[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>> after it survived for a year.  To cut off one of your   
   >>>>>>>>>>> obvious attacks there is no implication at all that such   
   >>>>>>>>>>> societies considered killing a child before it reached the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> age to be recognized as a tribal member.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >>If a woman says she has a bun in the oven does that imply   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >>she will give birth to a doughnut?   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >>Abortion should be a simple medical procedure involving the   
   >>>>>>>>>>> >>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.   
   >   
   >Nonsense, as we both know.  Your "suspect" is still   
   >irrelevant.  It is hardly fact.   
   >   
      
   The goalpost moving is attempting to dismiss the subject  because of   
   your unproven premise.  Even then it's irrelevent to the subject.   
      
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>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?   
   >   
   >Terminate the process early to reduce the physical impact on   
   >the woman involved.   
   >   
      
   Except for the deaths of the babies involved.  Lot of phyiscal impact   
   there.   
      
   Your matter of fact attitude towards the destruction of human life is   
   sickening.   
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>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?   
   >   
   >Exactly.  That was the historical definition.   
      
   Only by the pro-abortion crowd. That's how we ended up with partial   
   birth abortion.   
      
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >All babies have been born alive.   
      
   You again refuse to answer the question, likely because you know you   
   can't.  I doubt I'll be wasting much more time with you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)