Father And Son Shown Killing Hibernating Mother Bear and Her Two Cubs

Video footage of an Alaskan father and son poaching and killing a hibernating mother bear and her two cubs last April has been released to the public for the first time.

The video below shows a disgusting crime by an Alaskan father and son who killed a hibernating mother bear and her two cubs in their den on Esther Island on Prince William Sound. Last April, Andrew and Owen Renner were captured on tape as they killed the sleeping bears. Andrew, 41, and Owen, 18, are heard shooting the mother first in their den at the base of a tree as the cubs are heard crying out before they then killed by the two poachers.

This crime was caught by a camera that is part of a wildlife study. Otherwise, it is doubtful that these two would have been held accountable. Indeed, they pose with their kills and can be heard saying “They’ll never be able to link it to us, I don’t think.” They later returned to remove the bodies of the cubs and evidence such as their shell casings.

Though the father and son thought they would escape legal punishment for the heist, their actions were coincidentally caught on camera
“They’ll never be able to link it to us, I don’t think,” Owen agreed, before posing for a photo with their catch.

Andrew received three months in jail while Owen received 30 days of suspended time for the offense. They were also hit with a fine of $1,800 each and the father also owes an additional $9,000 fine, according to the Anchorage Daily News. While most of us would view that as ridiculously too low of a sentence, it is actually on the high end for such wildlife violations in Alaska and other states. Indeed, the most important aspect of this story is that, while illegal in this area, it is not illegal in other areas of Alaska to kill a mother bear and her cubs.

Note also that the father was convicted of eight counts on the killing and transportation offenses as well as the falsifying of the sealing certificate. However, he will be able to get a hunting license again in 10 years and his son will be able to get a hunting license in just two years.

This is a relatively rare prosecution and should highlight the need for tougher criminal penalties and a ban on killing hibernating animals and mothers with young cubs at a minimum.


138 thoughts on “Father And Son Shown Killing Hibernating Mother Bear and Her Two Cubs”

  1. Is there such thing as the death penalty, in Alaska, for these two dangerous predators? The Human animal is the worse predator on the planet. It kills, just to kill, to see how it feels, take down their prey for pure sport (can it be called sport if they shoot them while they sleep?). While the other listed predators kill to protect (why they shot momma first) or to kill for food (here’s what sets them apart from Humans who do the same) and when they are done feasting they leave the carcass behind for the other animals down the food chain. These two mutts are of NO use to perpetuating the Human race~~~I say BEGONE with thee~~banishment into the wilderness of Alaska.

    1. Hard, while I agree with you that the poachers were heinous, humans are not the worst predators on the planet. Many predators eat their animals alive – lions, tigers, wolves. Even when a lioness is strangling a wildebeest by the throat, the pride of lionesses fall to while the animal is still struggling. I remember a human survivor of a lion attack describing being eaten alive.

      Even housecats love to play with small animals and birds. They will wait a good, long time until they either get bored and eat it, or it just expires from shock or pain.

      While there are psychopaths among us, we are also the only species ever to exist, to my knowledge, that tries to save not only the immediate environment, but the entire Earth. We often care for other species. We help wild animals heal from injuries. We name large predators protected species. We try to reintroduce predators to where we hunted them out. We look at the sky and feel wonder. We appreciate beauty, music, kindness, philanthropy…There is bad, but there is also good, on a far greater scale than ever experienced before.

      A wild animal will consume all resources, until it starves. The elk does not fret that stripping bark from trees will destroy a habitat.

      Have faith in humanity, especially when we do something awful that makes you feel discouraged.

    2. Well. Their motivation probably is either exclusively or primarily economic. The furs probably have a significant economic value, and the meat may have some value as well. Which makes the behavior no less offensive.
      “I say BEGONE with thee~~banishment into the wilderness of Alaska.” What? Force them to stay some where they probably like and where they will be close to a lot of potential victims?

  2. “Take all you want. Eat all you take.”

    – Anonymous

    Professor Turley, it might be a good idea for you to stay some distance from the slaughter house that renders your Filet Mignon and Rack of Lamb.

    1. Slaughter houses are grotesque but they don’t first kill the mothers as the babies writhe in horror and agony before being killed themselves. The sheer quantity of animals killed in slaughterhouses is horrifying as is the effect it has on the workers, but they intentionally try to avoid having the feed witness the next being killed since stress is bad for the meat, and once again that is for the purpose of wasting.
      These animals were living wild and free and awoke to a nightmare, as these two barbarians took their time to celebrate killing them. Part of me wishes papa bear was lurking around a corner to surprise them before they got far inside.

      That being said you’re right, slaughterhouses do need to be made more humane. If not for the animals, then at least for the mental well being of the people working there. We’re breeding psychologically tortured criminals. Truly one of the jobs that should be replaced by automation if there ever was one. The alternative is creating record numbers of ptsd riddled murderers in our midsts (think if you have to kill thousands of chickens a night, hundreds of pigs including youth that come up to comfort you before you have to decapitate or bash them what will that do to your mind?). 3d printed tofu and vegan/vegetarian options extending as far as soul food are exciting.

      1. How far behind the times are you. That was done especially in the Chicago area eons ago. Complete with inspectors. But the thrill is watching hot dogs and seeing what goes into them.

        Then too the standards for different grades of meat were changed a few decades ago. What was Prime and Choice became Prime. What Was Choice became Number 1 good and so on. Of course that was beef. Chicken who knows after Tyson’s finished buying into the pay for play of the first Clintons. Did you think they got all those meat and egg contracts to all military installations by saying
        “Pretty Pleasel”

        As for the Jack in The Crack situation with uncooked meats the State inspectors started showing up punctually one or two hours after start of work day, Disappeared during lunch, Some more in the afternoon and never showed up after that although it was a day and evening long operation. Having worked their I wouldn’t eat anything they put on the counter. Cleaned up only when the inspectors were due in. The rest much the same except Arby’s.d

        Comments about Washington State but I didn’t see much difference in the rest of the West

    2. So you see nothing wrong with destroying a family? What about keeping the supply of Bears to hunt for those who do it during season? You must be in favor of extinction of all Bears, right? Oh the cattle that are raised for the PURPOSE of providing food is, as they say “Comparing Apples to Bananas (CNN’s Fav comparison, you a watcher of CNN?) Are you the guy they have to keep running off, who’s always hanging around the slaughterhouse? Is it a Freudian thing?

  3. Dang poachers.

    It is important to have laws that protect nursing mother animals and their dependent offspring. There are even fishing laws to protect fish stocks. To kill young cubs is just a useless waste. I know bear meat is popular in Alaska, but such poaching is irresponsible.

