Pro-life atheists

[Heywood]

Losty and I are talking about late term abortions.

Why did you leave out the part of the article that discussed the woman's desire to have the children. You also don't seem to understand the part where the surviving twin wasn't viable; i.e, cannot be saved. I guess the woman's grieving doesn't serve your point either.

You also chided Losty for making an argument from exception. Fitting response given that the abortion method you abhor, D&X, comprised only 0.2% of all abortions prior to the ban. In addition, most of these were performed before fetal viability.

You're just grasping at straws now.

http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/pa...-from-spin

I abhor all abortions....exceptions are not needed to justify my position. I know that some abortion are unavoidable secondary effects in the treatment of medical conditions(like ectopic pregnancies). However I am unconvinced a baby has to be killed or that option has to be the first chosen in late term abortions as was done in Ms Kellogs case. Dilate the woman further, let the baby be born alive. If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.