no luck lebell, i knew it would be hard to find which is why i didn't bother in the first place. But i don't think that changes the point behind it. Abortions are legal at points where premature births can and do happen. There is physiologically zero difference between the being being legally aborted at this point or illegally murdered.
Paq, I can't do this anymore - i really had all intentions of avoiding this argument again. There is ALOT i would like to say, but alas i've learned it would be in vein. Tired of being misquoted, taken out of context, etc, etc. The easiest example, then i'm bowing out: I never said "having a condom in ones pocket will make them have sex." I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that if you take a 100 teenagers and throw condoms at them telling them it will make sex safer, then tell them if they get pregnant, they can get an abortion the incidence of sexual intercourse would be greater takening another 100 teenagers and articulating the implications of having sex, how it requires tremendous responsibility, there are condoms that can reduce certain risks - but those risks remain life threatening and/or life changing.
You totally missed the point of the article which was stated in the first sentence. It is a popular argunment on the part of pro-choicers to reference the thousands of deaths that will occur if back alley abortoins are made ilegal. This was contradicting that argument.
Last edited by matthew330; 02-11-2004 at 12:33 PM..
|