As for the argument, she's still right. RvW was based on privacy AND the womans medical decision--which is private. Even when abortion was illegal, exceptions were made for self-defense, idiot. RvW just took the decision as to risk-assessment from the doctor and gave it to the woman, in the first trimester. Any decision of the woman to bort is based on protecting her life, be it medicaly, economically, or personal plans. No woman has to give up her life--on any level--just because she gets pregnant.
a dog isn't a legal person either but there is such a thing as deadly force against a dog you moronic twit you.
we all know what a woman's legal rights currently are. we didn't need you to tell us.
katie was making an 'abortion as self defense' analogy. it failed.
the right to abortion "post viability" is rooted in the concept of self defense as it is allowed when the pregnancy is a medically established threat to the woman's life. the right to abortion previability, absent any such threat, is not rooted in self defense as katie claimed, but rather in the right to privacy.
remember what I said about only weighing in when you know what you're talking about? use it again here, idiot.