It's spelled Abortion Pole.

He means Moloch / Molech.  False god of the Ammonites.  Worshipers basically sacrificed their children by cooking them alive on a brazen altar.

Some of the Podesta emails, IIRC had Hillary and him joking about sacrificing to Moloch again.

Read your Bibles, people.

ETA: They'd place their baby in the hands of Molech.  Under the idols hand was a fire.  It's essentially like cooking your child alive in a giant frying pan.  There are reasons God commanded the Hebrews to destroy the Canaanites.  

Please accurately define "post birth abortion". If you're asking if I support EVER taking a living person's life for any reason, then the answer is yes. If you're asking something more defined, then you suck at asking the question.

A lot of you looking to be outraged really fail.

Attached File

You know exactly what I'm asking. It's an abortion poll, not a "do you support killing anyone ever for any reason" poll.

There are actually people here who believe it's OK to "abort" a baby that has already been born. I asked the question the way that I did for a reason.

If this offends you then that's your problem. That's the reality of the evil that we're dealing with here.

This.

We are at that point now and if you don't support it you are a RACIST!

Stated on every MSM channel last night.

I didn't, and assumed it was a joke thread.

The only time I've ever seen anything about post birth abortion was when someone was humorously referring to an adult.

Last time I waded into this subject here, I got the pro-abortion guy to straight-up admit that he supported post-birth abortion. It wasn't even that difficult, because that's where the logic ultimately leads. And that wasn't the first time I'd seen it here.

If you're OK with it 5 minutes before birth, then why not 5 minutes after? As long as you're pretending that it's not a human being, you can go either way on that pretty easily.

In reality, there are a few types who will answer "yes" to this question. First, obviously there are trolls. I don't count that.

Second are the racists who are simply OK with seeing black babies killed. Those people are definitely here, and there are a lot of them. To me, they are just as nauseating as the Leftists. Thomas Sowell was a black baby once.

Third are the die-hard pro-abortion people who are typically (but not always) the activist types. Remember the VA bill that then-Gov. Northam supported? Yes, it's real, and yes, there are really people out there who support it.

I'd guess that the actual number here is probably between 7-10%. There are a lot of trolls and jokers here, too.

Sorry my failure to understand your poorly worded question triggered you.  If I knew exactly what you were asking I wouldn't have wasted the time asking for clarification.

To answer your question, no, I do not/would not support "post birth abortion". To state my position clearly, I'm not "pro-abortion". I am pro-choice, but I think abortions should be limited to the first and second trimester.

NOW, please provide your evidence of anyone who DOES support "post birth abortion".

Truly and genuinely don't care. It was common and normal for people to sell their wives and children to pay off debt for most of history and children were largely viewed as property. Especially if its disable or fucked up and unable to ever be self sustaining, I can't imagine it hitting my radar of things to care about. With 8 billion people on the planet, and the population increasing by almost 200K people a day, why would you care?

Sounds to me like you're the one who got triggered from the poll. My question was pretty straightforward, and you know exactly what it was asking. I'd argue that the 75% or so who answered "no" clearly understood it, as did some part of the rest who answered "yes" as a joke or for trolling purposes, so you'd be among the tiny minority who couldn;t understand what it was asking if that were the case. It wasn't the question that you were expecting when you clicked; you were expecting a generic "do you support abortion?" question, maybe with options like "no, never" and "yes, but only in limited cases", or some such nonsense. Well, I just skipped to the end with this question, that's all.

As for evidence, I guess that you haven't heard of bills like Virginia's 2019 Bill HB 2491?

Are you not aware that support for third-trimester abortions is a fairly common position among the Left now? For example, New York's Reproductive Health Act, which allows abortion up to birth. They tried to pass a similar bill in the US Senate earlier this year. And as I said, if you're OK with it 5 minutes before birth, it's not a large leap to approve of it 5 minutes after. It's the next logical step.

As for further evidence, I suppose I could point to this very poll? I understand that a large portion of the "yes" votes are people trolling the poll. But not all of them are. There are quite a few people here who've expressed support for abortion as a means to reduce black or "Democrat" populations (as if babies have a political persuasion). At least a few Leftists also support it, although most of them have enough sense not to say that out loud.

I'm guessing that you're pro-abortion? This poll was meant to trigger pro-abortion people, which it appears to have done.

double tap

Not at all. Just wanted to know exactly what you were asking.



