To: julieee
True or not, this is NOT an argument to use to try to end abortion.
3 posted on
07/28/2009 12:50:24 PM PDT by
SandWMan
(While you may not be able to legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
To: SandWMan
True or not, this is NOT an argument to use to try to end abortion.
Why not? Shouldn't women be informed of the risks?
4 posted on
07/28/2009 12:51:43 PM PDT by
Antoninus
(I hereby pledge not to allow media whores to pick the GOP candidate in 2012.)
To: SandWMan
“True or not, this is NOT an argument to use to try to end abortion.”
Why? Many of the women who get abortions only care about themselves so this should be something they could relate to.
7 posted on
07/28/2009 12:53:26 PM PDT by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: SandWMan; Antoninus
BTTT, wondering myself why not.
8 posted on
07/28/2009 12:53:51 PM PDT by
Balding_Eagle
(Overproduction, one of the top five worries for the American farmer.)
To: SandWMan
“True or not, this is NOT an argument to use to try to end abortion.”
If they found a 66% link between eating a certain kind of apple and breast cancer, you better believe the government would regulate said apple.
9 posted on
07/28/2009 12:56:16 PM PDT by
Tublecane
To: SandWMan
“True or not, this is NOT an argument to use to try to end abortion.”
Even if it is TRUE, you shouldn't mention it?
Well, let's get everyone smoking cigarettes and NEVER tell them it could cause cancer.
Don't be so idiotic.
Of course human beings should find abortion repugnant but many don't. If cancer was a possibility, then they may thing twice when something BAD might happen to THEM.
26 posted on
07/28/2009 8:00:26 PM PDT by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson