(May 27, 2014 at 3:03 pm)Heywood Wrote:(May 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Cato Wrote: 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.
This is why talking to people who only know how to deal in absolutes is pointless.
Isn't it true, Heywood, that no matter what anyone else here states, you will steadfastly stick to your guns thus ensuring there is absolutely no point in further discussion?
Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.