    There are some who would object to shooting a sleeping animal. This is not a duel. There is no point in deliberately frightening an animal, and it’s not a contest of strength. Shooting an animal for food with one clean shot while sleeping seems like a kind way to go. Certainly kinder than how virtually 100% of wild animals go. Many people hope to pass away in their sleep. However, shooting young animals is just a waste.

    I only know hunters who hunt for food. Their families eat what they provide. Poaching wastes food, wastes resources, and if anyone doesn’t eat what food animal they kill then it is a terrible waste.

  4. Shoot the bear killers and then go after the offspring of the bear killers.

  5. Wow! Big strong testicle men, one of whom is shirtless, killing a hibernating mother bear and her cubs with their big-boy big strong phallic symbol guns. They brag that they don’t F around, and that they go where they want and kill S____. But, like the cowards they are, they think no one can link this crime to them. They are also stupid.

    What to do? First of all, testicles removed. Publicly. By a female. No anesthetic. No stitches. No antiseptic. No sutures. No after-care. The surgeon need not be a physician. Afterwards, they remain handcuffed and placed in cells I’ll volunteer to perform the procedure. Let’s see whether their howls of pain mimic those of the bear cubs. It won’t really be justice because they deserve to be maimed, and they won’t be killed like the innocent animals they abused. Let’s see just how strong and powerful these testicle men really are. They must stay handcuffed in the cells until what’s left of their manhood heals.

    1. Oh for God’s sake, Anonymous. You are talking about mutilating human beings.

      That isn’t even the sentence for rape or murder or pedophilia.

      There is a vast sea of difference between objecting to poaching, especially the killing of baby animals, and justifying such a sadistic fantasy.

      It is this sick fertile ground from which “the Constantine kids go screaming, MAGA hat first, into the wood chipper” sprang. It is an attempt to justify evil.

      1. The Bible says, essentially, that if your foot or your eye causes you to sin, remove it because it is better to go through life maimed than to spend eternity in hell. These losers were on a testicular high. What they did wasn’t hunting. It was unnecessary brutality directed against helpless animals just trying to survive, fueled by male ego. Their ‘nads need to go. Symbolically, a female should do it.

        Nevertheless, like the disciple you are, you had to bring the supporters of poor little Trumpy Bear into this discussion, as if there is some sort of equivalency. Trump is seriously mentally ill, a chronic, habitual liar and racist– not to mention a malignant narcissist who brags about getting away with assaulting women. He files false tax returns. He hands out top security clearances like some sort of prize to family members who aren’t qualified and takes away clearances from people who are qualified because they don’t support him. The sources and methods of our intelligence agencies are at risk. He fired an AG for being ethical and replaced him with one who predetermined the outcome of his criminal investigation. He insulted a Gold Star family and a war hero who fought in the war he faked a disability to avoid. He praised White Supremacists who murdered a protester. We taxpayers have a fortune of our tax money spent on travel and security for this pathetic loser to hold rallies just to support his fragile ego, where he lies and attacks anyone who disagrees with him. Most Americans, and most people on Earth for that matter, find him and everything about him repulsive, including MAGA hats. American WAS great before he cheated his way into the White House. His disciples wear MAGA hats just to incite trouble, and when they obtain the desired reaction, dumbasses like you feel vindicated for supporting him because “the libs, Dems, and the MSM” and everyone else Hannity tells you are evil are somehow curtailing your freedoms. Trump, and everything he stands for–misogyny, racism, narcissism, chronic lying-ARE evil. You are the one trying to justify evil.

        1. Anonymous, first, in no way did I justify killing little baby bear cubs or their nursing mother. Second, what you are describing is deeply disturbing.

        2. Just in case some people are not aware of the kind of trash being spewed by Linda Sarsour and the Womens March, here is the most recent email from them. (Then go back and re-read “Anonymous’s” comments above and you might have an idea of the impact on actual human beings this kind of rhetoric is having:

          *From Linda Sarsour and the Womens March —–>

          Friend —

          This past Thursday night, Trump rallied in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and said that in 2020, women will re-elect him. He’s banking on us to win, and we can’t let that happen. We may never know the truth, but we have every reason to believe that Trump stole the 2016 Presidential Election. He stole the Supreme Court seat that Brett Kavanaugh occupies. He is trying to steal your health care. And on Tax Day, April 15, he’s going to steal money from all our pockets and give it to his rich friends while most Americans struggle to pay our bills.

          We cannot let Trump take anything more from us. Click here to stop him.
          I didn’t elect Trump. You didn’t either. Women’s March is the main anti-Trump mobilizing force. How do we know? Because they treat us like the enemy. They have attacked us from all sides, and tried to stop each record-breaking march and action we have planned. You started the opposition movement to Trump’s cruelty when you marched in 2017, and we need you to finish it.

          Trump won’t stop us if you don’t let him. Donate $20.20 today to make our movement strong enough to oust a fascist from the Oval Office.
          The truth is, right now, we aren’t winning. But together, we can turn the tide. To do that, we have to bring everything we have to this fight. I’m in. Are you with me?

          In community,

          1. I see nothing blatantly false in the post by the courageous women.

            to “Merica was better when women knew their place” t-hott bobbie

            1. Mark M — says Linda Sarsour is right on…and so courageous….so then why don’t they include and welcome ALL women? Ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz why she distanced herself….Jews are not really welcome…nor are conservative or pro-life women….nope….just those women who align with “their” political agenda….that is NOT a WOMENS March…is it Mark? it’s a sham. It’s a lie.

              He stole the election! He stole a Supreme Court seat! He’s trying to steal our healthcare! He’s stealing money from our pockets and giving it to his rich friends!

              “We cannot let Trump TAKE ANYTHING MORE FROM US. Click here to stop him!”

              Last I checked, Trump’s been all about JOBS JOBS JOBS… trying his best to help get people back to work and off food stamps. Helping set people up for economic independence….and helping get people out of prison and back to work…that’s his focus….

              and here’s another point Marky….you know how on airplanes they instruct you to put your oxygen mask on first before you assist your child? That’s Trump’s approach….that’s the essence of America First….take care of our country first AND then….we are in a stronger position to serve others. And he asks each country to do the same…

              Oh and Marky, most ‘women’ do know their place. They are women. And here’s a newsflash: women are not men. As someone once said, “leave your balls at the office, ladies.” 😉

          1. Mark M — what kind of mark does it leave after you slap a woman on her behind (just as you would one of the guys) and you say “well done!” ?? 😉

      2. “Oh, you know how it is when you’re married, you have these cute little names for eachother.” -Becker
        “So what’s your name for her?” -Reggie
        “Castrating bitch from hell.” -Becker
        I believe that Natachpsycho was mentioned in a “Becker”episode.

