I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the refer…
I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the referendum was sufficiently confusing that some people voted no because they thought they were voting against abortion. And that is something I had already suspected.
Politicians name laws with confusing names on purpose. Texas almost always has an amendment on the ballot and I have to read it several times trying to divine what it actually means and most times I am never sure what it means.
The Democrat anti-inflation bill is deliberately misnamed. The name is a lie, The bill exacerbates inflation. Whenever you print too much money and inject it into the economy you get inflation, Eco 101.
Naming amendments or bill with confusing sentences or false names is what the scumbags we elect do.
They have to change the words (English) to shape their narrative eg two negative quarters doesn’t mean there is a recession and yes scumbags they all are
It also provides an enormous gift to the manufacturers of solar and wind power as well as EVs. All of the manufacturers and consumers of these are high income, and subsidies are provided by the taxpayers.
Additionally, it unleashes a staggering number of IRS auditors to go after the middle class.
One of the worst pieces of legislation in decades, and Manchin will forever be tarnished for allowing it to pass. Hopefully the right will make it a focus of their mid term campaigns.
Ectopic pregnancies??? Even the Catholic Church which is arguably the most consistently pro-life organization knows that ectopic pregnancies must be terminated to save the life of the mother. I think you are buying into propaganda from the left. I don't know 1 pro-lifer who doesn't support termination of ectopic pregnancies because the embryo/fetus is already "dead" because it cannot continue and the mother's life would also be lost.
Like I said, I don't know that person so still don't know any pro-lifer who is against ectopic pregnancies. I can't speak about crazy people because that person is crazy or stupid.
To pretend that the pro-life movement is against ectopic pregnancy termination is disingenuous. You can always find crazy people who belong to a particular movement.
You are utterly misinformed up there in Canada, Miles. That is not what is happening here in the US. Currently I'm taking a Catholic bio-ethics course and understood by all that removing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. It's unbecoming and actually quite dangerous to push false information.
(2) an abortion that “was performed or induced or was attempted…on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy.”
Well it makes sense that it would be a felony to perform an abortion on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy because that is not how you take care of an ectopic pregnancy. So as I read the statement with the {....} in between two statement parts, Brian Seitz would be correct.
So how does that work exactly? If it's NOT an abortion as Lynn and I have described to you, then how can pro-life legislators call it something it is not? You are making this up out of whole cloth and it's really incumbent on you to argue facts, not a personal opinion or conjecture.
Sen. Warren Hamilton (R) questioned why the bill should include an exception for ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening condition in which the fetus grows outside the uterus. “I wonder how we square that with the idea of justice for all,” said Hamilton, who also opposed the measure’s exceptions for rape and incest.
So I read the piece in your link and the writer literally quoted one R and one D's question. There is no context, just a question. Could it be that Sen Hamilton is misinformed? 100%. Could it be that he is now fully information? 100%. Politicians in every country are misinformed about a lot of things, which is why, at least here, they have a very, very low approval. Just because this Sen. from this state asked this question, does not mean that ectopic pregnancies are resolved via abortion. You're really trying the thread a needle with a baseball bat.
Whether or not the procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy is an "abortion" per se is ultimately a semantic issue.
The more important question is whether pro-life legislators will pass bans on the removal of ectopic pregnancies, which is a very real risk and has happened before.
An ectopic pregnancy, which my SIL had in between babies number 4 and 5, was handled by her doctor with a surgical procedure that is not an abortion. When it comes to "abortion" the word matters. It's not simply a semantic issue. An ectopic pregnancy will never be cared for via abortion. It's not and never will be a thing.
How many cases of "killing a newborn up to the moment of birth" can you name? A dozen? One? Any? The doctor caught doing that was charged and convicted of murder, and correctly so. I don't know of any other cases where a last-minute abortion was performed for any reason other than medical emergency to woman or child. Women do not carry a baby to term and abort because baby's eyes don't match the furniture. If they carried for that many months, they're committed, and only an emergency would keep them from holding their baby in their arms.
Just because some states allowed for the possibility of last-minute abortion for no reason doesn't mean any woman took them up on the deal. Canada offers that option all nine months---there are no abortion laws in Canada, it's between women and their doctors--and late-term abortions are not done at all except for those medical emergencies.
