Libs that pass laws are suddenly having weird ideas about what is a late term abortion.
Plop. Oops, there it is. Kill that born unborn fetus!

Hear is his controversial statement.
Governor Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

What is the discussion between the physicians and the mother for EWV ?
“The infant would be delivered , the infant would be kept comfortable “
and then the discussion ensues. Please clarify for the governor.

Tell that to the "fetus" filmed shrinking way from that sharp cutting tool that comes at it.

Me dino keeps a flashlight in me jacket's pocket.
Ya know, just in case I get caught in the dark.

Start spreading the news, go there to get stabbed, baby will lose~~~~tra la, etc.

Wow, just for that money and prison time, that eagle egg is way, way, way more valuable than a human fetus. Gee golly whiz!

Abortion stops a beating heart.

You lent support to an irrational post trying to tie a false statement about the governor of Virginia allegedly wanting to "kill babies" under a pro-abortion law to a story about displaying "coffins", and now try to justify it with a defiant claim that you only hijacked your own thread. It makes no sense.

The hysteria generated by conservatives in mocking and taunting their enemies with ever-expanding fantasies substituting for rational argument of principles has become a circus worse than the Kavanaugh hearings.

It is "interesting" to those seeking to misrepresent, in bizarre terms unrelated to reality, why women have abortions and why civilized people defend their right to do so. Hysterical fantasy is not a substitute for rational discussion.

A fetus is not a baby. It must be born to be a baby. A fetus is a potential human being. The concept 'rights' does not pertain to a potential.

The governor of Virginia did not say anything about "knocking the kid off" or "execution". Those are the words and description of hysterical propaganda circulated by militant anti-abortionists trying to make people believe that laws repealing abortion are for "killing babies". It is a dishonest attempt to irrationally whip up emotional hysteria.

There is no such thing as abortion after birth and abortion is not "murder".

The quotes are from your own post. The opening sentence inadvertently omitted the word "governor". It was supposed to read "The 'Virginia governor" did not 'openly talk about killing babies". The widely spread claim that he did is a myth, i.e., fake news", hysterically spread by anti-abortion activists who want it to be true as confirmation of their own propaganda.

The right of abortion is a moral right of the woman and is no one else's business. The barbaric violation of rights in banning abortion is not a rational way to eliminate leftist entitlements.

Woman whom the religious conservatives want to force to bear children they do not want are not responsible for taxes for Planned Parenthood in an irrational war between false alternatives.

That nutty book you referred to has nothing to do with defense of rights of the individual or what even most leftists think.

It is not "so complex". Either you support the rights of the individual to his or her own life or you don't. Once someone advocates "rights" for non persons it is up to him to try to justify it, and to try to justify the violation of rights he demands, not leave it up to competing theocracies under statist "states rights" "working it out" without regard to the rights of people.

Religious emotions are not the basis for law in this country, and has no 'equal' standing in rational discussion, especially on what is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum. Agnosticism by those who can't tell the difference is not resolved by competing state statism.

Abortion prevents birth; it does not kill babies. There is no such thing as "that kind of abortion".

I did not "bring it up". It is the topic of the thread and was combined with progressivism in the post you responded to.

The right of abortion is the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body, with the assistance of anyone who chooses to help her either paid, as doctors normally are, or voluntarily for free. Like all other rights, It does not mean an entitlement to be provided with anything for free.

Religious conservatives deny the rights of the individual when they try to prohibit abortions, forcing woman to bear children they don't want. Abortion does not "remove an individual's right to live"; it prevents a person from being born at all. A fetus is a potential human being. It does not have "rights".

Destroying an eagle egg
668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction.

But not in NY @nymore.
A pregnant woman was stabbed to death in New York on Feb. 3, but the state's new abortion law means there will be no justice for her unborn baby who was killed in the attack.

"He's got a knife! He's going to kill the baby!" screamed Jennifer Irigoyen as a man pulled her from her third-floor apartment, horrified witness Maurice Roman Zereoue told The New York Post.

Irigoyen was five months pregnant and already the mother of a young child when a man brutally stabbed her and her unborn baby to death.

Their Appears to be a battle between Good and Evil playing out daily. Light destroys darkness.

Haha!!! I can relate!

Impressive post +1

To seek an abortion is the result of GROSS PESONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Read on . .
Abortion, just the word alone brings strong images and emotions to most people whether or not they have religious reasons for their viewpoint.