    2. Wow! is right. How long have you been president of the Man Hating Female Chauvinist Pigs Club? You were a nurse practitioner I think you said elsewhere on this blog? God help any human being who had the unfortunate circumstance of ever being under your “care”…

      1. The standard operating procedure is to remove the right testicle for the first offense and the left testicle for the second offense. This is know as deterrence.

        Now, had either or both of the gentlemen at issue had anal sex with a Male bear in Brunei . . . wait a second . . . (bears in Brunei?) . . . Are Red Pandas really bears?

  6. Were they in violation of Alaskan law?

    Most Alaskans along with what we commonly used to call real Oregonians and others from places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Colorado etc until driven out of their home States by illegals from California would check that little detail first before interfering with what we call ‘Clean your own house first,’

    The rest of or part of the rest of the story\

    “In reality, some of those practices were already prohibited to sport hunters under Alaska law, and some, including hunting coyotes in their dens and killing hibernating bears and cubs, were restricted to subsistence hunters (and permitted to qualified subsistence hunters even under federal regulations).

    The deeper issue all along was state vs. federal control of wildlife management. Despite support from scientific, environmental, and animal welfare advocacy groups, the federal restrictions were considered intrusive and unwarranted by many Alaskans. The state filed a lawsuit in January 2017 contending that the rules amounted to federal overreach, harming the ecosystem and citizens of Alaska. With the support of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Safari Club International, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced H.J. Res. 69 in February 2017 to redress what he termed a “wrongful seizure of authority”

    Subsistence Hunters is another name for native Americans or Indigenes to be more accurate and a few others

    As stated these were poachers. They committed more than one crime before, during, and after the changes.

    Now let’s exam a similar situation in Washington DC, NYC, San Francisco and others from heavy duty left wing voting districts.

    Well….. not sure if that’s applicable.. they are too busy interfering with other states and making illegal deals instead of legal laws and treaties.

    Reaching back to my younger days though I can recall dozens of incidents involving city hunters, drunkeness, illegal weapons, violation of limits, trespass, destruction of private and public property including fencing, theft of personal property and livestock even fruits and vegetables

    I believe the Pinnochio population needs to visit a surgeon for some form of preventive surgery starting with ‘wrongful seizure of authority.’

  7. Put the father and son in a nice cozy cabin, wait till they are asleep and open the doors and let a couple of angry mean ass bears in, and lock the door. What should really happen is for a judge to make sure their hunting privileges are taken away for life. And jail time, then send the bears in.

    1. So what did happen? Too much trouble to look it up?

      The only page one google with the information was from Fox. The incident was some years ago and only recently released through the offices of the Humane Society.

      Andrew was ultimately sentenced to three months in jail, while Owen received 30 days of suspended time for the offense. Each was ordered to pay $1,800 in restitution, with the elder Renner owing an additional $9,000 fine, the Anchorage Daily News reported at the time.

      The elder Renner was convicted of eight counts related to the illegal killing and transporting of the bears, and the falsifying of the sealing certificate. His hunting license has been revoked for 10 years, while his son’s license has been suspended for two years, as per the Daily News.

      Tota’ time needed to fine the information 4.8 seconds but then their is the couch potato aspect to consider.

  8. While I am pro-animal, pro-conservation, pro-choice hunting and consume or donate what I shoot, this is illegal and disgusting.

    But I wonder if others who are expressing disapproval of these actions would have the same sentiment regarding the killing of an 8 month old fetus or a newborn shortly after delivery?


      1. @anon

        Not in NY State. Post birth infanticide will be a next new, frontier in civil rights law. And of course, it will only be applicable for injured or severely deformed infants (at first).

        Theoretically, abortion can be regulated along the trimester formula per Roe v. Wade but realistically speaking a woman can obtain an abortion for almost any reason up until birth (and afterwards, in the near to be future). Do YOU oppose the NY law? Bet you don’t. And calling me a slur is not an answer.

        And Anon, you didn’t answer my other question. Does the fact the so many here want to severely punish these 2 individuals (even with the death penalty), mean they are pro-life? Bet it doesn’t. I am still amazed at how people can care more about an animal (one who can maul humans in the right circumstances) than about human life. On second thought, nothing surprises me about leftist hypocrisy.


        1. Antonio I am also amazed at how often those who so predictably cry foul and misogynistically deny women the right of choice regarding their own bodies (despite not having aclue to need or other elements involved…) so frequently deny any recourse to economic crimes and are so miserly when it comes to things like healthcare and education? Apparently it is ok to be cruel,tortuous and to impose horrid living conditions and impossible social conditions on people but the blame is always thrown outward onto others, regardless of circumstance, regardless of their own failings. The mirror is decidedly dark….apparently for ‘good’ reason?

          1. Antonio I am also amazed at how often those who so predictably cry foul and misogynistically deny women the right of choice regarding their own bodies (despite not having aclue to need or other elements involved…)

            I see no one in Becka’s social circle ever tells her to cut the sh!t, so she utters nonsense quite unselfconsciously.

            1. @ This is absurd x 3 says:

              Silly Dude, you see NO one in my social circle and it is well out of your reach 😛

          2. Becka – people who are against abortion consider it a form of infanticide. You are not allowed to kill your baby. They consider it a baby while it’s inside the mother, and it is not, actually, part of her body. It is a completely separate person. Wanting to protect a helpless infant has nothing to do with misogyny, which is why so many women are pro-life. Dismissing arguments as misogynistic is a refusal to discuss the concerns sympathetically.

            Most pro-choice people believe there should be a limit on abortion. For instance, you remark down below that, for you, at the 8th month of gestation onward, it is murder. At some point, you appear to believe it is no longer the woman’s right to choose, and it no longer involves just her own body. Did you suddenly become a misogynist? Do you engage in a war on women beginning in the 8th month? Or does it seem obvious to you that at that point the fetus should be protected and given a chance?

            The common ground is that Pro-Life also believe that, but earlier in gestation. There is actually not really a yin and yang Pro Life and Pro Choice. There is an entire range, from people who would not support the morning after pill, to those who, like in NY, would support killing a viable, healthy, full term baby in the very act of being born, or deny him care afterward were he to serve the initial attempt.

            There is more common ground than some would believe.


            1. It is not legal to kill a viable healthy baby in NY or anywhere in America.

              1. Anon – withholding emergency medical treatment, as one would give to any other infant, is negligent homicide. Even if they do not sever the spinal chord or crush the living skull with a clamp, they still cause death through neglecting medical care.

                Any infant, for example, would die of exposure if left in the chilly OR and not given sustenance, warmth, or have the umbilical chord tended to.

