[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>> >>woman and her doctor only.   
   >>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>> >You've done nothing but attempt to water down the term baby which is   
   >>>>>>>>> >typical of those who favor killing them in the womb.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I support the right of a woman to decide whether to complete   
   >>>>>>>>> her pregnancy or terminate it.  How and why she would make   
   >>>>>>>>> her decision does not concern me nor do I care what that   
   >>>>>>>>> decision is as long as she freely has the choice of either   
   >>>>>>>>> option.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I consider it none of my business and something that should   
   >>>>>>>>> be strictly between her and her doctor.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>You approve of killing babies.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Not at all.  I support the right of a woman to choose   
   >>>>>>>whether or not to have a baby.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>Which means.....drumroll please...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>You approve of killing babies when the woman doesn't want it.  At   
   >>>>>>least admit what you stand for.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>All babies have been born alive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>So when an abortion results in a child that is showing signs of life,   
   >>>>you would demand they treat it, right?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>I stand for exactly what I said.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Yes you do.  You have "stood by" your definition of calling a baby   
   >>>>whatever you want it to mean.   
   >>>   
   >>>That almost never happens, but if it is born alive it is a   
   >>>person with the rights and legal protection of any person.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>I suspect it happens far more frequently than you know.   
   >   
   >What you suspect is irrelevant.  The facts show most   
   >abortions occur very early and very few occur during late   
   >term and most of these are based upon medical necessary.   
      
   Goal post moving noted.   
      
   >   
   >The earlier the procedure the less impact it has on the   
   >woman so only an idiot who could find an equal idiot doctor   
   >would have a late term abortion by choice.  It would be   
   >easier on her to just give birth unless there was a medical   
   >reason involved.   
   >   
      
   Kill em early eh?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>You seem to think it is a frequent occurrence.   
   >>   
   >>Your response to my question was rather weak.  In these cases, is it   
   >>mandatory to save the life of the child if possible?  It's a simple   
   >>question.   
   >   
   >The delineation is very clear.  After live birth there is an   
   >individual with rights.  Before live birth there is no such   
   >individual.  No "child" yet exists.   
   >   
      
   What's your delineation?  Are you one of those who try to tell us that   
   until the baby is fully out of the womb and cord snipped and   
   breathing, it's not a baby?   
      
   >For medical reasons at some point it would be much safer and   
   >easier for the woman to complete the pregnancy than to abort   
   >it.  All of the gruesomely described late term abortions are   
   >almost always presented and pure anti-abortion propaganda   
   >with nothing to show they are not simply made up.   
   >   
   >I am sure there are doctors who are willing to do just about   
   >anything if the price is right but that is more of a medical   
   >legal and ethics situation than a pro-choice situation.   
      
   You manage to not answer the question put to you.  Typical of those   
   who think killing babies is ok as long as the mother doesn't want it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)