This discussion is about abortion to the point of delivery. A baby being born is not "mindless cells". And the "observable and self-evident facts" are on my side, not yours.

Fetuses can't "reproduce themselves" either, and a lot more that is a "critical factor" for a human life, i.e., a person.

The government does not have a "primary duty to protect the life of the innocent" equivocally misused to mean the unborn. The unborn cannot be "innocent" or "guilty" of anything. The notion makes no sense at all and it isn't even historic: there was no intent in the constitution to ban abortion, just as there is no such thing as "states' rights". Only individual human beings have rights. In particular they have legally protected rights under the 10th and 14th and amendments.

Your own posts are "confounding the language". Abortion is not "of course murder" and no, contradictions are not "understandable", only politically expedient range of the moment manipulations. No one is "poisoning the food" and your claim that "they" "now want to kill children even after birth [which is the only kind there are]" is false. The claim in the article that Northam advocates "child murder" is a falsehood being spread by anti-abortion hysteria.

'Right' and 'left', like 'conservative' and 'liberal', are imprecise terms often used in contradictory ways. The 'right' in this country used to mean 'individualistic'; in Europe where there was no American individualism as in the German Weimar Republic the 'right' meant the nationalistic, religious conservatives. When the Hitler-Stalin pact broke up, the communist propaganda lumped everything that wasn't communist with the fascists as the 'right', including US individualist opponents of communism. The left is still package-dealing individualism with fascism today and the invalid concept has caught on. The term 'right' seems too far gone now to recover. The 'social conservatives' aren't exactly helping.

As for the 'responsibility angle', they mix that up as well. The moral responsibility for one's own life is the opposite of conservative duties demanded to be accepted as our "responsibility" -- including the notion of "responsibility" for an entitlement for the unborn to be born in the name of "rights" -- just like the left.

The subject of politics deals only with the concept of rights and the state's relationship to it, not with "science," whatever that means.
There is no more clear line in the sand then rights beginning at birth.

I am not old school, I am new school, real un-politicized science. Have read much on the subject.

It's time we all wake up and smell the afterbirth.

That is not an accurate line in the sand, The real science says differently.

Late term abortion is exactly what?
Other than a perfectly legitimate exercise of a persons individual rights?

"the left wants to take it further..."
The left are the ones trying to ban abortion, by trying to mischaracterize it as murder, or something.

You are also still continuing to try and push a line you have been clearly proved wrong on.
You said that people were advocating to kill "AFTER" birth, but clearly that's not what has been suggested at all, and the transcript proves it.
It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to continue to double down, not only on a topic you clearly don't understand, but even when your direct assertions are directly proven wrong.

Except you've repeatedly ignored the line in the sand, even though it's been presented to you by me and others here.
Abortion must be perfectly legal, because no rights are violated.
Rights begin, in a rudimentary fashion, only after birth.

That's the line. It's black and white and crystal clear.

I will agree that the anti-abortionists have no answer to rape situations. Rape should be treated as a separate case because of the lack of consent. It was an act of force. Incest could also be the result of an act of force.

Malformation is fundamentally different in that it is a matter of convenience, and perhaps a justifiable one given the mother's ability and willingness to bear the substantial burden of a malformed child.

Agree, all a thinking, conscious person wants is a clear, fair and accurate line in the sand and a line that considers each new fact found.

Is that really unreasonable?

Late term abortion is exactly that...and the left wants to take it further...you know that, that is who and what they are.

OK, I will grant that the left tries to force responsibility on third parties to accept the "sanction of the victim" via paying for abortions when people they don't even know are irresponsible.

The conservative notion of "responsibility" in social policy is imposed duty just as onerous as any socialist premise. It's the same duty mentality as that of the historical Church in its subjective pronouncing mystical duties to God claimed to be intrinsic absolutes and imposed by force accordingly. With no understanding of the rational individualist egoist base for political freedom, they have told us in more modern times that granting freedom requires "responsibilities", i.e., duties to the state and the collective, in return. This line has even been used to rationalize imposing military conscription.

They do know about politics, but not a political philosophy of freedom and the ethics on which it is based. Faith, family and tradition are no basis for freedom, and we see that in spades with the opposition to a woman's right to her own body, which opposition comes straight out of the old subjectivist Church dogma claiming to be an absolute in terms of intrinsicism. Whether or not they believe the same old dogmas literally, it's the same psychology of thinking.

The ones who want to outlaw abortion, are ALSO leftists who don't care about rights.

Nicely put Blarman.

Except no one is advocating such a thing.

Even Northam clearly stated, "And its done in case where there may be severe deformities, where there may be a fetus that is non-viable."

Whether we are referring to abortion or any other "Human" endeavor...That is what the Leftest want from you...they could care less about your rights.

The Issue at hand, Pete...is they think it's ok to kill During birth or AFTER it is born! And you think not, that is murder?

He doesn't.

Peter Smith: "'Rape, incest, malformation is another thing, and should be dealt with early.'
This contradicts the position you put forward originally of abortion being murder.
Are you saying just because you were raped, you can murder an 'innocent human being?'"

They have no answer to that. They are inconsistent, just as they try to finesse the legal penalties they want for what they call "murder": Their bills have morphed from penalizing the woman to putting it all on the doctor, just as their total ban has morphed into "sometimes". Their disregard for the woman was becoming too obvious, so her participation became both murder and not murder for the "convenience" of their Fabian leftist style of incrementalism imposing controls.

But the inconsistency is inconsistency among floating abstractions because none of it makes sense to begin with: subjectively decreed intrinsic "rights" of what is called an "innocent" entity that cannot be innocent or not-innocent of anything.

Bravo!

"To obtain maximum freedom one needs to embrace maximum responsibility...otherwise someone's gona regulate your ass."
Not at all. This is like saying, "to obtain maximum freedom, one needs to embrace maximum tyranny."

Freedom is defined in Objectivism, as a rights protecting government.

"Life begins at conception, Life that becomes aware of it's environment, aware of pain and hunger, begins very soon after that."
Not human life, but more importantly, no RIGHTS begin until you are born.

"Leftest, the global delete, aka, the great unwashed, want you complacent or dead."
That is your position, along with anyone else who doesn't understand how rights work, so advocates reducing half the population to the level of cattle.
If you are anti-rights, as anti-abortionists necessarily are, then you are anti-LIFE.

To pagan humanoids, devoid of conscience and appreciation for one's own existence; for which one played no part in...I am sure it sounds vicious and disgusting...I'll give you that.

"I say that accusation is BS, especially as pertaining to those here in the Gulch."
Except it's obviously not BS as it has been made by numerous posters here. Hint: whenever someone brings up a variant of, "don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant," what they really want is to control peoples sex lives.
I'm being voted down, because I'm simply demonstrating that the posters here haven't the faintest about what they are saying and my posts are triggering them.
This is supposed to be an Objectivist forum, but it seems to be quite overrun by confused, religious leftists of the conservative movement.