How dare these politicians distract and divide us by waging war on these cultural issues that have been decided decades ago...after all, 68% of Americans are opposed to this extreme abortion position, so why must these issues be used to divide us and kowtow to the radicals? Focus on the economy, stupid. 

Oops, never mind ....this is Democratic Governor Cuomo of New York,  trying for the moonbat home run: abortion through the ninth month, performed by non -physicians, paid for by taxpayers...In this case, he is a hero in the media. (Especially CNN, where his brother is a correspondent and his former top aide now edits CNN news stories....)

During his state-of-the-state address last month, NY Governor Andrew Cuomo unveiled his abortion-expansion agenda with repeated choruses of “Choice!” His supposed gift to women, the Reproductive Health Act, will allow non-physicians to perform abortions — including late-term abortions — and entail some additional narrowing of religion-liberty protections. But the governor has wrapped those measures up in a bill with the kind of initiatives politicians are loath to oppose, such as measures against housing discrimination and guaranteeing “pay equity.”

Cuomo tilts crazy left, trying to be even more radical than Obama or Hillary...

Progressives get a mulligan for raising divisive 'social issues'....Conservatives do so, and it is a War on Women...

 

Don't like abortion?  Don't have one.  End of so called distraction.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Then why is Gov Cuomo, who cant have an abortion either,  'distracting' us by pushing an unpopular position to allow later term abortions?

Here are some other "distractions".. are these issue none of the taxpayers' business?

If I dont like abortion, do I have to pay for some elses?

Is it a distraction to ask if taxpayer funded abortion should be freely available through the 9th month of pregnancy?

Is it a distraction to ask if a later term abortion can legally be made based on the sex of the fetus?

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Don't like having guns? Don't buy one.

The law only allows late-term abortions if the fetus is non-viable or the health of the mother is at risk.  It's meant to bring current NY law in line with federal law, and 7 out of 10 New Yorkers support the legislation.

But thanks for protecting us against the politics of distraction.

In response to bald-predictions' comment:

Ouch

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

 

Almost ten thousand people per year are killed by other peoples' fetuses.

 

 

Ouch?

 

...lol...   

You're the one with the black and white paint, and you used for abortion, which is just plain dumb.

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

What is just plain dumb is comparing abortions to guns.

 

Or the 2nd and 14th.

Uh huh.

If abortion were as simple as you need it to be, why bother with all this legislation and Supreme Court jive?

 

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Abortion is simple.  What is not simple is the moral justification of the left.  They have been brow-beating orndinary americans into this extreme position for decades, and STILL, at least half the country does not approve of it.

Republican Governor Mitch Daniels famously said a few years ago there should be a "truce" in the social issues while the serious economic issues are addressed by the country.

Makes sense, except the Left never got the memo, and will never ends its battle for abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers.

One side can call a truce, but it takes both sides to implement.

In response to bald-predictions' comment:

Other people's guns can kill me.  See the difference?  Probably not...

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Your comment is downright bizarre.  There has been a huge legislative assault on abortion rights led by conservatives.  83 laws were passed in 2011 and 69 in 2012!  Truce?  Not at all. Instead you focus on one state's action to stem this flow.  Do you lack intelligence or are just plain lying?

Greg, as you know, the Supreme Court set the boundaries of the right at viability, with exceptions if the pregnancy might kill the mother.

Abortion would be "simple," if its opponents stopped trying to raise every roadblock they can manage to pass in their state. As long as people are fighting the availability of abortions, there is going to be "jive" because people who support the right are going to fight back.

That's the general direction where Reuben was going, I wager, though he can certainly correct me.

And according to Username, what Cuomo wants to do conforms to the decision: "The law only allows late-term abortions if the fetus is non-viable or the health of the mother is at risk.  It's meant to bring current NY law in line with federal law, and 7 out of 10 New Yorkers support the legislation."

 

 

But this all started out with equating guns/abortion and the controversies around each...

...so why do I think it's such a silly comparison?

If one assumes that a human being has come into existence at the time of conception, rather than a single cell that has the potential to grow into a viable baby, then maybe the "if you don't want a gun, don't get one" remark works. Then maybe they're comparable on the notion that in each instance, people are out campaigning to fight a right that results in deaths.

If not, they look completely different. Because removing a fetus isn't killing a person, and fetuses aren't used to kill 10,000 people a year in this country. Guns are.

Another difference, of course, is that most gun laws aren't designed with the intent of stopping people from owning guns.

Arguably a small minority like the one struck in Heller, might look that way. If you can't use a gun in self-defense because each part has to be locked on a different floor, well, that's obviously a law designed to discourage ownership.

But most of the laws on the table now are geared towards the sort of things responsible gun owners generally approve of: Background checks, etc., things to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. Not to discourage ownership.

