9,200 Fewer Abortions in Texas After Passage of Pro-Life Law

[FA_Q2]

Yes my reference to coat hanger shops was made with emotion.

Hard hats are required when entering a store UNDER CONSTRUCTION. This is because when CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING THINGS FALL. Does it happen all the time? Are there statistics that prove a hard hat is necessary?

Yes there were. Many people were injured by falling objects. Not so many women by emergent care not being attached to abortion clinics.

The point is when you are OPERATING ON A WOMAN PERFORMING A VIOLENT ACT TO KILL REMOVE A BABY FROM THE WOMAN'S WOMB it is safer to have access to emergent care. If you want to find a list of woman that needed emergent care after this procedure look it up on google. Saying we don't need hospitals without proof people are dying without them is nutz.

You complete and utter lack of a single fact is duly noted. It is obvious that you have absolutely no argument here and are simply backing this because you are against abortion. You should at least have the temerity to admit it but I did not really expect as much.

Meh, good day. If you are not interested in honest debate then I am really not interested in pointing out the painfully obvious to you yet again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes my reference to coat hanger shops was made with emotion.

Hard hats are required when entering a store UNDER CONSTRUCTION. This is because when CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING THINGS FALL. Does it happen all the time? Are there statistics that prove a hard hat is necessary?

Yes there were. Many people were injured by falling objects. Not so many women by emergent care not being attached to abortion clinics.

The point is when you are OPERATING ON A WOMAN PERFORMING A VIOLENT ACT TO KILL REMOVE A BABY FROM THE WOMAN'S WOMB it is safer to have access to emergent care. If you want to find a list of woman that needed emergent care after this procedure look it up on google. Saying we don't need hospitals without proof people are dying without them is nutz.

You complete and utter lack of a single fact is duly noted. It is obvious that you have absolutely no argument here and are simply backing this because you are against abortion. You should at least have the temerity to admit it but I did not really expect as much.

Meh, good day. If you are not interested in honest debate then I am really not interested in pointing out the painfully obvious to you yet again.

How many women are you willing to sacrifice so that women can get abortions as far away from a hospital as can possibly be arranged?

I've clearly and loudly mentioned on numerous occasions including on this thread how much I deplore killing children. You standing here accusing me of hiding my views on abortion is an egregious lie.

What's really pissing you off is that I can separate my view on the killing of children from the obvious need of access to emergent care for women when performing internal surgery on them. Again I invite you to google up the women who died from legal abortions. Clearly risks are involved. Easy access to emergent care for people undergoing INTERNAL SURGICAL PROCEDURES, is an obvious need which really has not much to do with the type of INTERNAL SURGICAL PROCEDURE being performed. Your argument is emotional and based on your desire to have as many abortion clinics in as many places as possible no matter how far away from an emergent care facility they are. Your argument that abortions don't need emergent care is as as-sine as saying the procedure can be done by anyone with or without a license. Yes you could probably prove that anyone can be taught to do the procedure. The point isn't that we have to have a doctor for every procedure, the point is doctors improve the chances of survival of the patient when the shit hits the fan.

 

[hadit]

Only in a sick world is fewer abortions considered a bad thing.

There really are no unwanted babies. The thousands of people waiting to adopt belie that statement.

 

[JoeB131]

So we have a deal? We'll make sure their daddiy supports them or have daddy's ass in a penitentiary.

Why should he do that?

What if he thought in good faith she was using contraception?

What if he wore a rubber and it broke.

So really, he should be on the hook for 18 years of child support for a child neither he nor his partner wanted because it offends YOUR religious sensibilities?

Same logic....erroneous logic....applies if the girl is 15..."What if he thought in good faith she was 18?"

Then he should probably get a pass.

Seriously, a fifteen year old who misrepresents her age to a guy really isn't the person the statutory rape laws were meant to protect.