Pelosi and Biden and their ilk are willing accomplices, wonder where that leaves them?

Regards

Regards

For example your case of a child with intestines on the outside is called Omphalocele, and it is surgically correctable. Sure the child may have some disability and digestional trouble, especially when young, but many of these children happen and can be successfully delivered by Cesarean and saved. To kill a childlike this because of not wanting a cesarean section or not wanting a disabled child is uncontionable and unethical and is undoubtedly murder.

In the case of a child without a face, there is no such condition, unless you are talking about head non/maldevelopment. In these cases, the brain would not be developed and the child would not be able to survive outside the womb, also as the brain signals would be absent or abnormal these babies are possibly brain-dead (which is legally and medically dead already–we don’t keep pumping hears of brain-dead people because there is no viable functional brain left for the blood to perfuse), however this too was not the controversial case with Tiller.

The controversy of Tiller was his killing of viable babies for conditions where the mother could die (but was more than 70% likely to live), or where he killed viable babies for disfigurement or handicap, or where he killed viable babies for chromosomal anomalies like Cystic Fibrosis, Downs, Duchene’s. Viable children who weren’t killing their mothers and could have lived meaningful, if handicapped and challenging lives. Some severely controversial cases involved killing babies for medically soft calls like depression, which could have been safely (for mother and child) dealt within other ways.

So in short 3rd trimester opponents and other abortion opponents aren’t against saving the mother’s life when she would otherwise die or avoiding painful and dangerous labor when there is 0% chance of survival. What we are about is giving every conceived life a chance, whether or not it is 100& healthy, disabled, handicapped, loved, or wanted.

Here are the facts

-since RVW 1/4 conceived babies has been aborted

-in the next generation 1/5 will be aborted

-1/3 women have had an elective (not medically necessary) abortion

-1/6 have had more than 1

-93% of abortions are purely elective

-6% are medical, but half or more of these are “soft calls” (viable, but handicapped-or increased risk to the mother, but not unmanageable risk)

-1% is for incest or rape (but frankly I don’t see why the baby should suffer for the misdeeds of its father).

So basically 97% of the current abortions taking place are unwarranted, unnecessary, and unethical.

Even in late term where there are a higher % of medically indicated abortions 50% of these or more are not truly to save the woman’s life or to put to rest a non-viable baby.

So did Tiller occasionally do some good or save a life??-Probably
Did he also murder untold handicapped babies and even a few healthy babies??-Undoubtedly

Again, it is not a matter of the sin, because we are all sinful: there is no ‘holier-than-thou’; no Christian no matter how zealous is better able to resist Satan’s temptations than is anyone else. Christians are not better people - never have been, never will be. The only difference between us and anyone else is that we ask for, and receive, forgiveness. But it is a very different matter when someone is being unrepentant. That’s where private admonition, public admonition, kicked up to denial of Sacraments, and escalating to excommunication if necessary (all spelled out in Matthew 18), is so urgent: to somehow convey the message that God isn’t kidding.

Perhaps Mr. Tiller repented with his last breaths. He is beyond prayer, so I cannot pray for him. But I can hope that he did.

Since self-defense kind of by definition is *not* murder.

amen bro

and to that extent, it is a strawman argument in GENERAL

My main point that has been that in those rare SPECIFIC cases, self defense is not a strawman, based even on common law.

So to me if you can save the life of both, which we can, at 23 weeks then there is no legal way to justify an abortion due to the health, whether mental or physical, of the Mother.

Doe you agree?

amazing

The self defense to use lethal force is only allowed in that circumstance, so it appears we agree.

I am sorry that the whole issue got initially defined for you by an incompetent! (forgot his name)

In the 1st trimester the only thing I think would qualify is an ectopic pregnancy, in which the death of the baby is near 100% certain as is the death of the mother.

In the 2nd trimester there may be a possible gray area, I don’t have enough information right now to make that case one way or the other, but I would still err on the side of the child’s safety because I believe that all right are for not if the right to Life is not respected.

But, implicit in your objection to viewing the fetus as attacking the mother is the absence of the intent required to “attack.”

And quite frankly, we have reached the point of contention on this issue, and I am quite impressed with your defense of your objection even to the most fundamental of exceptions to abortion.

Job well done.

And I would never want to go through the first year of law school and be untaught years of observation and study of the human condition interacting with natural law.

Or to say it plainly I don’t want to lose my common sense for the sake of a lambskin with which to browbeat the “unlearned”.

cock

that is!

smile

btw, DeVine’s are more stubborn than your average gardner

although not the one called Mike!

Moreover, “assault” has a legal definition that does not require intent unlike the implied intent in the word “attack”.