                It’s on tape, Anon. The infant would be made comfortable while the doctor had a discussion with the mother about what she wanted to do. How do you make an infant comfortable after you just tried to kill him 5 minutes ago and injured him in some awful way? And every Democrat is on record opposing a bill that would require such medical care. One would think that the bill would be a no-brained that would unite everyone, but, no, it’s a war on women.

                You cannot get around this, and this issue makes me so sick to my stomach. Words cannot express my distress at the depravity, or my absolute and total shock at Democrats going on record supporting NY, and condemning a bill to care for newborns.

                Your repeating your statement does not address any of my points. A new mother who never told anyone about her pregnancy would get arrested if she left her newborn out in the snow to die. Now, an unwanted child could be denied medical care after birth, apparently, because the Democrats refused to support a bill that would require such care.

                I guess Dr Gosnell, the mass murderer, might want to appeal his case.

                1. The discussion is about a non-viable fetus. Perhaps you would want to torture one born with half a brain and no chance of long term survival or anything approaching a human life and if it’s yours that is apparently your right. Stay out of other peoples struggle with these nightmares.

                  You have the understanding of a 10 year old on what causes these situations and the empathy of a cotton mouth.

                  1. Even with half a brain, I’m smart enough to ask for where your evidence is that this is about non-viable fetuses? I have specifically been discussing healthy, viable fetuses. Where is your evidence that only non viable fetuses get aborted late term? Down Syndrome children, for example, are viable, but preferentially terminated, and often late term.

                    You actually have no idea what percentage of women get late term abortions due to fetal abnormalities, viable or not, because no one does. For example, Downs Syndrome is a genetic abnormality, but viable. The information is not tracked.

                    “A Congressional Research Service report published in April 2018 quoted Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the study above and a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health as saying “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”

                    “Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated.”

                    There have been a few polls, but there is no database.

                    “In a paper published in 2013 by Foster and Katrina Kimport on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.

                    Foster and Kimport described five “profiles” of women in the study: “They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and [experiencing their first pregnancy].”

                    Note, none of the above have anything to do with unviable fetuses. In addition, abortion providers do not explain to mothers that they will go through labor and delivery, and therefore are gaining nothing by doing a late term abortion on a viable fetus instead of simply surrendering the infant to an adoption agency.

                    What percentage of Dr Gosnell’s patients with late term abortions had non-viable fetuses? Why would you assume that women would only do this to an unviable fetus? If it is only OK to do to non viable fetuses, then why was that not stipulated in the NY law? Instead, a woman can just say that having a baby or giving him up for adoption would stress her out, and that’s sufficient. There are no limits, really.

                    Here is what people don’t get. You can do an emergency C-section within minutes. I know. I had one. A late term abortion requires up to two days, and actual labor. This takes exponentially more time than an emergency C-section. In addition, if a patient did not want a C-section, but needed the baby out ASAP, then she would go through labor and delivery either way – late term abortion or healthy delivery.


                    ‘From an interview with an employee who took a photo of a born alive baby that was “snipped”:

                    Q. Why did you all take a photograph of this baby?

                    A. Because it was big and it was wrong and we knew it. We knew something was wrong.

                    – Report of the Grand Jury XXIII MISC. NO.0009901-2008 in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania”

                    A foundational problem is that the abortion provider has a vested interest in the patient choosing abortion. An abortion provider is not a labor and delivery hospital or a maternity ward. They are usually not an OB/GYN. They are not an adoption agency. They do not get their money if the mother wants to either keep her child or give her up for adoption. Therefore, they vehemently oppose taking any action that would dissuade the patient from choosing abortion. They describe fetuses as “balls of cells” when they are easily recognizable as babies, very early on in gestation. They oppose giving women the option of seeing an ultrasound, which would visually explain to them who they are carrying, and that this is no ball of cells. They oppose being required to discuss all options, equally. It is in the best interest of the patient to give her all the information on gestation, options, the procedure, and that depression is a common side effect for women who have had abortions, as well as the possibility of post pardum depression. They only give favorable information for the procedure that makes them money, while depriving their customers of any medical information that could lead to the loss of their business. That is not a high standard of care.

                    A medical provider should not have such a vested interest in whether a woman has an abortion or not. If they do, they should be required to provide all information. The current system is not a high standard of medical care.

                  2. Anon, here’s how I see it…

                    I personally try to take the judgment out of it….not right or wrong…but there’s ‘this’ and ‘that’ …. and you still get to choose…with some limitations… and pro-lifers are essentially asking women to reposition your own perspective….and choose life…

                    it’s doesn’t have to be about right or wrong…it’s always a Choice…and the pro-life movement is trying to help women see the possibility of choosing life… and all the options available with that choice…

                    not sure this helps, but on a personal level it did for me…it’s a subtle shift…

                    here’s how singer Andrea Bocelli tells his story of why he is Pro-Life:

            2. I don’t believe anything about your first sentence. Any imbecile can see that no children or babies are involved; any other interpretation is whimsy, imaginary or make-believe. In fact, if you think these people really believe such claptrap, then I see how you’re a supporter of the day glo bozo. In actuality, these people–for whatever impulse–don’t want women to have control over their own lives. Some of these misogynists may think the Bible, Koran, Talmud or Uncle Zed says so, or just because they dream about the “good ole days” when women were the chattel property of their nearest male relative. So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

              this is to “and I always buy the magazines from the door-to-door guy” karen

              1. The law says late abortions may only be performed when the health of the mother is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

                Where are you getting your sense of being god’s emissary to insert yourself into the middle of other family’s tragedy?

                1. The health of the mother has no guidelines. The mother can claim stress of having a child, and it is sufficient. There are no limits.

                  1. The procedure requires the good faith assessment of the required conditions by a health professional licensed in the appropriate field,

                    1. Since there is no medical standard to make such a determination, it is entirely subjective. There are OB/GYN’S on record who have said they would do it for any reason whatsoever.

                    2. Health professionals risk a prosecution or a suit if other professionals challenge their reasoning. At some point you must assume good faith by the parties involved, or rule for policing families and treating their tragedy as an attempt at law breaking. Given what most abortions at this late stage are about, I’ll go with the former, and also assume that somewhere, someday, someone might get away with murder. That would nr the extreme exception, not the rule. Very few abortions are performed at this late stage.

                    3. Anon – since there is no medical standard, and it is entirely up to the discretion of the abortion provider, then, no, it does not appear there is much scope for lawsuits.

                      You might not like it. You might not admit to it. But since there is no medical standard, NYC now has 9th month abortion on demand. As mentioned previously, there are doctors in NYC on record who have said they would perform them for any reason whatsoever.

