> I think our definition of 'killing' is different. I understand
> it to be ending a life.

Our definition of killing is much the same I think.

If a woman chooses to have an abortion no one has been killed.

>> Does the same go for one that is already born?

>> Of course not. That isn't happening and I don't understand why you
>> bring it up.

>> Better to throw it in a dumpster than give it a chance at life?

>> Same response. Why do you bring that up?

> Because I'm asking what the difference is between a baby BEFORE it
> is born and a baby AFTER it is born. If it is simply LOCATION, then
> why is it okay on one hand and wrong on the other?

A baby is born after a 9 month gestation period.

> I'm trying to point out that it is LIFE in both cases. If you are
> for LIFE and defending children (which you haven't said you are
> for or against - only pointed out that it is 'murder' - you didn't
> say if you were okay with it) then why not in all locations?

It is the womans life until it is born.

>> Abortion is health care. Today in America women who need health care
>> are turned away from hospitals because doctors are afraid they will be
>> sued/jailed for giving a woman the care she needs.

> Women "NEED" abortions. That's the part I can't get behind.

That's what I have been reading.

> A woman "NEEDS" to kill her unborn child.

There is no child at that point, no killing is taking place.

> I don't understand how that has become the norm in this country.

What's right for you might not be right for someone else.

No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. Why would you force someone to carry a child to term? There are many valid reasons why a woman might choose an abortion.

>> There a recent cases like this, I am not making this up.

> I have heard of ONE case like this - only one - but it is broght up all
> the time, even here in Tennessee.

There are several recent cases, another in Texas.

> I need to reveiw the details but my understanding is the person didn't die
> because the doctor was scared to give a simple procedure (yes, simple - my
> wife had a D&C after our first child was lost in a miscarriage in 1990). My
> understanding was there were other factors.

In the case I was talking about the woman was turned away because her condition was not life threatening and they had to wait until it was. After a short time her condition did become life threatening and did in fact end her life before she could be receive the care she needed.

> The point being, women have miscarriages all the time, sadly, and
> medical procedures to take care of them still happen all the time. I've
> seen no proof that doctors are 'scared,' just rhetoric about it.

That's not rhetoric. That is what is happening today.

Now that the states are in charge it is my hope that states will step up and that doctors will be free from fear of litigation or imprisonment to care for women when needed.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7