Is there any common ground on the abortion issue?

1. 83

   Freeway Flyerposted 13 years ago

   Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think that almost all Americans would like to reduce the number of abortions. So why can't we stop arguing every one in a while and find some practical ways to make this happen?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Travis_S_Musicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Because it's America, and people feed on using their "freedoms" as much as they possibly can. Anything to get their voice out and feel special. Government conspiracy I say! Just like the pointless elections in which our votes don't really matter. It's never going to change.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      FF, the fact that I may or may not support abortions is irrelevant. It is not my body that's affected by the a ruling. It is not my place to tell a woman to carry, or not to carry a pregnancy to full term. Women don't have the final say in whether or not I have my testicles removed and I for one am glad this is the case.
      
      The choice is nothing other than pro-choice or anti-choice. I am not pro-life but this doesn't mean that I am pro-death. It gives those on the holier than thou side of this issue a little ego boost to be able to claim that only they are pro-LIFE. Until the kid is born and then it's open season for 18 years.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There are many people in the world who can have decent conversations without it turning into mud slinging, however, the extreemests on either side have a way of pulling people over the edge. I am against abortion but I would draw the line at picketing family planning establishments or posting pictures of mutilated babies, on street corners or on the internet. Those people who are terminating a human life are making a decision which will affect them for the rest of their lives, they shouldn't need to feel pushed to an extreemist point of view in order to justify it.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, there USED TO BE common ground.  Everyone understood that there were gonna be exceptional cases like in rape or incest or the mother's life being in danger.
      But the liberal agenda wasn't satisfied with that.   They started calling a fetus "just a bunch of cells" or "a PARASITE" to try to justify their propensity for killing the helpless.

      replyreport
   5. 71

      drdspervezposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If there is a threat to mother's life or the foetus is not growing ,abortion is the best choice and of course in cases of rape if a woman gets pregnant and there is a hatred for the child abortion is the remedy.
      
      
                 DR.DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Dr. P, how do you feel about late term abortions?

         replyreport
         1. 71

            drdspervezposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It is dangerous and the feotus has grown up and it would be injustice to the child and the mother.
            
                DR.DURRESHAHWAR PERVEZ

            replyreport
2. 51

   F-Rehmanposted 13 years ago

   It is a crime to kill anybody even unborn child.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If that is so true why has religion fought for and won the right to kill their children with prayer healing instead of medical help? In 48 states in this country a parent or guardian cannot be held liable for a childs death for refusing medical care based on religous beliefs. Why are you so interested in saving the life of every fetus conceived, or do you jst desire the right to kill them at your leisure. If you truly wanted to reduce abortions you would get your head out of your rear end about giving teenagers condoms and teach them how to use them. No you feel you have the right to condemn a child to death for making a teenage mistake like most of the do. The problem is not the lives being lost in abortions, it looks to me like it's the fact that it's not the holier than thou religious nuts doing the killing that bothers most of you so much. A Friggin Men.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Then any soldier who has killed someone in war needs to be put behind bars.
      As do the politicians and the military who prosecute these wars.
      
      Either it's a principle or it isn't. You can't use it when you feel like it, and discard it when you don't. You may not like it,  but killing happens on a daily basis....with your support.
      
      ....or don't you remember, USA  USA  USA
      
      And this:  You will remove my gun from my cold dead hands.
      More deaths from guns in America than from the war zone.
      
      Guns kill. You want them...you scream for them....you have the RIGHT to them. NUFF SAID.
      
      A principle does NOT waver. It is or it isn't.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Stump Parrishposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         F-R, I would assume you would let a killer who has already killed your spouse go ahead and kill you and your kids rather than break the law yourself by killing the killer, right.
         
         I believe they have something called justfiable homocide don't they? This would tend to dispprove your claim that all killing is a crime, wouldn't it?

         replyreport
3. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   That's right. They are the ones whose life it is affecting.....not anyone else's!
   
   Justify is the wrong word to use. It is making a life decision that is best suited for all involved.
   
   Which is no one elses' business but the ones involved.
   
   PS: zygotes swimming in ambiotic fluid is not a human life. Or do you consider sperm a human life?

   replyreport
4. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   "The Handmaid's Tale"....Read it! It is happening!
   
   
   GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape
   by Michelle Goldberg
   
   “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which limits the government’s definition of rape to cut off many victims from abortion coverage, might not pass Obama’s desk—but it sends a message to all women that certain kinds of sexual assault don’t count, says Michelle Goldberg.
   In their quest to deny reproductive rights to as many women as possible, Republican congressmen are seeking to narrow the federal government’s definition of rape in order to exclude many victims from abortion coverage. “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” or H.R. 3, is “one of the most extreme bills that we’ve seen,” says Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. If enacted, it would affect tens of millions of women’s health insurance, whether or not the federal government subsidizes their plans. And the bill will send a message to all women that certain kinds of sexual assault don’t count as rape at all.
   
