[AppyPappy]

Sorry, Pappy. Those "drugs" are chemical abortifacients. The fact that a pharmacist rather than a surgeon kills a baby, doesn't make it any more right.

Except that you don't know if a child is present or not. So technically, it's not an abortion.

[SoothingDave]

Except that you don't know if a child is present or not. So technically, it's not an abortion.

Not quite. If I ask you to push a button, and tell you that when you push a button, either nothing will happen, or you will shoot someone in the head with a large calibre bullet, would you do it?

You will never know which happened.

SD

[Gophack]

Except that you don't know if a child is present or not. So technically, it's not an abortion.

I'm not willing to take that risk. If there is a child, you are killing it, whether or not you "know" that child is there. You "know" that there is a chance that a child has been conceived, and you are therefore willing to kill the child regardless of your knowledge. I suppose it's easier for some people to lie to themselves than to admit they are killing their child.

[nickcarraway]

Except that you don't know if a child is present or not. So technically, it's not an abortion.

Hmmm, so if it was dark out and someone starting shooting into the darkness, it ``technically'' wouldn't be murder, if we didn't know if someone was hit or not?