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Guns can kill, abortions do kill... see that difference?

That being said the abortion debate is a lost social cause and even if outlawed it would just create a dangerous prohibition industry like before Roe v Wade which would injure and kill the mothers as well as terminiate the unborn.

If the GOP wants to get back to its small government, free enterprise message which does  play well, then they need to step away from the lost social causes.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Wait until they see my 15 kilton fetus-launcher.

This post has been removed.

In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

Only if one assumes the fetus has been equivalent to a human being from the moment of conception.

I do not see that removing a half-inch long collection of cells is "killing" anything.

I'm a lot less comfortable about the notion close to the point of viability. After all, if the thing isn't truly a viable baby yet, it often looks very much like one. But I respect the decision.

Roe said "we're not philosophers (or Gods) so how can we say when the line between zygote and individual human being is crossed. Well I am - or was - a philosopher and I daresay nobody can ever determine that.

In fact, if you seriously studied the existing texts on "personal identity" you would be extremely hard pressed to sit down and write something convincing us that a 6 month old is truly a person.

("Personal identity" in philosophy is not about quests for self discovery.....      it's a study of what it is to be an individual object, an individual person, in light of the fact that every last thing about us - what we like of to think of as a single existing entity - changes constantly. How is it that "I" am still "an I", more importantly, the same "I").

It is definitely an it. It crawls, laughs, cries, and dirties itself. But does it even know that it is an it yet? Does it know that it is a particularly "it", the same it that existed the day before and will exist the next day?

It's conscious but not self-conscious. The latter would seem to be one prerequisite to being a full human being.

 

 

But I digress. "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one" works.

People fighting abortion think they're fighting "killing" but they aren't.

Until someone kills me with a fetus, it's not a clear gotcha line to "if you don't want a gun, don't get one"

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

My snark answer was for Reuben who just dismisses any interest in the ethics of life question surrounding terminiation of a pregnancy; which I accept as law.

Pink's retort with 55 million abortions since 1973 shocked me as a very high number until I checked a few facts.

 

•  In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).

·         In 2008, 12 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC).

·         The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).

·         In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions(CDC).

 

My moral dilemma with abortion increases pretty quickly from implantation to the 13 week.  I never really thought that much about it until I became a grandfather after I was invited in to see the sonogram when the gender of the child was determined.  My daughter had sent us weekly images of generic fetal development from her sixth week on and it is amazing to watch the changes.  Static photos aren't the same as was life visable with the sonogram; a fetus with a beating heart in the womb responding to external prodding.

 

But most of the laws on the table now are geared towards the sort of things responsible gun owners generally approve of: Background checks, etc., things to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands. Not to discourage ownership.

--------------------------------------------

And I am fine with that.

Just as most dems were fine with the PBA ban.

Its just not "if you don't like them, don't have one"

This post has been removed.

I agree with you on McClurkin.  Thats just dumb.

However, 36 states and the fed consider the murder of a pregnant woman double homicide, and the injury of a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the pregnancy, murder, or MAN slaughter.  Passed the senate 61-38 with a bunch of dem Yay's, including the current Senate majority leader.

Kinda sounds like a person dontcha think.  Can you murder something that isn't one?

"legislation that would impose restrictions on abortion clinics"

What liberals consider "restrictions" on abortion clinics are basic fundamental requirements that abortion be performed by physicians, in licensed clinics...

The reason the Alabama legislator erroneously said that fetuses were an "organ", was to emphasize that abortion is serious and potentially dangerous surgery....and it is....

The bill by Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, would add a number of new rules, including a requirement that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital in the same metropolitan area as the clinic where they perform abortions. Supporters of the bill say that’s important because women need that continuity of care if they have complications..

Liberals support Nanny State rules and regulations to license hair salons and nail clipping, making sure those sharp cuticles dont hurt us...but for major surgery like an abortion, they consider any reasonable regulation a "restriction" ...Funny, that.

In the past liberals decried 'back alley' abortions, now they claim any law preventing an abortion in a back alley is a "restriction"...

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

No.

However.....

 

 

 

Two things:

1. For there to be an apparent contradiction, we would need to find out on a state-by-state basis whether the viability or non-viability of the fetus is taken into account by law, or perhaps through exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Have any of the states prosecuted such a killing as a double murder where the fetus was only four weeks old?

2. There would not be a contradiction if the reasoning was something other than "fetuses are people." For example, the legislature may have decided to make it a matter of state policy to treat the fetus as if it were viable because the mother, by not aborting the pregnancy, showed an intent to bring it to term - at least at the time of the killing.

Or perhaps the state thought to punish a crime against a pregnant woman more severely as a matter of deterrence.