Did YOU read the info at the link? At no point does it refer to abortions after the baby has passed out of the mother's body (post birth). It does advocate the allowance of abortions up to that point, but your question was about babies that had already been born, wasn't it? You're being intentionally dishonest.



I'm aware. I don't support the allowance of abortions after the 2nd trimester.



I don't know if it's the next logical step or not. Sounds more like your opinion.



You can stop guessing. For one thing, you're bad at it. I'm pro choice, not pro abortion; there's a difference. To be specific, I'm pro-choice up to the start of the 3rd trimester. Beyond that, I believe abortions shouldn't be alowed.

Not pro-abortion, not triggered.

You knew what I was asking. Don't be obtuse.





It's a Wikipedia article. If you know anything about them, you'll understand that they are likely being dishonest. But I guess that you actually hadn't heard of the bill before? Not surprising.

There was a big kerfluffle in the news over this at the time, as both Tran (the bill's sponsor) and Northam admitted that the bill would have allowed the mother and healthcare professionals to abort the baby *after* it had been delivered. Don't believe me, listen to the bill's sponsor here:





Why not? If you're going to kill the baby, why does it really matter when you decide to do it?



Of course it is. What's the difference between killing it 5 minutes before and 5 minutes after?



I'm bad at it? I was right, you are pro-abortion.

Why don't you support third trimester abortions? Let's hear it.

LMAO, ok Chief.




You posted a link to an article saying it supports your position. Now you're going to call the article bullshit because I pointed out that it doesn't support your position? That's dishonest (but you know that).



No, I wasn't aware of the bill. I appreciate your calling my attention to it. I do not support the bill.




I watched the entire 6:41 video twice. At no point did I hear any mention of abortion being allowed after delivery (post birth). If you disagree, please provide the point in the video that supports your position.





Because I don't consider it "killing a baby" prior to the 3rd trimester, which is when the cerebrum divides into the individual lobes. This is when the fetus becomes a conscious being and things like feeling, memory, and thinking start to develop.





The difference is "pre birth" vs "post birth", but that's not the issue here. The issue is that you are saying there is support for "post birth" abortions, yet you fail to provide any actual evidence of that.





Again, no. I am pro choice. I would much rather that abortions didn't happen, but I feel it should be a woman's choice (until the 3rd trimester).



See above.

I'll respond when I get home from work, it's a PITA to do point by point on the phone. I'll @ you when I do, as I'm sure you won't want to miss it.

Yeah this forum isn't very mobile-device friendly. And you're right about me not wanting to miss it. If you have evidence of anyone actively supporting "post birth" abortion, I'd like to see it. In my opinion, that would be murder.

@Sarge1400



and



I'll do these together, since they're both concerning the same bill. Here's a difference source with quotes from the linked video, since Wikipedia is garbage:

Gilbert: So how late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?

Train: Or physical health.

Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about mental health.

Tran: I mean, through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.

Gilbert: So to the end of the third trimester?

Tran: Yes. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.

Gilbert: So where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she was so certified? She’s dilating?

Tran: Mr. Chairman, you know, that would be a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman would make.

Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.

Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.

Think about that for a second. A birthing person (because of course men can have babies now, too ) can be in labor - in the act of giving birth - and these people want to allow her to abort the baby. How did you not notice this when watching the video?

I suppose you didn't catch then Governor Blackface Northam's comments on the bill? Listen here:



Listen to that, and then think about what he just said. AFTER the baby is delivered, the baby could be resuscitated if that's what the mother wants, and then a discussion can be had about what to do next. Discussion about what? What do you think that he's talking about discussing? He caught a LOT of shit for this, and deservedly so.

But you want more evidence that there are people who want post-birth abortion... Here you go:

California Bill Would Allow Killing Babies in Infanticide Up to 28 Days After Birth

California policymakers who make up the “Future of Abortion Council” just dropped a bombshell. They intend to not only codify the killing of unborn children throughout all nine months of pregnancy but to decriminalize killing newborns days or even weeks after birth.

New language added to AB 2223 last week revealed the disturbing intent. The proposed legislation would shield a mother from civil and criminal charges for any “actions or omissions” related to her pregnancy, “including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.” Although definitions of “perinatal death” vary, all of them include the demise of newborns seven days or more after birth.

