Some states protect women's rights

Why on earth would I defend this? I hope sanity prevails and his claim is denied.

So you found a real one, I only found a staged one.

Fortunately my eyes are bad so it's hard to see clearly, but I saw enough of it. It's real.

I believe the point is not that an abortion has yet been performed at birth but that the law now specifically accepts it and it's been discussed as acceptable. In any case the procedure is used within the last few weeks when the baby is perfectly viable.

I do expect you all to have SOME knowledge of recent news so that every little detail doesn't have to be evidenced but of course I'm wrong to expect that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

True I'd have to go look it up and it's not worth it. You can stay ignorant.

I finally found a few references to the laws I was talking about.I know y'all don't think there's any censorship on Google but I certainly do. It's almost impossible to find a conservative viewpoint even on subjects where they used to show up at the top of a Google page. Finding the kind of information I had in mind took some work, but Wikipedia does have information on the law in New York and the bill in Virginia though it's pretty short shrift in my opinion.So I was referring to a law recently passed in New York for one, and a bill that I guess didn't pass in Virginia, expanding abortion rights through the third trimester if necessary according to medical standards.This is the one passed in New York City (From Wikipedia): "At any time."Here's an the Virginia bill has provoked a swift backlash from conservatives. But that response was compounded by comments Northam made on WTOP radio Wednesday when asked about the bill.
"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," Northam said. "And it's done in cases where there amy 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. So I think this was really blown out of proportion."

Why do I oppose late term abortion? Something about feeling sik to my stomach at the thought of killing a fully formed baby.No, of course I'm not for the woman to carry a dead child, what a ridiculous idea. And I've always said a threat to the mother's life always has highest pririoty. However that situation is extremely rare.I think the post (Message 216) about the UK's report on actual 39, 38, 37 week abortions and the schizophrenia toward disabled babies is particularly interesting.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What I said in Message 204 is ...the point is not that an abortion has yet been performed at birth but that the law now specifically accepts it....But although we are not the UK I do think it's interesting that they actually have a record of such abortions being performedEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is insane. The idea that you need to kill a baby at that stage for the health of the mother? That is beyond insane. The baby is viable and if its presence is a threat then delivering it either normally or with a C section can't possibly harm the mother. Good grief.Who's trying to inflame passions? I just respond to what I hear. You can stop with the smear campaign any time now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Let me just say that today's "ethics" are not what they used to be.

Oh really. One example I'd agree with doesn't make your case.

I only h a y t e evll.Interesting how you can use those words but I can't.There wouldn't be any civil rights at all, any generally peaceful civilized life, any sense of shared community, any trust between people, any of the good things you take for granted in America, without Christianity, but you think we oppose all that. How utterly perverse.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Odd that I haven't said anything like that then.

Same sex marriage violates God's law but how have I been "raving" against it? I just keep having to say over and over again that it is being used to try to force Christians to disobey God. Where's the "raving?" And marriage isn't people, it's an institution so you are out of bounds to claim I'm raving against people.