It is a very controversial issue made all the more complicated by the current push by some in Congress to include funding for abortions in the new health legislation. Your view on the issue of abortion notwithstanding, it is clearly a highly personal issue and not something that should be paid for by taxpayers. So, with that position stated, let’s move on to the reasons that some people consider having an abortion.

Here are some definitions that may be helpful:

Embryo – from conception to 8th week of development

Fetus – a developing human from 2 months to birth.

First, the reasons that are absolutely not valid.

a. To terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

b. To terminate the pregnancy of a child of a certain sex, when that sex has been determined by ultrasound.

Next, the only valid reasons for having an abortion.

1. When the mother’s life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

2. When the embryo is not viable.

3. The pregnancy was caused by rape.

4. The pregnancy was caused by incest.




Numbers 3 and 4 are only valid when the pregnancy is in the first trimester. A better alternative
would be an embryo transfer to a woman who desires a child. See below for more information on human embryo transfer.

My friend, James B. Andrews of Cave Creek, AZ commented “If women were born sterile and needed a fertilizing shot to be fertile, there would be no abortions performed. We do not have an abortion problem; we have an unwanted pregnancy problem, caused by conflicting education/communication problems. Since this is not possible, then voluntary temporary sterilization (birth control) must be taught and socially accepted by all. The process starts by having everyone be taught at a young age, at home and in school, and then enforced by society in general, the following statement, “EVERY CHILD BORN MUST BE A WANTED CHILD, WANTED BY BOTH PARENTS”.

I heartily agree with Jim’s statement and would add that I am also “Pro-Choice” and the choice to be made is before sex, not after!

To engage in sex for pleasure, without desiring the result to be the creation of a child, one must actively engage in proven birth control measures such as condoms, birth control medication or sterilization. To actively engage in sexual activity, without desiring the result to be the creation of a child, and to consciously not use the inexpensive birth control procedures
mentioned above is, simply, gross personal irresponsibility. If a pregnancy occurs and to then seek an abortion, as opposed to giving birth or considering an embryo transplant, is grossly immoral and made worse if the individual seeks taxpayer funding for the abortion. To ask for taxpayer funding for the result of an act that is totally voluntary and absolutely avoidable is
tantamount to theft or extortion.

Some religions forbid the use of contraception with elaborate justifications but, on analysis, it is clearly an attempt to increase the population of those religions.

History of Human embryo transfers.

The first transfer of an embryo from one human to another resulting in pregnancy was reported in July 1983 and subsequently led to the announcement of the first human birth February 3, 1984.[16] This procedure was performed at the Harbor UCLA Medical Center [17] under the direction of Dr. John Buster and the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine.

In the procedure, an embryo that was just beginning to develop was transferred from one woman in whom it had been conceived by artificial insemination to another woman who gave birth to the infant 38 weeks later. The sperm used in the artificial insemination came from the husband of the woman who bore the baby.[18][19]

This scientific breakthrough established standards and became an agent of change for women suffering from the afflictions of infertility and for women who did not want to pass on genetic disorders to their children. Donor embryo transfer has given women a mechanism to become pregnant and give birth to a child that will contain their husband’s genetic makeup. Although donor embryo transfer as practiced today has evolved from the original non-surgical method, it now accounts for approximately 5%
of in vitro fertilization recorded births.

Prior to this, thousands of women who were infertile, had adoption as the only path to parenthood. This set the stage to allow open and candid discussion of embryo donation and transfer. This breakthrough has given way to the donation of human embryos as a common practice similar to other donations such as blood and major organ donations. At the time of this announcement the event was captured by major news carriers and fueled healthy debate and discussion on this practice which impacted the future of reproductive medicine by creating a platform for further advancements in woman's health.

This work established the technical foundation and legal-ethical framework surrounding the clinical use of human oocyte and embryodonation, a mainstream clinical practice, which has evolved over the past 25 years.[18][19] Building upon this groundbreaking research and since the initial birth announcement in 1984, well over 47,000 live births resulting from donor embryo transfer have been and continue to be recorded by the Centers for Disease Control(CDC)[20] in the United States to infertile women, who otherwise would not have had children by any other existing method.[21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_t...

Hey, c'mon! That idiot governor of Virginia said the legalized full term baby--oops, I mean fetus-- baby would be made comfortable while discussing whether or not to knock the kid off. You wouldn't want the dead baby walking--oops, I meant crying not walking since it can't even crawl yet--to be made uncomfortable before suffering its execution, would you?

Weird how a murderer who murders a pregnant woman can be charged with a double murder
when all she's carrying is some good as trash disposable conveniently named fetus.

Me dino wasn't trying to be on topic. So there.