DUmmie's fiercely libtard friend Lisa and us hateful Republicans

[thundley4]

I'm not a Catholic and may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the Catholic position is that when the baby is viable, abortion should not be done. An example where the baby is not viable would be an ectopic pregnancy.

As I said, I may not understand the Catholics' (more or less) "official" position, and would not mind learning more clearly. At the same time, I do not know how many Catholic Pro-Life people line up with this position (assuming my understanding is substantially correct). I think Catholics may be in the plurality among Pro-Life people (outnumbering Protestants, other religions, and non-religious, but less than 50%).

When the mother might die and take the babie(s) with her, then what choice is there?

[SVPete]

When the mother might die and take the babie(s) with her, then what choice is there?

Like I said, I'm not a Catholic, so I don't know how an informed Catholic Pro-Lifer would respond. Your question is realistic, though another layer deeper in detail. Put in another way, we're talking 3 or 4 layers deeper in detail than "mreilly's" slid-off-the-surface-while-trying-to-scratch-it claim. I doubt mreilly has ever tried to learn what Pro-Life people believe, let alone learn about the diversity to be found below the surface.

[Adam Wood]

I like how Lisa "became pregnant," as if it was some sort of immaculate conception. 

Spontaneous quadruplets are unbelievably rare.  I suspect that Lisa, assuming that she even exists (which, since this is coming from a DUmmie, is highly unlikely) was instead going through IVF and had a "reduction," which is just a euphemism for aborting some of the fertilized eggs/embryos/whatever state they're in.  While I find this practice ethically and morally questionable at best, I don't really have a legal concern about it.  Bear ye in mind that my opposition to abortion is Constitutional in nature; not that I don't find abortion morally abhorrent in probably 97% or more of all cases out there (because those are ex post facto birth control), but my opposition in a political sense is that the Constitution says that those who have not been born yet still have a right to life. 

But let us also consider that if Lisa used IVF (which is BY FAR the most likely scenario here), that means that at twenty-three years old, Lisa had OODLES of money to spend on very expensive IVF treatments.  Lisa either is spectacularly successful immediately out of college (highly unlikely even in the most success-driven individuals), or she has inherited a phenomenal amount of money, or, perhaps, she won the lottery and decided to blow it on IVF treatments at the age of 23.


Conclusion: 



Edit: Oops! OP said mid-thirties.  I thought he said she was presently 30.  Even still, we're talking about someone at perhaps 28 who can afford IVF treatments?  Highly doubtful.