The bill from Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks additionally protects anyone who “aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising” these rights. It also allows a woman to sue any police department or legal authority which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing her child under provisions of the bill.

“For years, pro-life advocates have argued there is no moral difference between ending a child’s life days before birth or days after birth. California’s pro-abortion legislators now seemingly agree,” said Jonathan Keller, President of California Family Council. “A political culture that justifies killing millions of children in the womb is now declaring open season on unwanted newborns. Every Californian must oppose this heinous bill.”

Governor Newsom formed the “Future of Abortion Council” last year in an effort to turn California into a “sanctuary state” for the procedure. Organizers listed AB 2223 as part of their legislation package implementing a 45-point plan to “expand and protect access” to abortion in California.

Full article at the link...

More:

Maryland Bill Effectively Decriminalizes Neglecting Newborns to Death

(go and read it, it's exactly what it sounds like)

And as for further evidence... I'll remind you again that you're posting in a thread asking people whether they support post-birth abortions, and roughly 1/5 are saying "yes" so far. So yes, there are people out there who support it. I've presented you with three separate instances in three different states where they've tried to codify it into law.



Now that's somewhat interesting. Most pro-abortion people who aren't quite ready to go all the way to birth try and justify it on viability grounds, which is pretty dumb since that's a moving target and the age of viability is always going down. But you're essentially saying that as long as it's not a conscious being, it's OK to kill it.

Let's explore an analogy to break down the logic here. We'll look at a coma patient, since that's about as close as you'll get - a living human being but not conscious. The question is: at what point are you justified in cutting off life support for the comatose person?

Using the same logic that you appear to be using to justify killing the non-conscious baby, your argument would essentially be that because the coma patient is not conscious and would not have any thoughts/feelz/accessible memories/etc., the family member - let's say the patient's mother - would be justified in pulling the plug.

But there's an obvious problem with the analogy here: while the comatose patient may never regain consciousness, we know that the baby will soon become conscious. Considering that, a more apt analogy would be a comatose patient who is *temporarily* comatose but is expected to regain consciousness.

So using that example, let's ask the question again, something along these lines: if you have a patient who is currently comatose but is expected to regain consciousness within the next 6 months with a roughly 95% certainty according to the doctors, when would you be justified in pulling the plug on that patient?

Never, of course. NEVER. There's not a state in this country where that would be justified or legal. There's not a doctor in this country who would allow you to do that.

But it's OK to do with a baby? You know that if that fetus is allowed to develop, that it *will* become fully conscious at some point. You're talking about ending the life of a human being simply because they are not currently conscious, and yet you know for a fact that they will become conscious if you do not end their life.

You don't see a problem with this logic? I do. Maybe think it through a bit more, eh? There's no going back once you pull that plug or start severing the fetus's appendages to be suctioned out and thrown into the trash with yesterday's rotting sandwich later on (or sold for fetal research if you're at PP).



Well the main issue is the fact that you're willing to end an innocent human being's life simply because that person's survival would be inconvenient to the birthing person currently carrying them, but I'd say that in this particular discussion "pre birth" vs "post birth" is definitely an issue.

I'd like for you to explain to me precisely what has changed about the human being whose life you'd end during that 10 minute span of time that we're discussing - 5 minutes pre-birth, and 5 minutes post-birth. Was the baby not viable 5 minutes before coming out? Did it lack the consciousness that you require in order to spare it from violent dismemberment? What is it that differentiates these to states in regards to the health status of the individual whose life you'd end?

I'm genuinely curious. And this is relevant because my argument here is that for people who believe that abortion up to birth is OK - as is currently a mainstream opinion among Democrats and Leftists - what's the moral or logical argument for *not* going past birth?

For such people, I don't think that there is one.



"Pro choice"... to do what? What choice are we talking about here? What are we talking about choosing to do or not to do here? Are we talking about choosing what shoes to wear with the pink dress on Thursday? Which grocery store to buy your apples at? What choice are we talking about here?

We are talking about choosing whether or not to end the life of the human being in an early stage of development who is currently residing in the birthing person's belly. That is the only choice that we are talking about here. The choice is whether or not to have an abortion. Nothing you say, no matter how you try and justify it to yourself so that you can sleep at night, will change that. THAT is the only choice that we are talking about here.

