Sick and thin!
As opposed to sick and tired. I used to hear that sometimes…
“I am so sick and tired of …” 
Damned tapeworms – get off my lawn!!!
I may jail abortionists or provide counseling/rehabilitation.
That’s a ridiculous hypothetical. I might as well ask “What if tomorrow God came down from Heaven and demanded abortion be banned or else destroy the Earth?”
The father can say all he wants, but in the end it is not his body and it is not his decision to make.
Well, here’s the problem; it’s not a hypothetical.
Certainly, overall, we can look at average abortion rates and see what they are. But individually speaking, there are people for whom conception and then pregnancy is biologically a much more difficult process. For some people, the chances of miscarriage are just that high. And, conversely, for some chances are much better. We can sometimes even manipulate those chances, too, depending on how the woman in question takes care of herself.
The question is, for those women who have such a high possible chance at miscarriage, should we (on the basis that laws and the like should be awarded based upon the idea that something “will be” with “reasonable chance” a human) declare that humanity is dependent on the biological ability of the mother? Do we delay the awarding of rights to a fertilised egg if the mother has a lessened chance of carrying it to term? If the woman is hyper-fertile, and has a higher chance of concieving in the first place, should we consider for them even an unfertilised egg to have a “reasonable” chance to become a human, and so grant it rights?
These really aren’t ridiculous hypotheticals. They are situations which can and do happen. The only answer I can see that you might have to it is that we should take our measure of what is a “reasonable chance” from humanity in general, not specifically; but, I would say, for someone who is so considerably dedicated to life who believes the wrong move means a morally negative death, I would say that such a general, unspecific, vague rule is callous.
In other words, politicians!
Sorry, I couldn’t pass that up
Tell you what: I’ll agree to a permanent abortion ban in exchange for a number of “liberal” political concessions. You can set the punishments as severe as you want, but I get control over the procedures of how the law is enforced. If you accept my terms. I’ll be happy to elaborate.
That’s my take, more or less. The country needs a sound and logical immigration policy so that will happen eventually and eventually we’ll join the rest of the civilized world in realizing we can medically cover everyone for half as much money if we just cut out the middle men. There is really no reason to trade away a woman’s rights to her own body for something we’re going to get anyway.
There is nothing in the New Testament contradicting or superseding that law whatsoever. The New Testament doesn’t speak to fetal death in any fashion. (And while there is New Testament teaching regarding the applicability of the laws of kashrut, there is none regarding shatnez, which isn’t “mixed fabrics” but specifically the blend of wool and linen. Have you even read the first half of the Bible you carry?)
And I’m not an atheist.
He’s not a father of anything unless a baby is born. Until there is a actually a live birth, a pregnancy is just another person’s bodily process.
Your hypothetical was “What if a disease struck that killed most fetuses?”
I suggest you see Galatians where Paul condemns the Galatian Church for practicing Mosaic Law.
Matthew 5:
Saul of Tarsus was a heretic, and his mother should have strangled him at birth.
That’s pretty funny.
It really is.
Wanna know why?
Because every bible thumping fire’ n brimstone clown that comes along, quotes that Old Testament (out of context, and cherry picked to hell and back) as justification to attack and condemn whatever / whoever he personally has a problem with.
Also, Jesus himself never said he came to do away with the law (which had been the O.T. up to that point).
Unborn baby?
Sure, why not. I support the right of a woman to abort her unborn baby as she sees fit, and that the unborn baby’s rights, assuming it has any, do not and cannot trump hers.
Unborn baby killer!
Well, yes, arguably (i.e. I’ve never participated in the procedure myself, but I support its legality). I’ve concluded, not wholly arbitrarily, that the individual rights issue is of greater importance.
Uterus kittens?