                      Since only 13% of people in this country support 9th month abortion, this has become an issue for Democrats. That is why they mislead the public and claim there is some health limit so that it is only in dire cases that it is performed. As stated previously, there is no limit and even the stress of caring for a child would be considered a health reason. I have also posted a paper wherein most of those who have late term abortion do not, in fact, do so for any heath reasons or fetal abnormality.

                    4. Karen, absent a medical threat to the mother or a non-viable fetus, an abortion in NY after the 24th week is illegal. Very few expectant mothers will carry that long and then decide on a whim to end their pregnancy. If they do and they find a medical professional in NY willing to lie they can both be prosecuted.

                      If this procedure is not available, women facing their own death or serious medical damage from delivery, or birthing a non-viable fetus who’s life support would be pointless and expensive torture for the infant as well as the parents, would have no recourse.

                      Neither the GOP demagogues or you talk about these cases and choose to mislead the public by characterizing all those facing these issues as selfish murdering air heads. That is BS. If your case is strong, tell the truth.

                    5. Oops. I lost count of my links and posted too many.

                      Anon – you keep talking about a “medical threat” to the mother. A “threat” sounds serious, life-threatening.

                      That is not the wording of the law. The wording is to “protect” a woman’s health. There is absolutely no definition given whatsoever, in the entirety of the law. A woman could say that she experiences mental distress at the thought of raising a child without a father. Or perhaps she is afraid that her husband is going to find out that he’s not the father. Or maybe she didn’t want to raise a Downs Syndrome baby. Killing her baby could be considered “protecting” her mental health. The “health of the mother” limit is so broad that it allows all abortion. It is late term abortion on demand, while claiming that it is not. In every scenario possible, the case can be made that not killing the baby causes mental distress to the mother, and therefore it is in the interests of her health that she be allowed to have her full term, healthy baby killed.

                      This is the part of the law 4164 that was repealed (https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/public-health-law/pbh-sect-4164.html). It afforded immediate legal protection of an infant born alive after an attempted abortion.

                      Over and over again, Democrats voted against protections for born alive infants. This is their albatross.

                      Open borders. Sanctuary cities. Protecting violent felon illegal immigrants from deportation, and cases where they raped and murdered again. 9th Month abortions in NY. High Taxes. Trying to weaken Constitutional Rights. Support for racial segregation in universities. Identity politics in which your value is determined by your race. Violence against people wearing clothing of a political party they oppose. Bigotry and censorship against conservatives. Weaponizing the DOJ and FBI against conservatives. Constantly lying about conservatives in the media. Hoaxes. Giving death threats to children and lying about them because they wore clothing of an opposition political party. Hatred and intolerance. Rising anti-semitism. Support for terrorists. Destroying access to health care by the unsubsidized middle class individual policy holders. Support for a very powerful government with limited individual rights. Forcing people to vaccinate, rather than letting them decide. Prohibiting unvaccinated people from public spaces rather than quarantining sick people. Attacking school choice. Defending dismal public education outcomes. Refusing to properly teach reading in schools, while ignoring scientific data behind better methods. Support for mass murdering paradigm Socialism, the father of Nazism and Fascism. The Green New Deal which would prohibit air travel and lead to starvation because we would not be able to use farm machinery or ship food to grocery stores. Refusing to reform the Welfare System, the current design of which punishes women for living with the fathers of their children. This has led to poverty, crime, unemployment, gangs, gang violence, gun violence, and early death.

                      I used to vote either way, depending on the issue. The Democrat party keeps getting it wrong, in my eyes. They could not get me farther away if they set a fire. Moderates have completely lost control of the party, and it is becoming so extreme, these may be the days before our country falls to dictatorship.

                      The Democrat Party has alienated so many people that there is an entire #WalkAway movement. Even though they have the help of the media to try to avoid responsibility, they have caused a lot of misery. They may have to answer for this in the next election. We’ll see if voters become more savvy.

            3. The Avatar of Pseudoscience said, “They consider it a baby while it’s inside the mother, and it is not, actually, part of her body. It is a completely separate person.”

              All fetuses exchange blood gasses with their mother through the umbilical cord. No blood gasses from Mom means no oxygen for baby. No oxygen for the fetus means no metabolism of nutrients from Mother Dear, either. No nutrition means no fetal growth and no fetal development. The fetus has no immune system of its own until very late in the gestation process. The mother’s Kell anti-bodies are critical to the development of the baby’s immune system. And the mother’s milk contains supplements for the babies immune system as well. The government has been warning pregnant women for decades now about the risk of birth defects caused by the mothers consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

              Life is a process. Not an event such as insemination. Insemination is but a step in the process of life’s growth and development.

              1. Late4Dinner – a human fetus is an entirely different body than the mother’s. You can take a sample from a fetus, and a sample from the mother, run a genetic test, and determine two entirely different individuals. You can tell gender, too. He or she is connected via the umbilical chord, and no on his saying otherwise. A human fetus is not the mother’s body. He or she is inside the mother’s body. Was this a question? Did you think a fetus was outside the mother?

                A baby doesn’t have much of an immune system after delivery, either, which is why all mammals evolved to depend upon colostrum.

                A fetus has exactly the same DNA inside his mother as after he is born. It is unique, and different from his mother’s. You can do a paternity or maternity test to determine parentage, but the baby’s DNA will still be unique. Separate. His own. He is not a tumor of the mother’s own tissue. He is a separate organism.

                This is a straw man argument, in which you vigorously debate a position no one made.

                1. Madame Volleyball said, “It [the fetus] is a completely separate person.”

                  L4D said, “All fetuses exchange blood gasses with their mother through the umbilical cord.”

                  Madame Volleyball said, “This is a straw man argument, in which you vigorously debate a position no one made.”

                  L4D said, “[no umbilical cord] no fetal growth and no fetal development.”

                  Madame Volleybal said, “He [the fetus] is not a tumor of the mother’s own tissue. He [the fetus] is a separate organism.”

                  This is a straw man argument, in which you vigorously debate a position no one made. Was this a question? Did you think a tumor grows outside the body?

                    1. Late4Dinner:

                      When you quote me, such as saying, “This is a straw man argument, in which you vigorously debate a position no one made.” You need to use quotation marks. This is often the case with someone who cannot come up with a defense on their own, and so plagiarizes someone else’s comment.

                    2. It is now regrettably necessary to over-simplify the issue to find out whether the plaintiff can grasp the gist of the matter.

                      If, as you say, the fetus is a completely separate person, then what is wrong with literally separating the fetus from the uterus in which the fetus is ensconced?

                      Do you see the issue now?

                    3. Anonymous, you appear unable to grasp this simple concept. If you are unable to do so after this, then I will have to move on to another topic, as I cannot guide anyone whose feet are planted in the ground.