I believe the "they're murdering babies as they slide through the birth canal!" is pure propaganda.
What difference does it actually make if "no one took them up on it"? It's absolutely HEINOUS to think anyone believes it is ethical, moral, conscionable or palatable to kill a baby at birth or even up to the moment of birth.....and YET that is precisely what ALL of the Ds in the House of Representatives voted for. We have become and absolutely SICK country!
Bullshit. Nobody voted to "kill a baby at birth." How do I know? Because women DO NOT KILL THEIR BABIES AT BIRTH.
Only 1 percent of American abortions occur in the final trimester, and virtually all of those are for medical emergencies to woman or child. Congressional Democrats voted to let women, not you, make abortion decisions, and that's where the right belongs---with the woman, not you, and not with the ban-drunk governors of Oklahoma and South Dakota, among others.
Why do you hate women so much you don't trust them to be responsible with abortion rights? Do you consider them stupid or murderous?
You awkwardly skated past/over my point. The Democrats in the House of Representatives actually did vote for abortion on demand. Had that been able to pass the Senate, certainly there would be a "woman" (a term that had to be defined in the legislation!!) at some point who would demand an abortion at any point in time. Did you see this? https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/vlkine/pregnant_woman_protesting_against_supreme_court/
P.S. Not sure how you gathered that I "hate women so much....". Actually, I love women....as one myself. I especially like the females growing in their mother's wombs. I believe that taking life is wrong, at any stage from conception to natural death. And as a Jew, which you mentioned in another comment, you should too.
"I believe that taking life is wrong, at any stage from conception to natural death."
I don't. I don't believe life begins at conception, so women have the right to make their own decisions about abortion up to viability, which is 20-24 weeks.
I believe victims of rape, incest, and child trafficking should not be locked into giving birth because a stranger thinks the rights of the fetus outweighs the rights of the women forced to bear them. Note: I'm not accusing you of that, because I have no idea where you fall on that belief scale. But there are more than a few politicians claiming that even 10-year-old rape victims should be happy to bear their rapists' babies. I find that revolting.
Adults have every right to kill themselves if they want. I would try my best to persuade them otherwise, and I'd never allow children to legally take that route, but freedom means nothing if you have no freedom over how you live or handle your death.
"As a Jew, you should, too." Hmm. Torah does not consider a fetus a person until he or she takes his or her first breath. That makes me more restrictive on abortion than the all the great rabbis of history.
I hereby take back "hate women so much" because it was too over the top by half and therefore unnecessary. My apologies.
I am very confident and comfortable in my pro-life stance. As you are well aware the Old Testament says a lot of things we would consider abhorrent today....incest to name one. Just because something is not in the Torah, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. God gives us free will and we decide what evil or good will we perpetuate. You're one of many who disagree with me and it still won't change my mind. If we took all of the rape, incest and abuse out of the world, and replaced it with respect, responsibility, morality, and ethics, we'd have very few reasons to even discuss abortion.
I'm not trying to change your mind about abortion or pro-life. I'm reiterating that I don't share your views, and that in America, fortunately, we don't need to agree about it.
Sure, if we had no rape, incest, and abuse, we would have less need for abortion for rape, incest, and abuse. But we do suffer those crimes, tens of thousands of cases a year, and abortion must be available to those victims. Forcing a girl to give birth to her rapist's baby is one of the most immoral things I can imagine. If she wants to carry to term, that's great. But no governor should tell her, "Sorry, kiddo, the state demands you give birth."
But abortion is also the right of a free people. Women make perfectly sensible choices about abortion without the interference of ban-happy legislatures, and until viability, they should be free to choose what works for them. After viability, abortion should be restricted to medical emergencies of woman, child, or both.
You asked why I called Ginny Thomas “nutty.” Here’s why:
--She texted the following to Mark Meadows, chief of staff of the President of the United States: “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”
--She claimed the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag operation designed to push gun control. That was Full Metal Infowars, and we know what just happened to the proprietor of that shop in the libel suits against him.
--She urged Meadows to “release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down.”