You are pro-abortion. No matter what you tell yourself to soften the blow, you support a birthing person's choice to abort her baby.

Stop trying to hide behind words. Be honest about it. The masks are coming off now. Own it if you really believe it.

I’ve never met anyone who believes that.  You might want to reconsider who you hang out with.

You do realize the people who voted yes in the poll are either messing with you or defining it as ventilating a bad guy in self defense?

I once told a liberal that school shootings are just post-birth abortions, so there's nothing wrong with them.

Holy shit, they lost their mind.

Oof, that's a lot. I'll get back to it later, will @ you when I do.

I'm curious...who's the oldest member of Congress and what trimester would that be?

OP leads with calling people child sacrificers, expects reasonable and honest discourse.

"This one's for the Followers of Morloch".

WTF is a Morloch?  Is it an enemy of the X Men?

BAN abortion threads in GD put this shit in the religion forum.

@fisterkev



But at no point was it said that abortion was to be allowed after delivery, "post birth" in other words. Your assertion is that the bill advocates for "post birth" abortions. The video does not support that assertion.





I would point out that several people already admitted to not fully understanding your question. I had the same issue, asked for clarification, and was repeatedly told that I knew exactly what you meant. Clearly I did not, and clearly some others had the same issue.  I would suggest another poll, this time being succinct in what you're wanting to know, and not just assuming everyone has their secret decoder ring handy.




I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself (I'll leave that to you). I have no argument or opinion based on viability. In a nutshell, yes, I feel that terminating a pregnancy prior to the third trimester should be a woman's choice.





Not a great analogy, but let's go with it. You word things in a way that try to get me to admit to things on your terms, not unlike a prosecutor asking a defendant why he murdered the victim, when the defendant's position is that he killed an attacker in self-defense.

Also, your phrase "if you have a patient who is currently comatose but is expected to regain consciousness within the next 6 months with a roughly 95% certainty" is in direct contradiction to when you said "which is pretty dumb since that's a moving target". You seem to be only concerned with moving targets if you think it supports your position.

Anyways, I my position on termination of life-support is irrelevent since I have no argument or opinion on abortion based on viability.



You don't know any of that. Can you foretell the future with 100% accuracy?



I have yet to see any evidence supporting your assertion of advocacy of "post birth" abortion. I'm keeping an open mind though, see my last sentence in this post.



I would say nothing changed in that 10 minute span. Then again, I am opposed to abortions part the 2nd trimester.



I can't speak for anyone who may hold such a position.




Nailed that one, good job!



Read that slowly. You say I'm pro-abortion (I'm not), then you say I'm pro-choice (I am). Your debate tactics need some improvement.



I'm not hiding behind anything, I've been pretty open and honest about my opinions on the matter. I've stated my position on abortion several times. You continue to insist that my position is something other than what I've said. I don't advocate for abortion; if I was female, I wouldn't have one (save for a few common sense exceptions). But, I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one. I hate yellow cars, but I don't care if someone else wants one. It doesn't affect me at all.



I will address Northam et al in another post, I want to have enough time to look at what you posted and digest it. Might be a while (hectic day), but I'll @ you when I do.

I see you're not able to put 2 and 2 together here? The bill's author indicated that there are no limits in the bill, and when asked whether the bill would allow an abortion to take place during labor, she reluctantly answered that yes, the bill would allow that. I want you to actually think about that. The baby is in the process of being born, and it's OK to abort it. THINK, man. I know it's hard, but try. Try harder.

Couple that with Northam's comments, and it's fairly obvious to any thinking person what the intent is.



And I will point out - again - that the large majority of people here understood fully well what I was asking. You very clearly understand the concept of "post-birth abortion", or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am starting to wonder if this is all simply a reading comprehension issue, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are able to understand what you read.



I know that you're not arguing on the basis of viability. I said as much, and my analogy was based entirely upon your argument that consciousness was the deciding factor. I made that very clear in my response to you.



I already know that you're not going to admit anything. This debate isn't for your benefit, it's for everyone else's. I'm not trying to convince you of anything or trying to win you over - you're already a lost cause. I am simply putting the logic on display for everyone else to see. That is all.

