Which is basically a red herring as typically used in the debate, and was dealt with in my answer in showing that such constitute a very small minority of abortions.
“Which is basically a red herring as typically used in the debate, and was dealt with in my answer in showing that such constitute a very small minority of abortions.”
As I see it, this whole thread was an effort to decide the viability of abortion. I made it quite clear that I opposed the act being used as birth control. But I also said there are cases indicating that there were scientific reasons for it based upon health and safety and your thread to me indicated you knew of their existence.
Each life or death situation involving those small amounts of abortions you recognize should not be handled by politicians. How many people have to die, fetus, mother or both, to make the use of illegal, at that point, abortions by putting a one size fits all law that doesn’t cover those cases have to happen? You can’t have both. At least one is the lesser of two evils whether it’s good or bad. And that decision should remain with the prospective parents of the unborn and the doctor. Not some state legislator or federal court based upon congressional law. That’s what we got into with Roe. The whole exercise of that was to get the abortion issue back to the states where it can be retreated back to a medical issue and not a political one.
You can speculate on the moral issues of abortion under the conditions that most in their entries displayed here. However, that was not the question...scientific evidence was the request. They exist, you recognize them, but you don’t consider them viable until they reach a certain amount of existence. That wasn’t not the question.
wy69