Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fenris6

It is not less than 1%, it has to be ZERO! Under what circumstance would partially delivering a baby butt first and stabbing him in the skull possibly protect a woman's health versus a normal live delivery? Or are they saying the partial birth option has to be allowed because other methods of aborting the baby could endanger the woman's health? Either way, it's a ridiculuous argument.


12 posted on 02/01/2006 8:15:35 PM PST by Mygirlsmom (You can either despair that the rose bush has thorns-or rejoice that the thorn bush has roses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Mygirlsmom

It truly isn't about the health of the mother. If the mother's health was in danger and the pregnancy has to be terminated, why does the baby need to be killed in order to save the mother? Can't you try to save both?


14 posted on 02/01/2006 8:20:39 PM PST by Tomalama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Mygirlsmom

In the past, the term "health of the mother" has been used by the left when "life of the mother" has been the exception most conservatives are willing to grant. It has already been stated, however, that "health" could include mental health, such as the mother would suffer some mental anguish if she had this baby. It is a loophole left solely for the reason of allowing abortion to continue if a doctor can subscribe any "health" issue to having the baby. Very sad I think, but the right needs to hammer on letting people know that they are willing to protect the mother's life, but need some limits on what they call her "health."


37 posted on 02/01/2006 11:33:29 PM PST by TN4Liberty (Sixty percent of all people understand statistics. The other half are clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson