Well I'm certainly not concerned about it. It's ridiculous. It's murder. And I can't imagine a judge in the land who would not see that as such. But sure, be afraid.
Nope. I shared with you earlier that language is being amended as to avoid an interpretation to permit it.
In other words there have been no legally done abortions of viable healthy fetuses at seven months or later. Thank you
why? So you can split some moronic hairs? Fleeing a baby in the womb and slaying a baby out of the womb is still slaying a baby.
So you understand that it's immoral to slay a baby in the womb at 7 months? At least we're getting somewhere.
I never claimed it was moral for fictitious viable healthy fetuses to be aborted at 7 months or later. You must have me confused with someone else. Happy to clear that up for you At least we’re getting somewhere.
You're not even talking about the topic you can't clear anything up for me if you have no idea what you're talking about.
And what about the victim? Most underage girls are at very much increased risk of dying in childbirth. Before 13 it approaches certainty, but most incest victims are just that age. What about any victim of rape of any age. Rita Moreno tells how her agent raped her so he could use pregnancy to keep her in a bad contract after she became successful in West Side Story. Was that moral? A zygote before the 4th month is a literally a spoonful of meiotic cells, why should that have more rights than the mother?
So currently there are no legal abortions of viable healthy fetuses at 7 months or later being done. Cool. Glad I could clear that up for all those trying to claim otherwise.
I'll take "What did Ralph Northram say about post birth abortion" for $1000 Alex “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he continued. “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.”
You missed the first part of his statement… “And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable,” Northam said. “So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he went on. “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.”
I didn't miss anything actually, as that was a separate question. If it wasn't viable, it wouldn't have been born or wouldn't be able to be resuscitated. He didn't suggest they should even try if the mother didn't want them to. Also, killing a baby with deformities isn't a defense either, since that's not lawful either.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Abortion Will Eventually Lead To Infanticide Naw, I bet infanticide came before women learned how to abort a fetus , about 10,000 years ago. I bet humans killed babies long before they learned about abortion. Safe, legal abortions could only lead to LESS born babies dying... Where did you imagine someone said that ??? They reveal so much when they have to make stuff up ....
Great. Explain how a non-viable child has already been born and may or may not need resuscitated and why or why not they would not try to do so unless the mother wanted them to? Take a shot at it.
I think this is outrageous and persecutory. I worship Baal and Baal demands human sacrifice. Since I have complete legal custody over the child I have free will to circumcise or even sacrifice said child to Baal. Anyone who disrupts my religious practices of genital mutilation or human sacrifice needs to take a look at the 1st amendment and stop being a bigot.
