"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

--
Email sent to is never read.

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant, why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

NOYB wrote:

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant, why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

It isn't an issue of concern. Very, very few abortions are performed
after the first trimester except for medical reasons.



--
Email sent to is never read.

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

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant,
why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

It isn't an issue of concern. Very, very few abortions are performed
after the first trimester except for medical reasons.

According to the CDC (1997 statistics), 14% of abortions occur after the
first 13 weeks. That's a little over 166,000 abortions. You're probably
the only person on Earth who thinks 166,000 lives is "very, very few".

NOYB wrote:

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

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant,
why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

It isn't an issue of concern. Very, very few abortions are performed
after the first trimester except for medical reasons.

According to the CDC (1997 statistics), 14% of abortions occur after the
first 13 weeks. That's a little over 166,000 abortions. You're probably
the only person on Earth who thinks 166,000 lives is "very, very few".





They're not lives.

--
Email sent to is never read.

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

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

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

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.

It is anything *but* clear. Simple question:

*Why* do *you* oppose abortion after the first trimester?


I don't.

In the absence of any underlying health risk to the mother or infant,
why do
you oppose abortion after the first trimester?

It isn't an issue of concern. Very, very few abortions are performed
after the first trimester except for medical reasons.

According to the CDC (1997 statistics), 14% of abortions occur after the
first 13 weeks. That's a little over 166,000 abortions. You're
probably
the only person on Earth who thinks 166,000 lives is "very, very few".





They're not lives.

I'm not sure that you are sure that you agree with that...or why else do you
oppose abortions (in the absence of health risks to the mother or *fetus*)
after the 1st trimester?