                      As I have remarked ad infinitum, aborting a full term baby at the 9th month is wrong. The baby should have the right to live. The mother can give him up for adoption if she does not choose to raise him.

                      Women schedule early delivery to coincide with their husbands being home before deployment, visits from in-laws, sabbatical, movie shoots, or medical complications. There are, in fact, medical problems that necessitate early delivery. If this is beyond the point of viability, then the infant can survive. If, for example in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, this emergency occurs before the point of viability, then the infant cannot survive.

                      There are many points of view regarding abortion in general. The case of late term abortion is clear. 87% of Americans oppose it. Even Joy Behar called it murder. When the baby has no abnormalities, that opposition may rise even higher. Sure, an expectant mother can schedule early delivery of her full term, healthy infant, but it is reprehensible to kill him.

                      Honestly, if anyone does not understand that killing a healthy, full term infant up until the moment of birth is a reprehensible, evil act, then what can anyone say to explain it to them? They lack judgement.

                2. Madame Volleyball also said, “[T]he baby’s DNA will still be unique. Separate. His own.”

                  When the sperm cell fertilizes the ovum an event known as “inception” or “conception” takes place. Subsequent events included meiosis, mitosis, cell division, implantation of the blastosphere in the uterine wall, growth and development of the placenta and the umbilical cord, and, of course, growth and development of the zygote that eventually becomes a fetus that eventually becomes an infant.

                  Life is a process. The events described above are not life. The process in which those events take place is life. In the absence of the mother’s uterus, the mother’s placenta and the mother’s umbilical cord, the process of growth and development of the blastosphere into a zygote, into a fetus, into an infant will not take place. Thus, at the moment of inception or conception, the fertilized ovum is not yet a baby with its own body, its own arms and legs, its own head and tail, nor does the baby lose its own tail until much further along in the growth and development of the fetus.

                  Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. “Baby” is a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile and then a mammal. Exactly when “baby” becomes a human infant is impossible to say. But until that blessed event takes place, there is still only the process of life’s growth and development taking place.

                  Consequently, the fetus remains a squatter on the land lady’s premises until such time as the fetus becomes viable for the purpose of eviction from the land lady’s premises. When the fetus becomes viable for eviction, the State has a compelling interest to uphold and defend the squatter’s rights of the fetus. IOW, when the fetus is capable of surviving eviction from the land lady’s premises, then the State can regulate the eviction process. However, the State cannot confiscate the land lady’s property (i.e. her uterus) without due process of law and just compensation. Nor can the State place the land lady’s life in jeopardy for the sake of defending the squatter’s rights of the fetus.

                  The right to property entails the right to privacy. The right to privacy implies the right to property. The same thing goes for the right to life and the right to liberty. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall prevail in any State without the due process of law.

                  1. Late4Dinner – although you get a star for inserting “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” from high school biology class, you do not seem to understand that, biologically, our own cells are alive. Even a blastula satisfies the definition of life. It most certainly is not dead, nor is it mineral. Nor is it even in that gray area, a virus.

                    Life is biological. Being genetically human is biological, regardless of gestation. “Personhood” is a social construct, and varies widely by culture. For example, there were cultures who did not consider a newborn a member of society until he or she was 8 days old. Puritans did not consider an infant to be human until he or she was baptized. That is why there are names like “Beast” on some Puritan grave markers. Personhood or a threshold where a human being is granted legal rights, or when those rights are dissolved, such as during incapacity, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with biology.

                    Your attempts to conflate the two are getting you mixed up. Calling a fetus a “squatter” again injects emotion and a rather disturbingly negative viewpoint into the matter.

                    Also, please note that “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” does not in any way imply that the fetus is actually a fish. Rather, we all go through a development one step at a time that was painstakingly determined through evolution. In addition, by the time the fetus is only an inch long, he or she is recognizably human. Anyone can look at a fetal development slideshow to see how rapidly we all become recognizably human, until we look like babies in the womb, delicately developing our layers of skin, nerves, and lungs.

                    1. The Three Card Monte Dealer said, “Personhood or a threshold where a human being is granted legal rights . . . [edit] . . . has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with biology.”

                      That Very Same Three-Card Monte Dealer had previously said, “They consider it a baby while it’s inside the mother, and it is not, actually, part of her body. It is a completely separate person.”

                      If the biological process of life unfolding in the womb has nothing to do with personhood or a threshold where a human being is granted legal rights, then how is it that any human being considers the fetus to be a completely separate person?

                      If the fetus is a baby while inside its mother and not actually dependent upon her body for growth and development, then why can’t the fetus be removed from its mother and allowed to grow and develop outside her womb?

                      If the threshold where a human being is granted legal rights has nothing to do with biology, then why can’t the fetus cross that threshold into personhood and be granted its legal rights without depending upon its mother’s biological contributions to the fetus’ sustenance?

                    2. Anonymous:

                      “If the biological process of life unfolding in the womb has nothing to do with personhood or a threshold where a human being is granted legal rights, then how is it that any human being considers the fetus to be a completely separate person?”

                      If you really do not understand this concept, then I shall attempt to explain it one more time.

                      Genetically, a fetus is a human being.

                      Biologically, a fetus is a separate entity. It is not the mother’s tissue, but a different organism entirely. The placental bond does not negate that fact. Avians and reptiles complete gestation in an egg. Mammals do so in the womb. Either way, the embryo is still a separate organism from the parent.

                      Biologically, there is no right and wrong. There is only what is. When a lion kills the cubs of his vanquished rival, it is not biologically “sad” or “wrong.” It just is one out of trillions of events that happen every day on Earth. Biology is a string of facts devoid of emotion. A scientist notes the deaths of the cubs in a field notebook, as data. His feelings about it are his own.

                      The legal definition of a “person” or “member of society” is defined differently in different cultures. As mentioned previously, there have been cultures who did not consider a newborn a real person until after 8 days. Others, it took 2 years. Up until that point, there have been many cultures that allowed parents or others to kill said children with impunity.

                      Within a culture, there will be individuals who do not ascribe to that belief. In the infamous case in Brazil, the indigenous tribes believe that children with physical or mental defects, who are delayed, or who are twins have no soul, and therefore are not people. They are sentenced to death, usually by being buried alive or being abandoned in the jungle for wild animals to eat. Little Hakani was sentenced to die at 2 years old because she was not yet walking or talking. Her parents were ordered to kill her. They disagreed with the cultural definition of personhood, and refused. In order to do so, they committed suicide by poison. The task then fell to little Hakani’s older brother. He dug a big hole, and knocked her out with a machete. She woke up before he could kill her, and he, too, found he disagreed with killing children and refused to go through with it. Then it fell to Hakani’s grandfather, who shot her with an arrow, but she didn’t die. Overcome with remorse, he tried to commit suicide, but survived. The tribe abandoned her in the jungle, where her wound became badly infected. In the jungle, that means crawling with maggots and inflamed with infection. Her brother, who did not believe it was right to kill children just because their tribe said it was OK, smuggled food for his little sister for three years, hidden in the jungle, all by herself. He could not bring her home, because the tribe did not consider her a person. He most emphatically did. She lingered on like this, malnourished, in a half life. Afraid of the tribespeople who did not consider her a person or worthy of help, and were in fact a deadly threat to her.

