jtb1127
Deity
If it's born alive and in a reasonably healthy state why don't they just take it to be adopted?
Because it's easier to kill it.
If it's born alive and in a reasonably healthy state why don't they just take it to be adopted?
What about the vaginal passageway suddenly makes a being waorthy of the right to life?
NO. Once the babies are born alive, they are people, protected under the law from being murdered.It isn't murder, it's abortion. If she went in for an abortion and the babies came out alive, it is still within their rights to abort it.
A 30-week-old can survive outside the womb, with the appropriate medical intervention. Obviously this butcher shop in the article would not have such medical intervention available, like a real hospital would.And how does one determine viability when the baby's still inside the womb?
Exactly!If it's born alive and in a reasonably healthy state why don't they just take it to be adopted?
That'd be bad for those born through caesareans.
Still, Abortion must continue, it must not stop.
What I meant is, in spite of this occurrence, abortion shouldn't be limited, nor should this be used as an attempt to ban it, and infringe upon a woman's right to determine what happens to her body.
Neither worker was trained or licensed for the work they did at the clinic
Yes, and outlawing slavery opened up the illicit human trafficking business
I didn't realise that the aborting of a fetus, is the same as selling someone into slavery.
Thank you for alerting me to this fact.
But the illogical-ness of abortion is pointed out nonetheless, as I mentioned in my OP.
Both are morally WRONG actions.
Not murdering another being for convenience.