[editor-surveyor]

"No. It means she's carefully weighs the Life of the Child against the Liberty of the Mother."

SAve that crap for the outhouse, I wasn't born yesterday. Before Roe v Wade there never was any question, a doctor always saved the most viable life if there was any question, but in reality the question didn't arise; the unborn child is never any threat to the mother, and if any problem exists the child usually mis-caries spontaneously due to the lack of oxygen.

There is no liberty to take a life, it's murder.

[Fenris6]

"the unborn child is never any threat to the mother"

Wrong. 1% of al abortions are done to save the life of the mother. Who the hell are you to judge who dies and who lives?

[Trinity_Tx]

" the unborn child is never any threat to the mother, and if any problem exists the child usually mis-caries spontaneously due to the lack of oxygen."

That just isn't true, edit. There are conditions that make carrying a pregnancy to term extremely risky for a mother. I watched one friend die leaving 3 very young children and her baby without a mother, because she refused to abort and get treatment for her cancer.

Now, one of my best friends is enduring something similar as we speak.

By trying to keep this baby, it is more than likely she will die and leave her - likely unhealthy - baby and two other kids without a mother.

In her case, I believe she should have had an abortion in the earliest weeks. Some of y'all radicals will try to say that means I'm pro-abortion or evil but it is just wrong. And if you're that type, don;t bother - I couldn't care less what you think anyway. So there. lol :P