--She said she is disgusted with the vice president [for upholding his constitutionals duties on January 6] and she’s listening for instructions on where to “fight with our teams.”
--She urged 29 Arizona legislators to void the state’s legally chosen electors and substitute a slate that would vote to hand the election to Donald Trump.
There’s more, but no sense belaboring the point. These claims would be nutty if uttered by a guy falling off a bar stool in Oklahoma. Ginny Thomas is the spouse of a United States Supreme Court justice, and a heavyweight political activist. She knew full well how damaging her actions would be to Justice Thomas’s credibility and ability to rule on cases related to the 2020 election, January 6, and Trump. She did all that stuff anyway.
Did she have the legal and constitutional right to speak freely? Yes, she did. Did “legal and constitutional” make her any less nutty? No, it did not.
Murder should always be prosecuted. However, I'd have to see the individual "killings of babies at birth" you mention to determine if they are murder or not. The politics of abortion gets in the way of clarity in these cases.
"Not ONE single killing of a perfectly viable 9 month baby is acceptable."
I agree completely. But none of your links provided an example of a woman killing her baby through abortion, which is the topic at hand. They all killed their babies *after birth*, which is out and out murder. In every link, the woman was prosecuted for murder, and rightly so. Putting your newborn in a bag and throwing her out the window, as one did? That's horrible. It's murder. But it's not abortion.
We agree that mothers should not murder their newborns. (Or that anybody should murder anybody of any age.) But that has nothing to do with late-term abortions, virtually all of which are performed for medical emergencies to woman or child. The few late abortions that might have been done for "convenience"--if those unicorns actually exist; I can't find any data on convenience vs. medical emergency--would have easily prevented with a simple change in law to "only for medical emergency of woman and/or child." As Roe suggested, BTW.
As for the poke at me on letting the elderly die because they are "no longer valuable," don't go there. I moved across the country two months ago to help my sisters and mother keep my 93-year-old father alive through his many ailments precisely because his status as a human being, father, and husband, has a mountain of value to us.
I'm not impressed with the choices this author made for her interviews. Democrats? Former Republicans? Unconventional folks who nevertheless consider themselves Christians? And a pastor who feels compelled to remind the author that pro-life people aren't monsters?
The only thing I learned from this article is that the wording of the referendum was sufficiently confusing that some people voted no because they thought they were voting against abortion. And that is something I had already suspected.
Politicians name laws with confusing names on purpose. Texas almost always has an amendment on the ballot and I have to read it several times trying to divine what it actually means and most times I am never sure what it means.
The Democrat anti-inflation bill is deliberately misnamed. The name is a lie, The bill exacerbates inflation. Whenever you print too much money and inject it into the economy you get inflation, Eco 101.
Naming amendments or bill with confusing sentences or false names is what the scumbags we elect do.
They have to change the words (English) to shape their narrative eg two negative quarters doesn’t mean there is a recession and yes scumbags they all are
and a call for new taxes, like that wont inflate? cash rebates, same.
The bills , i expect, but the people, vie the media, i can not accept.
It also provides an enormous gift to the manufacturers of solar and wind power as well as EVs. All of the manufacturers and consumers of these are high income, and subsidies are provided by the taxpayers.
Additionally, it unleashes a staggering number of IRS auditors to go after the middle class.
One of the worst pieces of legislation in decades, and Manchin will forever be tarnished for allowing it to pass. Hopefully the right will make it a focus of their mid term campaigns.
I’m sure they will they would be mad not to
that pro-life people aren't monsters?
Yeah, that line got me too.
The fact that he felt compelled to say that suggests unpleasant things about the vibes the interviewer was giving off.
Because they can always fall back on the big 3 extremism tests that pro-lifers consistently fail (ectopic, rape, incest).
Ectopic pregnancies??? Even the Catholic Church which is arguably the most consistently pro-life organization knows that ectopic pregnancies must be terminated to save the life of the mother. I think you are buying into propaganda from the left. I don't know 1 pro-lifer who doesn't support termination of ectopic pregnancies because the embryo/fetus is already "dead" because it cannot continue and the mother's life would also be lost.