As for the analogy, it's about as good as we can get. In both cases we're talking about a human being who is not currently conscious. And in both cases we're talking about pulling the plug. I am pointing out that your logic only holds if one were to assume that consciousness will not be regained, and that in the case of abortion this is clearly not the case.



So, this is the part where you've got me wondering about reading comprehension again. Either that, or you're simply trying to dodge.

The analogy was based entirely upon your consciousness argument; viability is not at all relevant in this analogy. Your argument is that it's OK to kill the baby because it is not conscious. I am pointing out that the baby will very shortly become conscious, and in a similar position with a coma patient one would not be justified in pulling the plug. Viability doesn't enter that argument at any point.

Stay focused and argue the analogy on the basis of your own consciousness argument. You can't. Therefore you dodge.



Uh... so now your argument is that the baby is not likely to become conscious?  

Look, I put it at 95% likelihood, which frankly was being very generous to the possibility that something happens with the pregnancy and the baby does not become conscious. Without searching for the data, it's likely higher than that.

Is your argument now that it's OK to kill the baby on the off chance that there's a problem with the pregnancy and the baby will be born a vegetable? Are you really gonna go with that?



Did you not click the links that I provided you as evidence? One was on the California law regarding the perinatal death amendment, which would allow post-birth abortions. The other was on the Maryland bill (thankfully defeated) that would have allowed the parent and doctors to simply deny care to a newborn and allow it to die. And of course, the VA bill. And again... you're posting in a thread on post-birth abortions in which around 20% of respondents indicated support. Allowing for the likelihood that a large number of those respondents are trolling, the number still is not zero.

I present you evidence. You ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there. This is where that whole "not actually for your benefit" thing comes in...



Of course nothing has changed in that span. But you again seem to not understand the significance of this point.

If one will allow it up to birth (or even during birth as in the VA bill's case), then why not allow it 5 minutes after birth - as in the CA or MD bills' cases? This is where the logic goes.



But you are. You're telling me that no such people exist, I'm telling you that they do. I'm presenting you evidence of that fact, you're ignoring it.

My real point is that because the logic ultimately leads to allowing post-birth abortion, it's not materially different than your own logic (flawed as it is) allowing it through the second trimester.

Trust me, any argument that you make will be of no consequence to the baby whose life is snuffed out. It's dead either way.



You are both pro choice AND pro abortion. You support the "right" to choose to abort a baby. That was the entire point.

Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you're able to comprehend what I'm writing. That leaves a couple of possibilities - deception and self-delusion. Personally, I believe that it's the latter.



You are hiding behind words. You refuse to admit that you are pro-abortion, when that is obviously the case. Whether you find it distasteful is irrelevant; you still support a birthing person's "right" to choose to abort a baby. The key there is not the act of choosing, it is the act itself.

To demonstrate this, here's a question for you. Which is the more serious crime: choosing to commit murder, or committing a murder? Obviously, actually committing a murder is the more serious crime. When we talk about murder, we do not focus on the choice to carry out the deed (although of course that matters in court), we focus on the deed itself. It's silly and frankly misleading to focus on the choice instead of the act. And we don't hate the murderer for his choice nearly so much as we hate him for his act. You know why that is, and I shouldn't have to explain it to you.

I said earlier that I believe that this is a matter of self-deception. This is an emotional topic and is obviously going to stir up some very negative thoughts if you spend too much time thinking about it - especially if you're on the "kill the baby" side of it. It's going to cause a lot of cognitive dissonance. And when that happens, we have a strong tendency to do what we must to avoid the negative consequences of it. We will delude ourselves in whatever way necessary to justify our positions to ourselves, and to allow ourselves to function normally and sleep at night.

I'm under no delusion myself that you'll give this the serious thought that I wish you would. I'd assume you'll simply continue doing what you're doing. But I want everyone else to see where the logic ultimately leads. That is all.

So only religious people object to the killing of babies?  What does that say about atheists?

I would support all forms of abortion if 'IT' was related to George Soros, or any one of the Marxist Terrorists in the Democratic Party.

Or, you could be an adult and not click on it.

More regulation in GD for little reason is not the way to go.

Just stop. Your assertion is that the bill allows for "post birth" abortion, yet you are completely incapable of providing evidence that supports your assertion. Put up or shut up, your argument is tiresome.





