This is precisely what Rand's flawed definition of life leads to. I am not saying I have a better definition. I don't. In my tissue engineering research lab, I see cells forming tissues and ultimately organs that are generating self-sustaining actions. I know when something is alive and when something is dead when I see it.

Cuomo is a complete idiot. He was just on the news chastising truckers for the 21 car accident on I-90 near Batavia, NY and called it Monroe County. Uh, Batavia is in Genesee County. Fool doesn't even know his own state.

I disagree with your definition of right wing. There are some who are described as right wing who are "social conservatives" who want to enforce their views on others. Most of those on the so-called "right wing" want limited government, rather than support rights protecting government. I know of no one on the right side of the political aisle who "supports rights protecting government" unless you are referring to ensuring that making sure that police officers don't get killed in the line of duty. Now there are plenty of "right wingers" who want a military that is stationed in every corner of the globe, but even that is not supporting rights protecting government. I want a relatively small military, but it is one of the few proper responsibilities of a limited government.

The responsibility "angle" is not something to be "grasped onto". When Ayn Rand says that each individual must generate enough self-sustaining actions for his/her own life, that is a responsibility to oneself. Rand also talks about we should not "be our brother's keeper"; in order for that to be possible, each individual has to be his/her own keeper. The problem that society has now is that way too many moochers think that they have no such responsibility to take care of themselves. Then looters assume a responsibility that is not their own to confiscate our well-earned fortunes to pay for the irresponsible.

What you are describing is how how to talk libtarded BS.

Exactly.

Indeed. Good post.

"OK, but I don't have to pay for it, as is the case now."
That's true. You should no more be forced to pay for someone's abortion, than someone should be forced to carry to term.

"Are you kidding? Sometimes the right acts to force responsibility. The left actively promotes irresponsibility."
So, those who are properly defined as right wing, support rights protecting government. Such a government only acts when rights are violated, not merely when someone is acting irresponsible.
The whole "responsibility" angle, is what conservatives grasp onto, because they don't really know anything about politics.

Yep you make a lot of good points. The other thing is the idea that because somebody can't do something, therefore somebody should be forced to provide it for you. In the case of healthcare, socialists want to force you to provide it for others.
In the case of the unborn, religious conservatives want to force you to carry to term.
It's strange that the latter don't realize how similar they are in principle, to the former.

I met a nurse at an airport years ago while we were waiting for our flights and we started talking about general things then she brought up abortion. She was for it and proceeded to tell me why an unborn child is not really a being (they struggle to stay alive during abortion but I guess that doesn't count) and then proceeded to tell me that in fact even a new born child isn't a sentient being because their brain is still forming until they are five years old and so if you don't like how they seem to be turning out you should still be allowed to terminate them! I picked up my luggage and moved away from her. When you start judging where a life is worthwhile and when it should be terminated you are making a judgement call that only the one who owns that life can morally make. The nurse must be very happy with the new law.

I'm still trying to figure out when the idea of terminating the life of an unborn child became synonymous with--and just another manifestation of--"reproductive health care".

They scream "You can't tell me what to do with my body!". But that little body inside of them can't scream, can't recoil in horror in anticipation of what's about to happen.

Yes, so there is NO excuse to make a last min. change of mind...or should I say: Brain?

I'll say it again...you play you pay. I, in my day, was fully aware of that.

A plant is not an animal.

The Pill, then the Morning-After Pill, took care of that little problem.

A seed is not a plant.

It isn't the mother's life but her health that constitutes their excuse, including mental health.
What are the life-long mental health consequences to a woman who has her own child killed? Nobody ever asks that question.

It is legal in the Middle East, only it's referred to as Honor Killing.

My Facebook post from yesterday:
So, the Dumocrats in Virginia are debating murder of a human being. They are pushing a bill that will allow 'abortion' after birth. In my eyes, that is murder and Dumocrats will have blood on their hands. Just another reason that the Dumocrats Hate God, Hate Christians, Hate America. Just another reason to not vote for any Democrat,

I agree.

My Facebook post: If anyone out there thinks it's okay for a woman to kill her baby up to the moment of and during birth, please unfriend me and remove all contacts related to me. I want no more association with you.

The usual method of killing a late term baby has been rather ghastly. Coached by lawyers about how to avoid a charge of murder, the abortionist would turn the baby around to force a breach (feet first) birth, then pull the child out until all but the head is out, quickly driving a scissors into the base of the skull, killing it before it has a chance to draw its first breath.

A forced breach is dangerous for the mother, so I suspect these bills are designed to do away with the fantasy that this kind of "abortion" isn't infanticide, by allowing the abortionist to kill the child without criminal charges. I hope someone takes this through the federal court system as an attempt to legalize murder.

I've forwarded it to a friend who has expertise in the area. thanks for pointing it out, bsmith.

The first order of war is to confuse and confound the enemy. We are certainly in a war, but the battle to destroy our culture is only one part, and perhaps just the beginning.
War with whom, you might ask? Perhaps the Comintern, established in 1919. Though dissolved in 1943, its mission seems to continue, primarily in the USA through the Democrat Party..

Trying to make "conception" a black and white decision point creates a lot other issues not so easy to deal with. Why are two gametes not protected but now a zygote is? And if the zygote os really human, then not doing EVERYTHING to protect it becomes an issue. If people REALLY considered a zygote human then the should receive much more special treatment even before the gametes came together. Otherwise why is a "natural" abortion (not lodged in uterus) any different than one helped along (due to physical activity, "diet", moving too much, morning after pill, iud, etc.). If conception was life one might expect these believers to now, given today's technology, to have it very closely monitored to make sure in lodges in the uterus (and becomes and embryo). In the end, current Roe v. Wade is currently a reasonable compromise in the quite gray area when it comes to using physical force to support your opinion.

Speaking of cancer, have you heard of this? If true - and the mainstream media seem to have completely ignored it - it will cause a worldwide day of mourning for the cancer industry: http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/20...