Yes, I understand your perspective on this issue.

However, given this position, no abortion, for any reason can be allowed, except perhaps when it is a choice between the life of a mother and the fetus.

I would point out that there are many cases, Terri Schiavo for example, where things (no longer people) are killed (no idea why removing a feeding tube is ok, but injecting them with an overdose of barbiturates is not). My father in law is another recent example, where his Catholic wife pulled the plug after very similar circumstances (but only a week).

In these cases, we let fully developed people go, mainly for cost and convenience. Yet, 1, 2 or 8 cells hold so much more value, and the need to intercede with government force. All because of "potential"? Very metaphysical.

jdg—- this guy “gets” it.
We are a banana republic. Sans the tasty bananas. Voting was the easy way out. Now we get to do it....the hard way. Famine is generally a great way to start a diet plan.
In history whenever power shifts from one empire to another you have war.
Might makes right.
Always has.
Always will.
I could go into specifics but one need only open a history book to recognize the pattern. I cannot tell you EXACTLY how it will all go down. It’s not important anyway. Just know that it will and plan accordingly. We will be in a full blown world war by the end of the decade. Bank on it. And also bank on the United States as we have known it will not be coming out on the “winning” side this time. Statistically, historically, fundamentally that’s an impossibility.

"Doesn't matter to me which part of government takes away rights. [Don't] want any part to take them away, even city." Can't argue with that, Thor. Therefore, killing a human even in the gestation phase of life, which presumably is what abortion does, deprives that human of all rights. Forever. Again, IMHO, redefining pregnancy, which is a natural occurrence for the females of our species, as a rights violation is an absurdity. Saying a pregnant female has a "right" to arbitrarily kill the human she is temporarily carrying is an absurdity if human life in our civilization holds any value at all. Reality is always reality, even if we don't like it, and reality can be very uncomfortable or even nasty from time to time. The Texas law doesn't violate any "rights", but rather protects the rights of human beings early in their life cycle.

Bill Gates father was a long term promoter of eugenics. Gates served on the boards of numerous organizations in the Pacific Northwest, including the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, King County United Way and Planned Parenthood.
Microturd boy has continued the family tradition.

I posted this comment to dino’s post yesterday ….
The Key is young people being indoctrinated.
This is a long term plan to destroy the family. First you inflate the currency and cause both parents to work. Check. The TV and satanic music industry destroys morals. check Then You destroy manufacturing and the middle class. Check You introduce and glorify life destroying drugs. Check . You allow easy abortions and promote divorce with cash incentives.Check You push sexual ideas to children nonstop with the Satanic deviant LGBTQ+.Check
Only show interracial couples on advertisements.
Check. We are at the stage where the can indoctrinate a kid and tell him/her the parents are idiots and hide the grooming of a child to be a tranny from the parents, FuQ you Gavin Newsome. I wonder if they get paid a referral commission when they have convinced a minor to have a “doctor” mutilate themself.

"down want" = "don't want"

Not really true. TX law is essentially a ban:

https://www.sll.texas.gov/spotlight/2...

Doesn't matter to me which part of government takes away rights. Down want any part to take them away, even city.

There is no ban on abortion. None. Decisions on abortions were remanded to the States. Just as everything not specifically addressed in the Constitution is supposed to be handled. (but seldom is)
RG Ginsberg predicted this would happen back in 1973.

Yes, medical freedom. The same. I would throw out abortion bans on religious freedom basis. Should never have been a vax requirement, especially this "vax", which it isn't.

Never heard of the Uni-Party, but makes sense. The swamp.

It sounds like an argument with a BOT
My I recommend an upgrade to a few cells.

Yes. Like an infected splinter, it must be addressed with authority, swiftness and disinfectant.

Medical freedom:
My body, my choice? Ring any bells Quasimoto?
It's the same thing The jab was the Fed mandating medicine. The Fed sticking their nose into medical topics best dealt with at the state level. All this is 50-year-old historical debate.
R v Wade reversal threw it back to the states where it belonged all along, it was never a Federal right, and as always the case: Federal over-reach. "Roe is bad law and will likely be overturned" -RG Ginsburg, 1973
You don't know what the uniparty is? Really? You really think there is a Left and a Right in this country? Really? With all evidence to the contrary?

