Terry Schiavo is an interesting case in that her parents were prevented from by the court from using any normal method to maintain her life. They were forbidden to feed or hydrate her by hand to keep her alive.
So, not only did the court end all artificial means of preserving her life, but they also forbade even humane considerations.
They clearly are guilty of directly killing her.
So, my concern if the young woman who is going to have an abortion no matter what anyone says. In short, a killing is going to take place. I consider it a far better option to attempt to deliver that baby — no matter the stage — and attempt to keep it alive rather than allow a direct killing.
Who knows what medical advances could be made given that incentive?!
“So, my concern if the young woman who is going to have an abortion no matter what anyone says. In short, a killing is going to take place. I consider it a far better option to attempt to deliver that baby — no matter the stage — and attempt to keep it alive rather than allow a direct killing.”
That's nice.
So, in other words, you'll permit induced abortion (induced delivery before viability with no current hope of survival for the born infant) in law to save a woman's life as long as the killing of the child occurs inevitably, as along as the killing occurs solely as a result of the premature delivery.
"Who knows what medical advances could be made given that incentive?!"
Who knows indeed? But we DO know that should a woman procure such an abortion of a child of, say, three months' gestational age TODAY, or TOMORROW, or the NEXT DAY, whether the abortionist dismembers the baby or not, the baby will have died from an induced abortion. The child is not spared his or her life by some unknown, future medical advances. He is killed by an induced abortion.
Congratulations. You have accepted an exception.
sitetest