There is no "someone" to be aware of anything.

I don't think you can ever be comforted by anything when aborting a fetus.

People should watch the video (there are many available when you do a search on the web) about the development of the fetus inside the uterus.

It is a miracle of nature as the new life progresses through several stages of development.

To put an end to it is very disturbing to say the least.

So if you do the abortion before 8 weeks, you are at least comforted by knowing you are injuring/killing someone who will never be aware of it.

So, in my non-medical-professional opinion, I would set 20 weeks as the upper limit beyond which abortion should be no longer allowed. 20 weeks should be plenty long enough to allow Mommy to decide if she wants to keep it or kill it.

"A fetus is a potential human being". OK, good opinion, says who? And why does
the "potential" condition qualify him for exclusion? I think that the problem is, so far, no one has come up with an adequate unambiguous definition of Human Being.

Man's rights pertains to human beings. A fetus is a potential human being. To be person you must first be born; you must be a biologically independent entity. A fetus necessarily exists in a biologically parasitic state in an extreme limited environment. It is not a person and does not and cannot function as a person in the womb.

There is nothing in the article "Man's Rights" about fetuses or anything about the source and nature of rights that a fetus qualifies for. You saw nothing about the concept of rights depending on "registering pain". All kinds of sub-human animals feel pain; it does not give them rights.

Rights are a moral concept based on the nature of the human person, not anything to which the word 'human' is attached, such as 'human cells'. They are not handed out for whatever someone decides is "immediately due rights" without regard to the nature and source of rights -- the facts that give rise to the concept -- and why human beings have them.

Third trimester fetuses are not "kids"; "viability", i.e., the potential to be born, does not make the concept 'rights' applicable; and we do not have rights because we can "register pain".

Did you decide to ascribe 'rights' to fetuses before or after you read about the nature and source of rights in the article "Man's Rights"?

"The fetus is known to have pain receptors throughout the body by 8 weeks of gestation. By 20 weeks gestational age, the fetus will react to a painful stimulus in the same manner that adults do."

I did. "There is only one fundamental right ... a man's right to his own life." This currently applies only to Homo Sapiens humans. At exactly what point can a fetus be classified as a human? At that point he is immediately due his rights, even though he doesn't know it. I'm not entirely against about abortion, but I think we should be sensible about it. New York's recent decision to abort third-trimester kids that could in many cases survive is beyond the pale. I personally think the cutoff should be between conception and at whatever point the nervous system is developed enough to register pain.

He is. He's making a nuisance out of himself for publicity. That's the example he wants. Maybe someone could suggest to him how he could get more publicity -- all in accordance with what he says he wants for himself.

I think he should lead by example.

The Virginia bill was about abortion, not about allowing infanticide, i.e., "after birth", which is a redundancy.

The criterion is birth not "just minutes". That is not "splitting hairs". When you die it's significant to the undead corpse, too, not just a matter of some minutes.

"It" is legislation for both states about third trimester abortions, not allowing killing babies at all.

Maybe a magistrate could fill in that gap in his education by politely suggesting the easier volunteer approach of knocking himself off.

But we are missing the point. He wanted the law suit to harass others for the sake of promoting his cause to eliminate all of us.

Pretty sure EV is correct about the NY law, Up to but not after birth. The VA one did allow for murder or infanticide after birth but as you said, it was voted down. My original comment was pretty much tongue in cheek but some here rejoice in splitting hairs even though it might be just minutes that decide if a full term baby lives or dies.

It did not pass in VA.

It passed in NY.

OK, I will correct my false statement which actually was Virginia if it passes. In NY you can only kill the baby "Immediately Before Birth". Just a minor technicality!

What, without government intervention? How could we possibly?

NY law does not allow "killing a baby immediately after birth". Please stop spreading the false rumors.

Who needs a magistrate? The alleged victim can settle this himself voluntarily.

A fetus is not "temporarily disabled". It has not yet become "enabled" as a human being. A woman's body is not a "shared apartment", a fetus has no "rights", and there can be no "rights" contradicting each other.

"Therefore[?] has all the rights of a disabled person" is yet another bizarre non sequitur from those who do not understand the nature and source of rights and who treat the concept 'rights' as a floating abstraction. See Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights".

Incorrect. A fetus is temporarily disabled with regard to communications. and therefore has all the rights of a disabled person. If you want him/her to consent or dissent, there will be a habituation period of 12-18 years before they are deemed capable of making and expressing a rational decision. Sorry, but after conception the mother's body is a shared commodity, like a shared apartment, in which both occupants have rights.

I remember the series of "sting"videos. That woman has eyes that reveal an entity without a soul

Looking to hire a candidate . Especially a “whisperer” who hears the fetus say
abort me and sell my parts and limbs for the top dollar and then ignores the fetuses request for a percentage of the deal.
https://youtu.be/6LPlHjP1DVw

What were his parents supposed to do..."ask the gleam" in his fathers eye?