   The bill is the product of a party that is willing to go much further than most people realize to force women to bear children against their will."
   
   http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- … riginalsC9

   replyreport
5. 60

   William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago

   It seems to me that the best solution would be to create a world in which abortion was still an option but was mostly unnecessary.  If women knew that they would be able to provide for their child, have a good quality of life and give them a good education then they would be less likely to have an abortion. 
   
   Better access to contraception and family planning would probably also cut down the number of abortions.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I tend to agree with William here.
      
      Can we all agree that late-term abortion is wrong - unless the mother's life is at risk?

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Jillian Barclayposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree completely. Abortion is legal in this country and has been since the 1970's. The Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade decided the legality. I cannot speak for all women, but believe that most do not take abortion lightly. As for the pro-life movement, if only the life of the unborn is fought for, it is not much of a movement. Why confine it to just that one subject?
      
      I agree that if we tried to create a world in which we reduced poverty, there would be fewer abortions, but that is not the only reason that a woman may seek one. There are other reasons: the health of the mother, rape, incest, etc. Those who rail against abortion sometimes forget, in their zeal, that abortion is legal. Some of those same people complain about the availability of contraception, too. Their efforts to circumvent the law is not productive, just as religious arguments are not productive.
      
      The country in which we live is not a theocracy, although many members of the religious right would love for it to be. To push for the outlaw of abortion on religious merit is out of line. We are not all religious. We all have different opinions and don't like having the opinions of others shoved down our throats.
      
      There is probably no common ground on the topic that can make us come together to answer the abortion question. It is too filled with emotion, religion and politics. The discussion always deteriorates quickly, with people calling each other names and hatred being the end result.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I still believe there's a plot of common ground. Everyone I know personally who is pro-choice is against late-term abortions, unless the mother's life is at risk.
         
         I agree with you about contraception. I've never understood how many of the ones who are so opposed to abortion are the ones who rail against contraceptives. I don't get it.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jillian Barclayposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            As liberal as I am, and even though I have been accused of being a leftist extremist by some, I, too, have issues with late term abortions. If the mother's life is in danger, it can become medically necessary. So, while you and I may be in agreement, there are millions of others who believe that our opinion is not worth hearing, that we are in favor of murder. That is why I think the common ground idea can't play out. Would be great if there was common ground upon which to have a constructive conversation!

            replyreport
   3. 83

      Freeway Flyerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      This is where I think the focus should also be.

      replyreport
6. 80

   skyfireposted 13 years ago

   Get out of your safe house and start justifying how people below poverty level should care for their kids. If you can't do anything for them or against them then this morality preaching is useless.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Uh, dontcha reckin women and men below poverty level know how to avoid pregnancy?
      Or are you saying poor people are ignorant of the facts of life?  So you're gonna maybe teach 'em how to get rid of the product of their ignorance?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I like double-edged arguments. First your christian preachers ask for not using protection in one side of argument and in another you talk about avoiding pregnancy ? Hallelujah
         
         
         They're much more practical for choosing whatever that fits to their life.
         
         
         
         1. I don't pay their taxes, same applies to you.
         2. I don't feed them, same applies to you.
         3. I don't take care of their kids, same applies to you.
         4. I don't judge what is right and wrong in their life, same applies to you.
         
         Hence, what they do with their life's decisions is none my business, and same applies to... 

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Only people with enough money should be allowed to live. I don't want to punnish anybody, but there is an extraordinary ammount of people whom I wish to kill.
      I think it would be a good thing if every five to seven years people should be brought before a properly appointed board and be asked to justify their existence.
      If it is determined that they are not putting back into socioty the same that they have taken out, or perhaps a little more, then clearly the big organization of our socioty will no longer be able to sustain their lives, as it cannot be of any use to us or themselves. -Shaw

      replyreport
7. 70

   ddsurfscaposted 13 years ago

   Here is some food for thought...
   Since everyone has to at some time be judged for his or her life and what they did in it, why not let each person decide what is right or wrong for themselves and let the great judge in the sky do what he does to those who did whatever they did???

   replyreport
8. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Funny, I have much the same idea....
   If you REALLY want to end abortion, have all boy babies vasectomized.
   Then, when they want to be fathers, they can go in front of a Board and prove it.
   Prove they will support it, take care of it, be involved.
   Reverse the vasectomy, and voila!
   