Here's 1 pro-lifer:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/brian-seitz-missouri-abortion-ectopic-pregnancy
Like I said, I don't know that person so still don't know any pro-lifer who is against ectopic pregnancies. I can't speak about crazy people because that person is crazy or stupid.
To pretend that the pro-life movement is against ectopic pregnancy termination is disingenuous. You can always find crazy people who belong to a particular movement.
It's more that when pro life legislators write laws banning abortion, they always manage to "forget" to write in exceptions for rape/incest/ectopics.
So either every piece of pro-life legislation just happens to turn out "extremist", or else that's a fair illustration of the pro-life movement.
You are utterly misinformed up there in Canada, Miles. That is not what is happening here in the US. Currently I'm taking a Catholic bio-ethics course and understood by all that removing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. It's unbecoming and actually quite dangerous to push false information.
This bill is from earlier this year
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/brian-seitz-missouri-abortion-ectopic-pregnancy
So it would seem I'm just utterly informed.
(2) an abortion that “was performed or induced or was attempted…on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy.”
Well it makes sense that it would be a felony to perform an abortion on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy because that is not how you take care of an ectopic pregnancy. So as I read the statement with the {....} in between two statement parts, Brian Seitz would be correct.
It is a sad state of affairs, but people have been whipped into a frenzy. I'm sorry it is tainting your relationship with your daughter :-(
I'm aware; pro-life legislators are not. They always manage to "forget" to write exemptions for ectopics into their bans.
So how does that work exactly? If it's NOT an abortion as Lynn and I have described to you, then how can pro-life legislators call it something it is not? You are making this up out of whole cloth and it's really incumbent on you to argue facts, not a personal opinion or conjecture.
Sen. Warren Hamilton (R) questioned why the bill should include an exception for ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening condition in which the fetus grows outside the uterus. “I wonder how we square that with the idea of justice for all,” said Hamilton, who also opposed the measure’s exceptions for rape and incest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/28/abortion-oklahoma-republicans/
So I read the piece in your link and the writer literally quoted one R and one D's question. There is no context, just a question. Could it be that Sen Hamilton is misinformed? 100%. Could it be that he is now fully information? 100%. Politicians in every country are misinformed about a lot of things, which is why, at least here, they have a very, very low approval. Just because this Sen. from this state asked this question, does not mean that ectopic pregnancies are resolved via abortion. You're really trying the thread a needle with a baseball bat.
Whether or not the procedure to remove an ectopic pregnancy is an "abortion" per se is ultimately a semantic issue.
The more important question is whether pro-life legislators will pass bans on the removal of ectopic pregnancies, which is a very real risk and has happened before.
An ectopic pregnancy, which my SIL had in between babies number 4 and 5, was handled by her doctor with a surgical procedure that is not an abortion. When it comes to "abortion" the word matters. It's not simply a semantic issue. An ectopic pregnancy will never be cared for via abortion. It's not and never will be a thing.
Actually, it is 12 weeks in most European countries.
How many cases of "killing a newborn up to the moment of birth" can you name? A dozen? One? Any? The doctor caught doing that was charged and convicted of murder, and correctly so. I don't know of any other cases where a last-minute abortion was performed for any reason other than medical emergency to woman or child. Women do not carry a baby to term and abort because baby's eyes don't match the furniture. If they carried for that many months, they're committed, and only an emergency would keep them from holding their baby in their arms.
Just because some states allowed for the possibility of last-minute abortion for no reason doesn't mean any woman took them up on the deal. Canada offers that option all nine months---there are no abortion laws in Canada, it's between women and their doctors--and late-term abortions are not done at all except for those medical emergencies.
I believe the "they're murdering babies as they slide through the birth canal!" is pure propaganda.
What difference does it actually make if "no one took them up on it"? It's absolutely HEINOUS to think anyone believes it is ethical, moral, conscionable or palatable to kill a baby at birth or even up to the moment of birth.....and YET that is precisely what ALL of the Ds in the House of Representatives voted for. We have become and absolutely SICK country!
Bullshit. Nobody voted to "kill a baby at birth." How do I know? Because women DO NOT KILL THEIR BABIES AT BIRTH.
