Grumpy,I don't think that you realize that you just did Katie a disservice here.<quoted text>I'll explain it to you.
Katie puts "viability" at birth, which places all aborted fetuses as non-viable.
You put "viability" at the meeting of the sperm and the egg so that all aborted fetuses are viable.
You're both trying to fit your own opinion into Roe v. Wade and the irony is you're both against Roe v. Wade.
Katie has said a few contradicting things....
1.that she agrees with restrictions on elective abortions because of viability.
2. that she agrees with a woman having a choice to abort late term.
3. that the fetus is not a baby until the cord is cut,therefore,agreeing that the mother should then have a right to abort that fetus(say if that baby is deformed or if she can't handle a baby emotionally).
4. that her friend lost her "child" while in utero. She CLEARLY refers to that "child" as a fetus when discussing abortion,but suddenly her friend lost a "child" and we should show compassion for her lost child.
5. that it is not your child while it is a fetus,but a mere "potential" until the cord is cut. She even used the word non-existant to describe a fetus UNTIL the cord is cut.
To sum it up,she believes therefore,in infanticide.
Have you noticed that Katie has desperately asked ANYONE to help her out here,by explaining things *for* her and not ONE,not ONE of her proaborts friends did. Seems like they disappeared UNTIL it died down a bit.
The viability issue just means that the baby can live without moms help but in reality,that baby born after viability will STILL need life support. What's the difference if it is from mom or a machine as far as the proaborts are concerned?