NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


It's not to "teach her a lesson". It's to protect the life of the
infant.

Bull****.


I can't speak for every pro-lifer, but protecting the life of the unborn is
why *I* feel abortion should be illegal past the first 6 weeks.



If the pregnancy is past the first trimester, you've already stated that
you
oppose the right to an abortion.


No, I didn't state that at all. This is why you (and you really are
brighter than most of the neoCons in here) conservatives get things
confused. You jump to conclusions from information not in play.

I am in favor of abortion on demand for all females during the first
trimester. After the first trimester, abortion should be available to
any female who requires one for any significant medical reason, and
significant includes the health of the mother or the fetus.

Fine. But what about the women who, in the absence of any underlying health
risk to her or the infant, insist upon having the right to an abortion at
*any* stage in the pregnancy? Is forcing her to have the baby after the
first trimester done "just to teach her a lesson"? Or is it to protect the
life of the baby?

I thought my statement was clear.

And it isn't a "baby" until it is born. While in the womb, it is a
fetus. If the fetus is born prematurely and with the help of modern
medicine, it can survive and thrive, it is a baby. I don't buy into the
right-wing "it's a womb baby!" bull****.





--
Email sent to is never read.