Only 1 percent of American abortions occur in the final trimester, and virtually all of those are for medical emergencies to woman or child. Congressional Democrats voted to let women, not you, make abortion decisions, and that's where the right belongs---with the woman, not you, and not with the ban-drunk governors of Oklahoma and South Dakota, among others.
Why do you hate women so much you don't trust them to be responsible with abortion rights? Do you consider them stupid or murderous?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-did-ralph-northam-really-say-about-abortion/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortionist-of-retrieved-late-term-babies-has-admitted-he-would-leave-born-alive-babies-to-die/
https://www.liveaction.org/?s=at+birth+abortions
https://www.usccb.org/news/2022/us-bishops-pro-life-chairman-passage-house-bill-imposing-abortion-demand-nationwide
You awkwardly skated past/over my point. The Democrats in the House of Representatives actually did vote for abortion on demand. Had that been able to pass the Senate, certainly there would be a "woman" (a term that had to be defined in the legislation!!) at some point who would demand an abortion at any point in time. Did you see this? https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/vlkine/pregnant_woman_protesting_against_supreme_court/
P.S. Not sure how you gathered that I "hate women so much....". Actually, I love women....as one myself. I especially like the females growing in their mother's wombs. I believe that taking life is wrong, at any stage from conception to natural death. And as a Jew, which you mentioned in another comment, you should too.
"I believe that taking life is wrong, at any stage from conception to natural death."
I don't. I don't believe life begins at conception, so women have the right to make their own decisions about abortion up to viability, which is 20-24 weeks.
I believe victims of rape, incest, and child trafficking should not be locked into giving birth because a stranger thinks the rights of the fetus outweighs the rights of the women forced to bear them. Note: I'm not accusing you of that, because I have no idea where you fall on that belief scale. But there are more than a few politicians claiming that even 10-year-old rape victims should be happy to bear their rapists' babies. I find that revolting.
Adults have every right to kill themselves if they want. I would try my best to persuade them otherwise, and I'd never allow children to legally take that route, but freedom means nothing if you have no freedom over how you live or handle your death.
"As a Jew, you should, too." Hmm. Torah does not consider a fetus a person until he or she takes his or her first breath. That makes me more restrictive on abortion than the all the great rabbis of history.
I hereby take back "hate women so much" because it was too over the top by half and therefore unnecessary. My apologies.
I am very confident and comfortable in my pro-life stance. As you are well aware the Old Testament says a lot of things we would consider abhorrent today....incest to name one. Just because something is not in the Torah, doesn't mean it shouldn't be. God gives us free will and we decide what evil or good will we perpetuate. You're one of many who disagree with me and it still won't change my mind. If we took all of the rape, incest and abuse out of the world, and replaced it with respect, responsibility, morality, and ethics, we'd have very few reasons to even discuss abortion.
You still haven't told me why Ginny is "nutty".
I'm not trying to change your mind about abortion or pro-life. I'm reiterating that I don't share your views, and that in America, fortunately, we don't need to agree about it.
Sure, if we had no rape, incest, and abuse, we would have less need for abortion for rape, incest, and abuse. But we do suffer those crimes, tens of thousands of cases a year, and abortion must be available to those victims. Forcing a girl to give birth to her rapist's baby is one of the most immoral things I can imagine. If she wants to carry to term, that's great. But no governor should tell her, "Sorry, kiddo, the state demands you give birth."
But abortion is also the right of a free people. Women make perfectly sensible choices about abortion without the interference of ban-happy legislatures, and until viability, they should be free to choose what works for them. After viability, abortion should be restricted to medical emergencies of woman, child, or both.
You asked why I called Ginny Thomas “nutty.” Here’s why:
--She texted the following to Mark Meadows, chief of staff of the President of the United States: “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”
--She claimed the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag operation designed to push gun control. That was Full Metal Infowars, and we know what just happened to the proprietor of that shop in the libel suits against him.
--She urged Meadows to “release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down.”
--She said she is disgusted with the vice president [for upholding his constitutionals duties on January 6] and she’s listening for instructions on where to “fight with our teams.”
--She urged 29 Arizona legislators to void the state’s legally chosen electors and substitute a slate that would vote to hand the election to Donald Trump.
