Where did I say it was wrong? Can you show me where I said it was wrong? Merely indicated you were too "busy" to respond in this thread but not in others Now back to the topic which isn't you nor me.
They did in Ireland. YES, to save the life of the woman....maybe not so important to you but it is to the rest of the world..
The doctors believed the woman had a less than 50% chance of dying in that situation. If one views the fetus's life as equal to the life of the woman, then they made the correct choice in that situation, even though they turned out to be wrong. Tell me, would you demand that a doctor be forced to perform an abortion - despite moral objections from the doctor's conscience - even if the risk to the woman's life was only 1%?
You claim they made the "correct" choice even though it was "wrong"... If a doctor doesn't place his patient's LIFE above all else he should NOT be a doctor. And I already answered that in post #852: YES, to save the life of the woman....maybe not so important to you but it is to the rest of the world..
So then logically you believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any point in the term, for any reason right up until birth.
Pathetic. I said that "viable" doesn't have a definition in the RHA. And you KNOW that's what I said.
The correct choice with the information they had at the time. They couldn't see into the future and see what the exact outcome would be in individual cases. The fetus should also be treated as a co-patient. The woman wants him to operate on them, so...
So they should have saved the woman..... Only according to YOU....LOL....it is NOT a separate person or entity so it can't be a co-patient....... And IF a fetus was considered a "co-patient" the born person with rights should always come first... Whatever TF that means ????
I never said that. I said it was her body, her choice. Your moving the goalpost. Let me be clear here, because your going for the “babies born alive are killed” scenario, and that DOES NOT HAPPEN
Yes, but if it is "her body, her choice", then she should be able to get an abortion at any time and for any reason shouldn't she? Her body never stops being her body, and therefore her choice never stops being her choice.
In the past, I've asked hypothetical questions like what if we hooked up a little oxygen tank to the fetus, but it was still inside her womb. Would it be okay to kill it, even though it was not withdrawing oxygen from the woman's body? Because it was inside her. Or, if the woman gave birth under water, but the baby was still attached to the woman via umbilical cord, and it would suffocate if that umbilical cord was cut. Would the baby still be considered "part of her body" at that point and subject to being killed at her whims? I think these sort of hypotheticals, while a little ridiculous, do however still illustrate the absurdity of many of the "pro-choice" logical justifications that have been presented in these threads. (I mean, if the logic you are using isn't able to hold true in all conceivably possible situations, then you really have to question whether it is actually true)
Those are not "possible situations"... and your admitted ridiculousness does not in anyway make something else absurd....WOW, you are grasping....hilariously illogical in your desperation to prove something, anything....and still no sign of what that is....
What ARE you babbling about? I never said the RHA had a definition of viable...WTF? Are you sure you have the right poster ??
If you agree with that, then you should be able to say that there should be no limit, not even 24 weeks! Will you be able to? You haven't before when I've given you the opportunity!
Do you view it as "barbaric" and "misogynistic" to view the life of a preborn baby as equal to that of a woman? Or do you view it as barbaric to respect the view of an individual doctor who views the two as being equal and does not want to kill? (Because let's keep in mind, you are talking about legally forcing him to carry out a procedure that will kill, based on YOUR values) If you can't agree that a preborn fetus is equal to a woman, can we at least say that two preborn fetuses could be equal to one woman?
, FoxHastings : Then that view would be ignorant and barbaric and VERY misogynistic... Ya, that's what I said....try to keep up... NOPE, not my values but law and rights...and his oath to do what's best for his PATIENT. NO! Neither of your two, or twenty, fetuses are born. Is a man worth two cows or just one calf? Are there really little green men or just Greys invading ….LOLOLOL