that I'm arguing that all of them have wonderful lives, but that it should be outside the law in a "civilized" society to simply kill them at birth. When I was young almost all Down syndrome babies were institutionalized--I volunteered at the state hospital, to play with them. Certainly now it is a very different story; they mostly stay with their families, can learn and even work and live semi-independently as adults. You keep saying I am calling fetuses babies, but if you reread all my posts, I only refer to them that way at the point they are viable. Certainly at that developmental stage the only difference is being unborn and born, and so I do believe it is a baby. In fact, I think the pro late-term abortion lobby plays this game of semantics so that they do not feel so uncomfortable advocating this procedure. But semantics aside, at that point a baby is being killed.