   No more accidents or rape pregnancies or fathers getting their daughters pregnant, no more pregnancies EVER unless it it planned. No more abortions.
   
   What do you think? I think it's a great and fool-proof way.
   
   So: Who's first to volunteer their son??? A little snip'll do ya.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Now that's what I'm talking about, complete sterilization, unless sanctioned by the government. That's what we need to make the herd stronger. Also let's throw anybody who has any learning disabilities into the gas chamber.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Not the gvt....a religious Board, made up of Quasi-Christians. That is who you want to run things, is it not?
         They can decide if the boy is worthy or not.
         Take the onus off the girl for a change.
         
         After all--it's just as easy to snip as it is to take a pill that screws with your hormonal system, or put a coil inside yourself, or any number of things a female must do to avoid pregnancy.
         
         Vasectomies on all males would end the problem completely....no more abortion ever. Fool-proof. That is what you want, isn't it?
         
         Or do you just want to control women's lives?
         
         >Gas chamber was a cheap shot. Argue the point, not smear the opponent.<

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely not! complete steralization for both Men and Women, gas chambers for inferior humans, Ie. people with learning disabilities, or mentaly deficient handicapped people, and outlaw God.
            We can all live a pasteral existence. We'll hand out grass matts for the regular workers so they can sleep a couple hours each night, and just; Arbeit, bis Sie sterben.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You get the Glenn Beck Award for vacuous response.
               
               Totally makes no sense, but pulls on the emotion strings.
               
               Oooooh, hate that person....hate that person.....hate that person..... Chooo Choooo, the Beckles and Klannity Express!

               replyreport
9. 70

   tritrainposted 13 years ago

   The common ground could be rape, incest, and danger to the mother.
   
   I think most everyone could agree that abortion would be acceptable, especially early abortion.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Here's the common ground: It doesn't matter what the reason....it's none of anybody else's business!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Here's some common sense for ya then.
         
         If it's really nobody's business, STOP trying to make everyone else condone it by pushing it into our LAWS.   If you want to kill your unborn child, do it in secrecy so that only you have to take the responsibility for it;  don't make everyone else condone it legally.   Same with the gay agenda.  Keep it to yourself and take personal responsibility for it instead of crying crocodile tears about how oppressed gays are and how you want to be able to kill a helpless fetus.   I dunno what Nation you're from or live in, but America doesn't kill gays for being gay, and they don't kill women for having an abortion.   But stop trying to get special "rights" by dragging everyone else into it and forcing the rotten carp down our throats.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Religious talk to the hilt huh Brenda?
            
            You fail to realize that "abortion" is a medical procedure. Thus, it must be governed by laws. Anyone denying the fact the human productive system does in fact create a human organism is only blowing smoke. It takes a human organism to create another.
            
            However, your argument here is flawed in many ways. The highest moral ground available to the human species cannot be lived on, because of the rights of the individual.
            
            No child makes a choice to be born. It naturally occurs. Where you fail to grasp it, is on the rights level. You assume that the highest moral ground can be obtained, and it cannot, which shows you lack of understanding rights. Which, isn't your fault, because of the amount of distortion in the air.
            
            People's rights are tied to actions. Actions are tied to moral choices. It is morally sound to destroy one life, so that two are not destroyed? Or do you sacrifice two lives, so morality remains on the highest ground?
            
            It sounds like the highest moral ground would bring about the extinction of the human species.
            
            As for you speech about private? No, if people want to live openly, then they have as much right to do so, as you do. You reveal what you want about your life and let other people do the same.
            
            You always over-step your position, into bounds, which are not for you in the first place. For a religious person, you fail to grasp any understanding of your own teachings learned from your own bible. You lack compassion, tolerance and even forgiveness.
            
            So, I certainly hope you're not claiming to be a true Christian, because your own words are burying you knee deep in...
            
            Just a thought.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You lost total credibility with your statement (or was it a question?  Doesn't matter really) of "It is morally sound to destroy one life, so that two are not destroyed?"
               
               Having a baby doesn't destroy two lives, or even one.  It's a gift, something to be grateful for and to love.  Your statement isn't even morally sound to start with.
               
               And if you cannot even fathom that, looks like you must've skipped class the days when your school taught the facts of life, including how to prevent pregnancy for those who are so selfish they think they've got a right to have sex with no consequences at all.