Thanks, tutor. I come from a very long line of tough ladies on both sides of my family and I salute Lady Dee.

You misspelled "The sHill"

Wish I could give you 10 thumbs up.
My Lady is one tough, smart and strong person in every sense of the word. Over 45 years, more times than I can count, I've had my compass reset by my better half. Lady Dee would run congress far more responsibly than the monkeys running that zoo now. And oh yes, hurt feelings would abound.

All abortions are either murder or irrelevant.

Either no abortions can be allowed in any condition (e.g. rape, except perhaps the life of the mother), or any abortion should be allowed. There is no "None, but well, ok for rape". That is complete logical fail.

If they are allowed, who cares what people do with the parts, and why would anyone care? It is no different than the heart valve I have from a 28 yr old organ donor.

This is an simply an emotional response to a legal reality some people object to.

Ayn would not see this any other way.

When I here people argue for infanticide, I argue back: "Why stop at birth, You should be able to kill them any time you want. (hand-to-hand, no guns or knives and absolutely no subcontracting the job out) When they can run faster then you can, then your window is up. Let's face, you really want to kill them when they are pesky teenagers, but it's why too late for that now. They're really agile and way too quick." /sac/

What are you talking about? I never argued in favor of required vaccination. No idea what the "Uni-Party" is.

I am explaining that: The Roe-vs-Wade SCOTUS decision (supported vociferously by many here to allow abortion limits) eroded a massive edge the Republican's had in the mid-terms. Women actively voted against Republicans in state and federal elections fueled by perceived risk to this freedom.

What are you commenting to?

Merry Christmas to you too Dobrien
One only has to research PP's founder and philosopher Margret Sanger and her Eugenics ideology. It is a deeply disturbing read. Eugenics was exceedingly popular concept among the elite of the late 19th/early 20th century. Then when Hitler glommed onto the bandwagon it had to go underground where it metastasized into what we now recognize as the Great Reset (et. el.). Same goals: depopulation of the undesirables. Then it comes as no surprise at all that the vast majority of state-sponsored infanticide are minority babies.

Then explain the forced jab?
Where did my freedoms go?
The Uni-Party is Democrat Lite.

Man, you could write a 1,000 page novel on that topic. One could map a very close correlation (but not quite causation) with the introduction of the pill and the collapse of societal mores. None-the-less, society was completely and irrevocably altered. In totality, it wasn't for the good. Even the so-called "good parts" forced inflation to adjust prices to accommodate more dollars chasing after fewer goods. Making two-income families work twice as hard to live as a one-income family did 10 years earlier. And now we did it without a mom at home.

End the FED. Go Trump.
Get the US out of the UN, get the UN out of the US
O.T. The fight for the speaker's seat is getting really festive. I agree with the silent majority, Ryan is not the right man for the chair.

Lmao

Ok, back. I'm sure my company will forgive my "stealing" a little time. The $250M Korean contract just awarded, and $1B shipyard contract about to be awarded based on my "producing" will cover such incidentals.

Very clearly the fetus meets all definitions of a parasite. It can not survive on its own, and it is fed from nutrients from the host. The host, on the other hand can easily survive without the fetus. It may not be politically correct, but it is the actual fact.

The idea that the host in this case benefits physically is the most ridiculous grasping at straws. The reverse is most clearly true. I play soccer with a small young woman who has very three boys. Her stomach is ruined from bearing children. She is probably fine with with the trade, being a great mother, but it sure wasn't "beneficial" to her body.

The entire comment above is simply a fabrication from cognitive dissonance.

PP = Evil. IMHO, Objectivism respects life and Rand's mistake on this matter is a misunderstanding of the very beginning of the human life cycle. Pegging it at birth or anywhere along the gestation period is an error, therefore Rand was in error on this topic.

Merry Christmas in return.