40 million??? surely you exaggerate here...now be honest.... isn't the number more along the lines of...
"The Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand, claims that there have been more than 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade."
I thought I answered your question NO Fallopian Tube pregnancy can or ever has completed the BABY cannot survive in that type of pregnancy it will always miscarry and that is not an abortion.
The hemmoraging is the natural process of the mis-carriage and the doctor has always had no choice in this type of pregnancy but to monitor and ensure the mother safety, it wasn't classified as an abortion until abortionist labeled it that way.
So your point is moot, the process by which God made womens bodies to work would cause the hemorage you are speaking of and the baby would be mis-carried.
It has worked that way since God created men.
This is not an abortion it is following the nature occurance of events to call it is an abortion is someone trying to justiffy abortion.
Are you saying that no woman has ever died from a Fallopian tube pregnancy?
I agree with your that technically it is not an abortion, but the fetus does die and if removed by the doctor to save the mother the fetus dies. I was wondering if someone would bring up this technicality. This technical difference is explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
In another area, what would you do if your wife had cancer that was treatable with radiation, but she will die without radiation, but she may live long enough for the baby to be born. However she is pref she does not undergo radiation she may live long enough for the baby to be born. The clear choice is either the life of the mother or the life of the child. Which would you counsel her to do?
If the unborn child is stuck in a fallopian tube and the mother's life is threatened such treatment should not be done by PP. It should be determined only by her physician and done in a hospital. So the issue with with a mother's life being threatened has nothing to do with funding PP.
To bring it up as a legitimate part of this particular discussion is dishonest and irrational.
We both clearly answered you:
you just can't understand the answer, given your assumtion that the answer would be in the affirmative.
Rev answered here:
Unless, I mis-read you Rev...don't want to speak for you if I am mistaken.
and I answered here:
I even accounted for the fact that (given your ideology) this would be inexplicable to you, in that I said:
But you would NEVER support anyone's freedom to spend or to not spend
vis -a- vis your OP, their own money as they see fit and would prefer government to utilize force to requisition money from hard-working people to spend it (or waste it) as government (force by definition) sees fit. :smilewinkgrin:
Communists are so cute. :saint:
Actually, your's is a hypothetical question. And it's a stupid question. So please, stop asking it. It is only you massaging your conscience. Abortion is wrong, yet you want to make it OK.
What if your wife chose to not have the radiation? Would you support that? Or would you take away her choice to have the baby?
Hypotheticals.
You might as well ask, "what if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy, and months later, the child is born, with no injury to the mother or child?" Because it's happened.
You might as well ask, what if the woman's life is in danger, and the doctors say the choice is abortion or her death; and she chooses the baby over her own life...but subsequently both survive without any problems? Because it's happened.
We can discuss "what if's" until the cows come home, and you'd end up with the same type question: What if worms had machine guns? (answer: Birds wouldn't mess with them)
Seriously? I post statistics from the WHO that regard within the last five years (easily found on the WHO web site if you do a search for "mortality" and "pregnancy") -- and your response is to reference a site that's using statistics from 1900?
ROFL, I knew you would not answer the question. After all if you answer the question you have taken a position one way or the other ... either agreeing that poor women deserve health care or that no your do not believe they deserve health care.
If you go back to the OP you will see it is more about health care being cut for poor women and men and less about abortion. Frankly, I see it the proposal more as a ruse to cut funding for women than about abortion and that is why it is and continues to be a war against women. If these men really cared about women they would fight against abortion through legal means that would not cost women their health care.
Afraid to take a position I see. They have much to do with each other. You reserve the right to criticize and insult, but not participate in answering questions.
Do you or do you not believe poor women and men should have access to health care at government expense?