This argument is a tough sell: 1) That stat has been debunked several times over. 2) But even if it were true, there's no possible way to reconcile the facilitation of "safe, legal access to abortion" with the view that abortion ends an innocent human life.
I'm referring to the question in the specific scenario I proposed that you never answered. That you side-stepped answering it directly speaks volumes.
-
-
No offense, but that's not a very useful question. I've never heard of a condition that can be detected at 19 weeks that will pose a 50/50 risk to the mother some *21 weeks* later. But to give an answer, no. I would not support aborting a baby in the absence of medical urgency.
-
If you're asking me to condone the "safe and legal" ability to make life saving decisions, up to and including procedures that may end the life of the baby, then yes, I support that. But that doesn't describe elective abortion, nor "50/50 21 weeks later" scenarios.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.