                      Then, a Brazilian couple who worked with the tribe discovered this tragedy, and wanted to save Hakani. The Brazilian government takes the attitude that all customs are equal, and therefore the tribe should be free to kill however many children they choose, even though they are doing so because they are uneducated about basic biology. Funasa, the health department, threatened to sue the couple if they interfered in the now 3-year-long process to kill a child because her tribe did not consider her a person deserving of any protection. They went to the media, and after an international uproar, the government relented. The Suzukis adopted Hakani, and discovered that her delay was due to hypothyroidism. Had it been treated in a timely manner, such as if the tribe had access to modern medicine, then she would likely not have been delayed at all.

                      After that, the Brazilian government forbade any non indigenous people from any close contact with indigenous tribes, so as to prevent anyone interfering with the murder of children. All customs were equal in their eyes.

                      Get it? Those who are pro-choice up until the absolute moment of birth believe that a human being is not deserving of any rights or expectation of protection or medical care. Those who are either pro-choice with limits, or those who are pro-life, believe that the child is a person deserving of medical care and protection. The law varies from state to state on when a fetus has legal protection. NYC just rescinded part of the law that considered the killing of an unborn child against the mother’s wishes as a homicide. After all, how can it be a homicide in that case, but not in a 9th month abortion?

                      I have no idea why you would call me names like a “Three Card Monte Dealer”, but if you persist in doing so, I will no longer address you. I have no interest in engaging with people who resort to name calling when they cannot think of anything else to say in a conversation. It reminds me of the red haired character in A Knight’s Tale who is reduced to sputtering about, “you, you, I will smite you!”.

                3. L4D had previously said, “The mother’s Kell anti-bodies are critical to the development of the baby’s immune system. And the mother’s milk contains supplements for the babies immune system as well.”

                  Madame Volleyball also said, “A baby doesn’t have much of an immune system after delivery, either, which is why all mammals evolved to depend upon colostrum.”

                  This is a novel argument form known as refutation by verbatim quotation–or the volleyball fallacy, for short. Evidently some people seem to think that the truth of any given collection of nouns and verbs is utterly dependent upon the identity of the speaker or writer. IOW, 2 + 2 = 4 when Madame Volleyball says 2 + 2 = 4. When L4D says 2 + 2 = 4, it’s a lie.

                  1. Late4Dinner:

                    When you call me names like “Madame Volleyball”, I assume you are outfaced by the conversation, and don’t know what to say, so you resort to childish ad hominem to try to distract from that fact.

                    I am not distracted. You do not understand what you are floundering about trying to explain. Calling me names makes me realize you cannot handle the conversation, and need an out.

                    So out you go. I have no time to waste with you.

                    1. You merely restated my argument without adding much to it and tried to palm it off as a refutation of my argument. Any literate person can read that that is what you did. Any literate person will understand the reason for the monikers I gave you.

                      Had I know that you were, evidently, not a seperate person from the moderator of this blawg, I would not have changed a single word of what I wrote. You can’t make an argument without cheating. And everybody knows it.

            4. Karen I just saw your response to Becka (aka Woosty). I believe my comment was about viability. ( http://www.childhealth-explanation.com/fetus.html )
              And ‘saving’ an undeveloped fetus post rape or abandonement is decidedly misogynistic…a fetus is not a ‘separate’ person, it’s life is dependant on the nourishment provided directly by the mother at the COST of her own nourishment. While in the state of pregnancy a womans body will divert resources to that growing organism. Her life stops until the birth and post delivery adapting is complete. It is the mother that pays the ultimate price for the birth of that child, not ‘society’ or the male counterpart in the most immediate scenario. That said, abortion is abused. But our Society does not want to educate it’s members it wants instead to fight ceaslessly regarding that issue and the many causes of it. To keep it on a shelf and pull it out as a tool of division at the expense of MILLIONS of babies…. Because this Society loves death. It loves war. It puts price and profit above all except when that price destroys someone ELSE’s life. Then, no big deal. So it is. I am more disgusted with politicians and profiteers than women who choose not to bring a child into a world that can not want it. love it, care for uit or guarantee at least at the start, a place for it beyond slavish existence or usary. Misogyny is a male choice, not a womans. Like much in our society regarding the sexes male choice is and has always been given an almost sacred place in politics and the social side of life in direct imbalance to that same understanding of ‘choice’ given to women. I personally am challenged by an 8th month abortion scenario but I believe in some rare circumstances it does exist. In my understanding it would involve the life of the mother and a child born with an anomalie that was not viable (anencephalus etc.). Characterizing those situations as a woman just having a bad day and minimalizing the anguish of abortion decisions is also Misogynistic and irresponsible. Another thought, making abortions illegal or uber difficult to procure whilst nerfing the economy and healthcare for working people and those sequestered in poverty is an act of social aggression that may create some really ugly unintended circumstances.

              1. Woosty, I am very sympathetic to the thankfully rare cases of pregnancy by rape or incest. I have written multiple times about how, according to HuffPo, there is an 85% chance of female illegal aliens being raped while traveling to the border. Unaccompanied teenage girls are often given Plan B One Step by their mothers before heading out. That’s a travesty. A crisis. I do not want to support such abuse of females.

                There is much debate to be had about this issue. As stated previously, I do not think that Pro Life and Pro Choice accurately describes the public opinion. Rather, it is a range, from those who do not think it should be legal to prescribe the day after pill, to those who think that it should be legal to abort a full term healthy infant in the birth canal.

                As mentioned previously, we do not track any data on the percentage of viable or unviable fetuses. In one paper, women were aborting unviable fetuses late term because they were unmarried, on drugs, didn’t have support, or were young.

                I would also add that a newborn is completely dependent upon his mother for nourishment, either breastmilk or formula. The mother is saved nothing from a late term abortion. She still undergoes labor and delivery. If the baby is viable, why take the extra step of killing him at the last moment, rather than simply giving him up for adoption? Is there no point where a fetus has a right to survive and not be killed by his mother?

                If you have a problem with 8th month abortion, are you OK with 7th month abortion? The baby could still survive at 7 months? Is your limit when a baby could survive on his own, or when he could feel pain? Or do you feel that, although it troubles you, it should be legal to abort a baby up until the moment of birth? Do you ever feel there comes a point where the fetus has any rights?

