[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Strangler, who would decide to abort the child when its being born, and who the f*** in their right mind would smash a baby's head with a hammer? You are f***ed up to even think of that as a valid argument.

I was using hyperbole to make a point. My point is that lines need to be drawn as to what is considered a viable baby and what is considered a potential life. You even go on to say:

If the woman decides to abort the baby, she will abort it, her decision, whenever that may be. But nobody would let the decision linger for 8 3/4 months, they would decisde in a couple.

If you let someone do it, they will, and its going on NOW. Its called partial birth abortion where a child is delivered partially (meaning part of the child is still in the womb) and is then killed. This is currently LEGAL because the child has not been technically "delivered to completion" and is therefore not considered a human life. See what I'm saying now with the baby and the hammer?

Also, if people would decide after the first, say, three months on whether they'll keep the baby.... why not make it a law to protect the now essentially developed child?

And the baby would be born if the head is out, because well, the head is out.

Not according to current US abortion law

I honestly cant get over what you said about hitting a baby on the head with a hammer, your sick and f***ing demented man, seriously, what kind of person would say something like that, or even think it to be a good argument point?

I believe I just explained myself sufficiently.

As for it being a woman's body and its her right to choose, thats all well and good but at some point during a pregnancy that woman's body is caring for another human being who we as a society need to protect. We have to be able to set definite ground rules of when this takes place.