[Hermann the Cherusker]

Well Hermann isn't exactly doing much to refute that assumption, now is he? :P

Please ping me if you wish to discuss me by name.

Seriously, people like him repulse and frighten me just as much as the Iranian Mullahs (and the only difference between these fanatics, at the end of the day, is whatever religion they declare is "right"). If I could gather all his posts, show them to the mainstream American public, and somehow convince them that this (e.g. not performing therapeutic abortions because women *should* die in childbirth, it's their "nature") was the Republican platform - Hillary would win by the biggest landslide in American history.

I never said that "women should die in childbirth" because it is "their nature". I said that the moral course of action is to not kill the child in order to save the life of the mother. One cannot ever morally justify murdering a child (or any person for that matter) to save another person's life.

The end does not justify the means.

I did say that the nature of being a woman entails certain risks - among them is the mercifully now very, very small risk of dying in childbirth.

It is a sad commentary that this position would be an overwhelmingly losing position in American politics. It goes to show that most Americans, including yourself, are philosophical Marxists.

You believe that the end does justify the means.

Therefore, something as horrible as murder, which is certainly the worst thing one human can do to another, and in this case is done upon a helpless infant, can be justified and given a sheen of morality by claiming it necessary to save a mother's life.

Karl Marx would be proud. Welcome to his company.

Do answer me one thing though, because it has always perplexed me. Why is the mother's life more valuable than the infant's that it is to be preferred to kill the infant to save the mother?

[swissarmyknife]

It goes to show that most Americans, including yourself, are philosophical Marxists.

Wrong on both counts - I'm not a Marxist and I'm not American :P But since I'm right next door, I do care what happens "south of the border."

And I could easily take your question and turn it on its head - why is the mother's life less valuable than the fetus?? (there have been other answers to your question as well that sum up my views exactly; see the pings).

Sleazy and disgusting though Bill Clinton may be, I'd rather have 1000 of him in charge than just one radical Mullah (of ANY faith). People like you scare me and millions of others; it's that simple. People like you are a threat to my health and well-being. I don't share your religious views and don't want them shoved down my throat, especially if they're a threat to MY LIFE and MY HEALTH.

As for the abortion question itself, I don't place a zygote at the same level as a fully-developed human being anymore than I consider an acorn to be the same as a full-grown oak (or even a sapling). So I don't have a problem with the pill. If the fetus is developed to the point where it can survive outside the mother's womb, of course efforts should be made to save it and abortion should only be used as an absolute last resort (but that's a call for a woman and her doctor to make, not you).

As for the destruction of innocent lives, sorry, but it happens all the time with "ends justify the means" reasoning. Think of Iraq and Afghanistan - how many innocent lives were lost then? How many pregnant women (along with their fetuses) were killed by American bombs? But that's considered acceptable because it's part of a larger plan to liberate people and fight terrorism. And if a Sept 11 scenario were to repeat itself, most people would consider it acceptable to shoot down a plane and kill everyone on board rather than risk that plane crashing into a building and killing 1000s more. By your logic, it would be better to just let it crash, since that's the "natural outcome".