Did they though? Read through the first page again. Your question was ill-defined and poorly worded, your insistence that it is a comprehension problem says more about you than about anyone else. Your intellectual dishonesty is disheartening, if not unexpected.





I spent the better part of an hour breaking down the above and typing responses. But in the end, I realize the futility of engaging in a debate with an opponent who is so entrenched in his position that his reasonability has left the building. You make assertions you can't support, you attempt to mis-state my stated position, and you refuse to stick to the basic points of the debate. Your so busy shrieking about "killing babies" while sticking your fingers in your ears that you can't hear what anyone else is saying.

I will watch the videos you mentioned, but I've already stated numerous times that I don't support allowing abortions after the 2nd trimester. Take care.

I support post-birth abortion starting at 700weeks.  Pole is confusing, since I think abortion from 12-700 weeks should be illegal.

I realize that you're not actually thinking about (or researching) anything that I'm posting here, and at this point we're going around in circles. But I'll point out again that the author of the bill in question stated that the bill itself did not have any limitations and would allow for abortions to take place during labor. I keep pointing that out for a reason: if you're at a logical point in your policymaking that you'll allow it during labor, and - as you've admitted - there's no difference in the baby's status before and after that labor - then is there any material difference between doing it at either point? No, there isn't.

And you pointedly ignored Governor Blackface's comments, which accidentally gave that game away. Your refusal to comment on it is telling.



Yes, they did. Again - for the third or fourth time - nearly everyone else understood it. All of those who voted "no" clearly understood it. It's a safe assumption that most of those who voted "yes" also understood it, whether they were trolling the poll or being honest in their response. You did, too, but you're too dishonest to admit it.



Lol... Do you really hear a shrieking voice in your head when you read my responses? Sorry to say it, but I think that says more about you than it does me.

I am most definitely entrenched in my thinking, and I'll tell you why. It's actually very simple: I have given this topic *a lot* of thought over the years. I have a very good understanding of what I think, and I know why I think it. I've considered whether my beliefs on it are internally consistent, and I'm satisfied that they are. I've gone over the logic again and again.

Until 2009, I was like many people and didn't particularly care about it too strongly. It just wasn't something that I thought about. And then I got to spend the better part of a year in a NICU, and then a CVICU, and eventually a PICU, where I finally ended up holding my infant son in my arms as he died. I lived in a Ronald McDonald House at night and spent my days at the hospital for most of that year. Along the way, I was surrounded by babies in various states of distress, almost all serious. I saw a lot of premies. I saw babies who you'd have killed in the womb, but who survived with extra attention from the docs and nurses, and who were lavished with care and love by their parents. I also saw babies whose parents were never there, which was frankly heartbreaking. And I saw a good number of babies die during that year. It was a frequent occurrence, especially in the NICU. There are few things as terrifying in this world as watching your kid - or even someone else's - code, having a swarm of docs and nurses push you out of the way, and helplessly watch as they may or may not save your kid from a random death. My wife thinks that I got PTSD from the experience, but I'd recently returned from Iraq too, so who knows.

And all during that experience, I sat there and thought about what I was seeing. And it's very difficult to walk away from something like that and not see the value of all of those precious, completely innocent human lives. I don't give a fuck what color they are, I don't give a fuck what their parents are like, every single one of them represents a potential for the future that is hard to describe, but easy to understand once you get it.

Yes, I am entrenched. And I know deep in my soul that I am right, that killing a baby simply because that baby's existence is inconvenient to an amoral woman that the child was unfortunate enough to have as a mother is not only the most selfish act imaginable, but is frankly evil. Sixty three million people have been killed since Roe v Wade was ruled on. Sixty three million Americans have been killed. This is a FAR greater crime against humanity than slavery ever was. We've probably murdered more Americans than Mao did Chinese during the Cultural Revolution. We killed more than Stalin or Hitler ever dreamed of.

You may hear this in a shrieking voice, who knows. But I assure you that I am calm, and that I've thought this through very carefully. No, my mind won't be changed on it, for the simple reason that I know that I am right. When you're on the side of "hey, let's not kill babies" and the other side isn't, that's usually gonna be the case.


The trimester that you choose to kill the baby in is irrelevant. The baby is still dead at the end of it, so if you're looking for some sort of "hey, well at least he's not a 3rd trimester guy" from me, you're not going to get it. You certainly won't get it from the baby, that's for sure.