Speaking of arrogant mofos. . .

So, while I'm on a rampage to flatten every sick fuck who's ever thought they have a right to control over a woman's reproductive system for any reason whatsoever (be it having the same reproductive organs, different ones, a misogynistic religion, sick rape fantasies a la Bill Napoli, a combination of any of those, or an all new novel reason), I figured I'd take on the people who, while still thinking they can own women, fancy themselves nice and caring enough to allow their brood mares to abort if it will kill them.

My question them is, who decides? If a woman has preeclampsia, can she abort? Her life is not in danger at the time, but the preeclampsia could very well turn into eclampsia which is responsible for 12% of all maternal deaths. So, is her life in "enough" danger for her to get permission from antis to "allow" her to save her own health? How much does it take? Does she have to actually be seizuring in the maternity ward hallway with the actual eclampsia to be "eligible" for her right to bodily autonomy?

What these people don't realize is that the brunt of maternal deaths happen AFTER abortion is widely available. Many are unforseen. According to the WHO, 70% of maternal deaths are due to hemmorhaging. Raise your hand if you think that hemmorhaging happens in the first trimester.

Apparently, a lot of pro-life hands are going to go up.

Either that, or they're full of shit on "partial birth abortion" bans. I mean, in normal debates, they think the way to win is to describe graphically a supposed "partial birth abortion" like it's a first trimester vacuum aspiration, but when it comes to saving the woman's life (which is what late term abortions are used for, i.s. pbas), they say they're for it.

Well, get your head out of your ass (or Bible, but can anyone really see a difference?) and make up your mind.