You did NOT answer the questions, you forcused on a poit entirely not related to the thread.

I will repeat the questions for you:


Is is acceptable to you, if a woman is pregnant as a result of a rape, that she chooses NOT to continue the pregnancy?

Is is acceptable to you that if a woman knows that there is a strong chance that she with die if she tries to give birth (I previously used a heart condition as an example) that she chooses not to give birth?

And if you say YES in either case, WHY?

I will add, if you say NO in either case WHY?

Okay, AlicornsPrayer, how many times am I going to have to repeat the same thing?

Go ahead and have your "supposed" tragic situation abortions, in which you kill unborn babies because you "claim" the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. You're still killing unborn children, but you cannot get over your fixation on the 1%. IT IS NOT RIGHT, but perhaps that will allow you to stop blabbering about this as though it accounts for all abortions!


Now, let's move on to the 1.2 million babies that are slaughtered every year in America, simply because irresponsible people don't want to deal with the consequences of their irresponsible behavior.

That, at least, is progress Jefferson. Thank you.

You weakly answered the questions I posed, but I will accept that for now.

We can continue to trade questions.

To answer your question, I DON'T focus only on the tragic situations as far as abortion is concerned. I've already agreed with you (and still do) that the majority of abortions are about convenience. I added the caveat that since I don't know what the circumstances are of the woman involved, I cannot judge. It isn't my place to decide what another person does with his or her own body.

Now, onto MY question...

From what you said in your previous post, you DO NOT believe that a woman whose life is in danger (and these situations do happen) should not be allowed to have an abortion?

WHY or WHY NOT?

I recognize that you believe that it is still killing an unborn, but is that life more valuable than the life of the mother?

First of all, thank you for telling me what I think and what I said.

Second, the whole "life of the mother" thing is a load of crap. It's an excuse. And in MOST CASES where that excuse is used, it's a lie. A mother's life MIGHT be endangered - just like my wife's life was endangered when she was pregnant with our 3 kids.

Again, it's a cop-out. And for the most part, it's a lie.

If the phrasing offended you, I am sorry. I should have said it SEEMS that you are saying...

See? I'm being nice to you. We don't have to be nasty to communicate.

In THIS case, I am talking about legitimate threats to the health/life of the mother. There are women that, for medical reasons, should never have children. Whether we like it or not, this is a reality.

So...

In the case that the mother faces death, should she have a right to an abortion? Why or why not?

Understand Jefferson, I'm not trying to attack you here. I want to understand WHY people believe what they believe. It almost everyone there is some thought process whether they acknowledge it or not. In order to understand why a person believes as they do questions must be asked.

I fully understand that there are women who should never get pregnant and/or have babies.

So why do they get pregnant?

It's not as though there aren't a whole host of good contraceptives? It's not as though pregnancy isn't preventable. My wife is in her mid-40s - which is well beyond the years she should be having babies. So you know what we did? I got a vasectomy. It's called being responsible.

The conclusion of the matter is this: Very very very few of those who make the "life of the mother" claim are telling the truth. However, if it is 100% legitimate, than it might be best to end the life of the unborn baby because to not do so might mean the end of 2 lives.

Fair enough...

I agree on the point of contraceptives, but nothing is 100%. And then there are cases of rape where a woman who would not otherwise allow herself to become pregnant would be forced into the situation. It is uncommon, but it DOES happen.

I specifically used the example of a heart condition because this could allow a mother to carry the baby to term, but kill her in the birth/c-section process while the baby would probably be born alive and healthy.

One could also speak of cancer and other prolems that may require a woman to stop medical treatment that will, in the end, cost her life.

Whose rights come first in these situations?

...and one could prattle on and on as though those situations are more than one-in-a-million. But that would be a lie.

doesn't that make a debate?

isn't that why laws are worded so carefully and gone over for every possible scenario?

Great to see you are so committed to debate and can rise above childish differences