momalle1 said:
momalle1 said:Good thing this girl didn't live in South Dakota.
Janissary said:Uh-huh, claiming that pro-lifers in general wouldn't approve of that operation is like claiming that pro-choicers in general want unrestricted partial-birth abortion. That is, totally ludicrous, and only of propaganda value to the opposite camp.
momalle1 said:Whatever, don't want to face reality, then don't. Fact is, many of the states considering banning abortions are offering zero exceptions, removing a fetus is an abortion, plain and simple.
thatgirliknew said:Actually, I was under the impression that they were offering an exception, one in which the life of the woman was in danger.
SimplyMe said:As I understand the point, it has nothing to do with whether pro-life people consider this a valid exception but the way the law is written. Based on my understanding of the law passed in South Dakota, removing this fetus would be considered an illegal abortion. I believe the point was not to claim pro-lifers are evil but rather we need to be more careful about the legislation we pass.
It's still murder, though.wanderingone said:I doubt it would be considered an abortion even in South Dakota ... it's a rare condition that occurs every now and then when multiples don't separate correctly.. kind of conjoined twins gone even more haywire.
Kelly said:Anybody read that on yahoo news? They were dead at 4 months. So the abortion debate is kind of moot.
Pentecostal Boy said:actually it does.
momalle1 said:Whatever, don't want to face reality, then don't. Fact is, many of the states considering banning abortions are offering zero exceptions, removing a fetus is an abortion, plain and simple.
momalle1 said:I read it, don't bother to consider if they had discovered the fetuses before they died or anything. The fact that they were dead has no bearing on the discussion.