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  See, that is where you did not understand what I said. Actually, having a child does in fact destroy two lives. Your unwillingness to see that is your problem. Abortions are for unwanted- a unwanted child if born would be destroyed, mentally, physically and emotionally. You want more convicts in the world? At the cost of higher morality?
                  A bold statement here, back by nothing but nonsense. Abortion doesn't negate responsibility and your words claim that sex cannot have any consequences is just a religious person blowing smoke. All actions have consequences. The consequence of an abortion is for the person to live with, providing they had one done. It is their RIGHT, which you fail to understand, as I laid in my first post.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Never heard of contraceptives failing?
                  And, you poor thing, you've obviously never had a day when the outcome was not even a distant consideration.

                  replyreport
10. 61

    uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

    Since this a yes or no question let me answer for myself, alone - no.

    replyreport
11. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Plus, her logic is flawed. I WANT to keep it private, she's the one getting all up in my business....where she doesn't belong!
    
    "It's a gift, something to be grateful for and to love."
    
    Unless it's born gay, huh? Then we have to "change" it or "hide" it or pretend it doesn't exist.

    replyreport
12. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Or condemn it and hate it and make it feel "dirty".

    replyreport
13. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    You can agree it's wrong...you can think whatever you like. It's still the mothers business, not yours!
    
    Kids are killed everyday with guns. I think that is wrong.  Can I demand everyone give up their gun?

    replyreport
    1. 92

       habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       So, LMC, you think a woman has a right to abort an 8-month fetus that could survive on its own? Do you understand how these babies are killed? If you think it's okay, then I assume you have no problem with mothers killing their already-born children. Really, what's the difference?
       
       As for demanding people give up their guns, I think it would be better to demand better gun laws and mandatory gun safety courses.

       replyreport
       1. 77

          lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I think it's horrible for all of you to assume you know what the mother and family are going through...who made you God? IF you care so much about babies, there are PLENTY in this country ALREADY here that need help.....
          
          And you could stop voting for people who support a regime that bombs babies with white phosphorous.
          
          As for guns.....guns kill. What's the difference?

          replyreport
          1. 92

             habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, there are many babies and children already here who need help, and I do my part.
             
             As for guns, children are killed in car accidents every year in the US, too. Should we outlaw cars?

             replyreport
             1. 80

                skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                To be honest habee, it's not enough from our part. We can't be at every place to help those people. In some countries the problem with population is so worst that leaving this on individual's choice is what i think is the best option. Take example of asia, it's hard for women to live life as single mother. In worst case society/family rejects them and they also have issues with jobs/education if they show their status as single mother. Things are way different in US/UK obviously on that matter.   
                
                So at the end, we think about next generation by completely devaluing current generation which is going through trouble in this process, which can be controlled.

                replyreport
                1. 92

                   habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I don't want to outlaw abortion. I want it to be much less frequent and not used as a method of birth control. I'm VERY against late-term abortions, however. (unless the mother's life is at risk)
                   
                   I'm rational enough to realize that abortion must be safe and legal. If Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would not be stopped. In such an event, we'd see many dangerous septic abortions, sometimes losing both the mother and the baby.

                   replyreport
             2. 77

                lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                You are the ones wanting to outlaw something, not me.

                replyreport
       2. 84

          kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          I see late term abortions as mainly a distraction. Almost anybody would be opposed to aborting a healthy fetus capable of living outside the womb for no other reason than the mother deciding she doesn't want it after all, but late term abortions are already very, very rare and becoming even rarer as the doctors willing to perform them keep getting murdered. There are currently only two doctors in the entire country who openly admit to performing late term abortions, so it's not like anybody can just waltz in to a clinic and get one!
          
          The majority that do take place are due to risk to the mother or some serious defect on the part of the child. The latter can have uncomfortable overtones of eugenics, it's true, but in practice we're mostly talking about things like anencephaly or missing vital organs. Some women have the desire to carry the pregnancy to term and hold their baby as it dies; others don't. I don't think we have the right to judge their decision either way unless we've walked in those shoes ourselves, and thank God, I have not.

          replyreport
          1. 92

             habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Only two who ADMIT to performing them. Did the doctor in Pennsylvania openly admit to aborting eight-month-old fetuses? I know they're rare, but they shouldn't exist at all for a healthy mother and a healthy fetus.
             
             And no, Kerry, not everyone is opposed to late-term abortions for any reason.

             replyreport
14. 80

    skyfireposted 13 years ago

    This coming from a mormon ? EPIC FAIL.
    By any chance you switched to islam ?
    
