XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.infowar, alt.politics.guns, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 7/2/22 12:54 AM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 21:18:27 -0400, governor.swill@gmail.com   
   > in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 01 Jul 2022 18:19:54 -0400, Attila <   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Which is unimportant compared to the risks a pregnant woman   
   >>> runs.   
   >>   
   >> You are really a piece of work.   
   >>   
   >> I HAVE ALREADY STATED PLAINLY THAT ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE   
   >> CASE OF HEALTH RISK TO THE MOTHER.  I HAVE STATED THIS POSITION MANY   
   >> TIMES.   
   >>   
   >> YOU JUST WANT TO ARGUE.   
   >>   
   >> *flush*   
   >>   
   >> Swill   
   >   
   > Every pregnancy is a risk to the woman involved.   
   >   
   Compounding the risk of pregnancy with abortion and unknown cancer and   
   other risks like allergic reactions and bleeding then those risk NOT   
   just the mother but it straight-up attempts to kill the baby that if the   
   mother knew she was going to die might decide to save the baby and   
   accept her own death at the time of birth. So you know the risk to baby   
   is 99% in an abortion. Would the mom kill the baby if she knew she would   
   die at the babies birth or at the abortion?   
      
      
   Would she want to leave somone behind by saving the baby holding out   
   until the birth?   
   --   
   -That's karma-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)