D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:So? I ain't evil. The doctor and woman have that right. You don't. You may abhor but we are Americans and it's her right. Declaring it's her right does not make me evil but constitutional. There's a difference.Coke Bear said:Waco1947 said:
Yes it is but that's between doctor and patient.
Woman @ 40th week of pregnancy: "Doc, I'm too stressed to have a baby. I want to abort it."
Doc: "OK"
That's a valid "medical reason" in all 50 states.
Waco - This is my last post on this thread. You are talking in circles trying to justify your position. It's not working with anyone here. No one here is changing their mind due to your posts.
My last two points and them I'm out ...
- An intrinsic evil should never be tolerated even under the veil of alleged rights.
- I will continue to pray for you.
Peace.
Substitute slavery for abortion and you can make the same argument.
Why are you so reticent to answer a question so basic to the discussion of this matter?
Do you believe the state should have an interest in the welfare of a 30-week-old human offspring?
Yes or no?
(Note, since you don't want "babies" or "Jesus" in the question, there's no talk of "babies" or "Jesus" in this question).
No, the state should not have an interest in the welfare of the 30 week. It's a violation of her human rights and her moral tight to seek the welfare her own health.
I don't care if you babies or Jesus in a question. As long as you acknowledge that in your thinking an embryo or zygote is what YOU call a baby.
If you use Jesus to judge in any way then you better be willing to have that judgment turned on your own reproductive rights.
Waco1947