    
    We're not talking about clones such that you're going so harsh with that Hitler thinking of yours. Life outside womb is more valuable irrespective of morality ground,nobody disagrees with that. Life inside womb has shown no real signs of what it holds in future for both mother and itself. So that's why it's decision of individual to think about what to do with child before birth.

    replyreport
15. 80

    skyfireposted 13 years ago

    On this point, i agree with you.

    replyreport
16. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    "Late term abortions are almost NEVER performed. When they are they are almost never performed for anything other than defects or threats to the life of the mother. It is a conservative myth that people are choosing late term abortions as a means of birth control. According to at least one source the percentage of late term abortions of all abortions is about .08 percent. And even that depends upon what you consider late term, in this case being after 24 weeks. Also, you will find very few people who are actually in FAVOR of abortion. Most would phrase it differently and say that they are in favor of each woman making her own personal choice about a matter that is about as personal as you can get."
    
    "As long as you are not the one who decides, what business is it of yours? Judging other women for what they choose to do with THEIR bodies takes a lot of guts. God gave us free will to make our own decisions. Abortion, early, late or in between is still abortion, isn't it? Is a fetus any more real at 24 weeks than at 4 weeks for you? Why?
    Everyone in this country seems to have a need to judge and punish."
    
    "Just take a look at the Americans who are being held in jail for child abduction in Haiti. Why are the Haitian parents of these children willing to give their kids up to strangers? Because they want a better life for their kids than they can provide. The keyword here is LIFE. Life is decades long, and it is more than just birth. Those people who say that they are pro-life are actually pro-birth. They want as many infants born into this world as possible, even though many of these babies will never have much of a life. A real pro-lifer would go out and help make the lives of orphans and other disadvantaged kids better, but most pro-lifers are doing none of that. They are in fact likely to vote against, say, health insurance for underprivileged kids because they oppose taxes and government spending.
    
    So, if you are really pro-life, go out and help out those whose lives are down in the dumps. Don't campaign for laws that bring more unwanted children into this world. That is not being pro-life; that is just being pro-birth. Yes, some women are using abortion as a form of birth control, but so what? No birth control is one hundred percent effective. If a woman's life and her child/children's lives are going to suffer because of the additional mouth that needs to be fed, clothed, and educated, then she should have the freedom to choose to end the unwanted pregnancy. The alternative is for society to help her raise the child, but most people who are pro-birth would never want government to help the poor. You cannot have it both ways: forbid woman from ending an unwanted pregnancy and at the same time tell her and her children to eat cake."

    replyreport
17. 71

    Cagsilposted 13 years ago

    Is there any common ground on the abortion issue? Common ground on an issue that shouldn't even be discussed. How ironic?
    
    Abortion, the procedure itself, is a medical science's way to give women an option for an unwanted pregnancy. The government in America has deemed the procedure as legal.
    
    Why is it legal? It is legal because of the rights of individual. By making it legal, the government can track and trace, almost everything that goes on, in a manner of speaking.
    
    Advocate groups of America, many religious based, refuse to understand basic rights of other people. They argue on behalf of a child, which is foolish, because rights are automatic at birth.
    
    The "Right to Life" type groups blow more smoke than of value. Yes, you have a right to live life. And, yes that right can be taken away from you, if you become a detriment to that of society or humanity. A pregnancy(unwanted or wanted) has only one result- into a human child/baby. That is a given.
    
    What is a Right? It's a choice. That choice leads to an action(even no action is still an action). Actions are to be based on human morality standards. The highest moral standard cannot be achieved, due to individual rights.
    
    The highest moral standard is to not do harm to any human organism. Thus, killing/aborting anything after fertilization is destroying a human organism. Make no mistake. Science knows fertilization is the beginning stage of creating a human organism. This isn't a lie- it's a fact.
    
    However, a per individual rights- the woman maintains her rights over her own life- right to life and right to choose(which is foolish, considering my explanation above). This is when accidents happens or just people not wanting a child- to force them full term is oppression on their individual rights.
    
    As for the late-abortion argument, to get on the technical aspect- if a fetus is viable without it's host body, then it should not be terminated, unless it jeopardizes the host body's life. The "rape" argument? Is null-void. It's already covered.

    replyreport
18. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    Late-term abortion can be a life-saving experience
    Published: Monday, June 08, 2009, 12:10 PM     Updated: Monday, June 08, 2009, 12:19 PM"late
    
    http://blog.mlive.com/readreact/2009/06 … a_lif.html
    
    "This was in 2004, before the Partial Birth Abortion Ban became law, and my doctors were able to move quickly to save my life without worrying about breaking the law."
    
    If the anti-choicers have their way...this woman would have had to die....To suit them.
    
    In fact, if there are only 2 doctors performing this left...out of fear of being murdered....more women will surely die. To suit the anti-choicers.
    
    Go face your God with that.

    replyreport