There’s more, but no sense belaboring the point. These claims would be nutty if uttered by a guy falling off a bar stool in Oklahoma. Ginny Thomas is the spouse of a United States Supreme Court justice, and a heavyweight political activist. She knew full well how damaging her actions would be to Justice Thomas’s credibility and ability to rule on cases related to the 2020 election, January 6, and Trump. She did all that stuff anyway.
Did she have the legal and constitutional right to speak freely? Yes, she did. Did “legal and constitutional” make her any less nutty? No, it did not.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/25/nation/read-texts-virginia-thomas-reportedly-sent-mark-meadows/
https://www.newsweek.com/ginni-thomas-texts-mark-meadows-explained-1691740
There have been MANY incidents of women killing their babies at birth. Most people on the Left feel that these women should not be prosecuted.
Murder should always be prosecuted. However, I'd have to see the individual "killings of babies at birth" you mention to determine if they are murder or not. The politics of abortion gets in the way of clarity in these cases.
Here are just a few examples:
https://wtop.com/howard-county/2022/07/howard-co-woman-sentenced-to-30-years-in-prison-for-killing-newborn-baby/
https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/teen-mother-charged-murder-baby/73-ef766f8f-dbde-468c-a5da-e3f8c666a056
https://www.kron4.com/news/lodi-homeless-woman-accused-in-death-of-newborn-baby/
https://nypost.com/2022/05/23/kentucky-woman-amber-bowling-admits-to-murdering-her-newborn-in-2018/
https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/local/teen-mom-throws-infant-son-out-5th-floor-window-in-the-bronx
https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/middlesex/news/nj-mom-19-asked-friends-what-to-do-with-shoeboxed-newborn-shes-accused-of-killing-report/835871/
https://www.record-courier.com/story/news/2022/06/21/woman-gets-10-year-setence-newborn-baby-death-hiram-college-dorm-breyona-reddick-portage-county-ohio/7687275001/
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/05/09/authorities-developments-babies-found-dead-mississippi-river
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/17/update-police-charge-west-melbourne-mother-murder-two-newborns/526850002/
https://krdo.com/news/2022/05/12/the-woman-accused-of-killing-her-newborn-baby-and-burying-the-child-in-the-ground-pleaded-not-guilty-to-murder-charges-wednesday-morning/
https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Danbury-woman-who-killed-infant-to-be-released-9207448.php
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/woman-charged-with-manslaughter-after-newborn-found-dead-in-garbage-bin-winnipeg-police-1.5937912
https://www.ketk.com/news/crime-public-safety/woman-accused-of-killing-newborn-found-dead-in-trash-can-after-claiming-she-had-miscarried/
https://kvia.com/news/crime/2021/11/11/el-paso-teen-charged-with-stabbing-newborn-to-death-minutes-after-birth-is-released-from-jail-in-plea-deal/
The Chicago Tribune says that there are *at least* 150-300 cases per year of women murdering their newborns. Probably more, since there are no reporting standards. Also, many cases go undiscovered for years, sometimes decades. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/ct-sta-ui-neonaticide-st-0424-20160422-story.html
Thank you these links. I'll read with interest, I appreciate your taking the time.
Again, how many babies were killed at birth? Or do you not know?
"Not ONE single killing of a perfectly viable 9 month baby is acceptable."
I agree completely. But none of your links provided an example of a woman killing her baby through abortion, which is the topic at hand. They all killed their babies *after birth*, which is out and out murder. In every link, the woman was prosecuted for murder, and rightly so. Putting your newborn in a bag and throwing her out the window, as one did? That's horrible. It's murder. But it's not abortion.
We agree that mothers should not murder their newborns. (Or that anybody should murder anybody of any age.) But that has nothing to do with late-term abortions, virtually all of which are performed for medical emergencies to woman or child. The few late abortions that might have been done for "convenience"--if those unicorns actually exist; I can't find any data on convenience vs. medical emergency--would have easily prevented with a simple change in law to "only for medical emergency of woman and/or child." As Roe suggested, BTW.
As for the poke at me on letting the elderly die because they are "no longer valuable," don't go there. I moved across the country two months ago to help my sisters and mother keep my 93-year-old father alive through his many ailments precisely because his status as a human being, father, and husband, has a mountain of value to us.