                1. Both NY and Va laws only allow abortions after 24 weeks for reasons threatening the mother’s life or health, or if the fetus is not viable.

                  Karen wants in the dics

                    1. Anon:

                      “Karen wants in the doc’s office to tell families what to do.”

                      Yeah no one should get into the family business of incest or child abuse or mom’s doing drugs when the kids come home. It’s just “family rights” for the Anons of the world. Note to Anon: do you ever click on your brain before you write an invective?

                    2. Anon………the more I read your liberal opinions, the more I’m convinced that the reason many libs have disdain for conservatives, is this: Many liberals hate their mothers because to them, their mothers represent things that are no fun: discipline, good behavior, Sunday School, no intercourse before marriage.
                      The image you have mentioned of Karen wanting “to tell families what to do” , is what you have said about me too.
                      According to you, I want to be in the doctors’ offices ruining everything…..being judgmental and bossy.
                      And I guess deep down you think I want to deprive you of sex …….. like maybe mommy preached when you were a teen.

                    3. By definition we are talking about situations involving the health of mothers and fetuses. I don’t think anyone needs mespo or Karen’s help on this except maybe their own families. I promise, if you are so unfortunate as to be in that position, I’ll stay out of it.

                    4. “Karen wants in the doc’s office to tell families what to do.”

                      And yet, NY just banned unvaccinated people, including children, from public spaces. Papers, please! Vaccines were designed to protect an individual from infection, not be forced upon anyone against their will. That’s why you get a vaccine, because you will come into contact with someone who may have that disease. By claiming that no unvaccinated people can travel in New York City, they are implying that the vaccines in question are not effective. That’s the problem of the manufacturer, not families. Should the federal government ever follow suit, we would once again have captive consumers forced to buy a product. Vaccine manufacturers could conceivably come out with many new vaccines, and we would all be forced to get them. If one came out with a high incidence of adverse events, such as Guillain Barre, no families would have the right to opt out.

                      I support vaccines. It’s not a question of whether they are a good idea or not, but rather whether the government has the right to force anyone to put anything inside their body. Vaccines help, but they are not saline. There are some risks, and individuals have the right to weigh those risks and benefits for themselves.

                      In addition, you are never going to remove all sources of contagion. Not in a city with global travel and a high rate of illegal immigration. In fact, many of the illegal immigrants at the border have serious illnesses. Recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics and PSAs are fine, force is not.

                      What would make more sense would be quarantining individuals with highly infectious diseases such as measles, Ebola, plague… If there was an outbreak, then the government has the right to quarantine areas to stop the spread of contagion. That means shutting down all travel in or out of an area until the outbreak is contained. Since up to 3% of vaccinated people can still get the measles, restricting the movements of only unvaccinated people, who aren’t sick, is not valid outbreak control.

                      The state of NY has absolutely no problem interfering with the rights or decisions of a mother or families in general.

                  1. Anon – I am having a great deal of difficulty getting this point across.

                    There is no definition of what constitutes a threat to the health of the mother. It does not, actually, say that it has to be life threatening. There is no threshold. Dr Gosnell could come up with any reason he wanted to justify what he did. The exact wording of the law is that it allows abortions “(1) if it is performed earlier than 24 weeks of pregnancy; (2) in an “absence of fetal viability”; or (3) if necessary to “protect the patient’s life or health.”” There is no definition of what the threshold is to protect health. There is no objective medical standard. Zip. Zero. Nada. There is no medical standard that defines a health reason. It also removed the killing of a fetus against the mother’s wishes as a homicide, which is anticipated to have dire effects on pregnant women in abusive relationships. The law also removes protections for infants born alive after an abortion attempt, which was previously section 4164 of the NY Public Health. Here is the law itself: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240

                    Some say that such a determination should be between a woman and her doctor. The assumption would be that it would be a serious health risk to have the baby. However, without a standard medical definition for a health reason, it has been determined that merely being stressed out about caring for a child, or bringing another baby into the family, would be sufficient reason.

                    The law is devoid of any real limit to 9th month abortion. Only 13% of the country supports a 9th month abortion. You can push that percentage up if you word the poll saying the mother’s health is at risk. But if you define “health” as literally anything, then in reality, 87% of the country opposes it.

                    Currently, one out of every 3 pregnancies in NYC ends in abortion. Now this new law will enable abortion of viable full term pregnancies, because of that health loophole. (https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/vital_statistics/2015/table22.htm)

                    I am not alone in being outraged by this. You might claim that I want to insert myself between a woman and her doctor, or that I am stepping above my station. 87% of the country is right there with me on full term abortion. The only way politicians can soothe their constituents over this is to lie and claim that it requires a serious health risk. Not only is that not required by the law, but as stated earlier, a full term abortion actually takes up to two days, and constitutes a greater risk to a woman with a medical condition than an emergency C section. She would go through labor and delivery, but there would be an extra step of killing her full term infant in the process. That extra step does not protect any woman’s health. She’s already completed gestation. Already undergone labor and delivery.

                    1. Wow, so much I could respond to but I choose this: “Currently, one out of every 3 pregnancies in NYC ends in abortion. ”
                      If true it is sobering. Even if not, on some level you feel the need to use this information as fodder for your argument. Why do you think making abortions even more innaccesible will help correct this? Why are you not screaming at the top of your lungs against DeVoss’s anti education package and removing sex ed from schools? Why force biblical and religious fundamentalism with all of its lack of humane response and lack of reason? Cutting back on abortions will not address the need for them. Helping young couples who have the capacity to work together learn of their options BEFORE they are trapped by their situation, Helping young women learn to not become pregnant, and helping young men to have more respect for themselves and the women they abuse or chattelize will go much further.

                    2. I am all for legalized abortion especially in places like New York and California. They’re welcome to terminate before they spawn a new larger generation of parasites on the rest of the country. Not nice? Yep, not nice. Just realistic

                    3. Hi Becka:

                      Why am I not screaming at DeVoss? One, I don’t scream at people. Two, I support school choice. The rhetoric against DeVoss is due to the Teachers Union pumping millions of dollars into attacking anything that competes with them in education. The schools in our area have over 65% of students not reading at grade level. This is the outcome that the union has produced. It’s not good enough. Some public schools are great, and some are bad, and some charter schools are top notch, while others are not. Parents should have a choice on where to send their children. DeVoss’s goal for decades has been to provide an opportunity for poor kids in areas with bad schools to attend better schools.

                      If public schools won’t employ a meritocracy to promote the good teachers and remove the bad, then they are going to lose customers. I do not believe in the government forcing the public to be a captive consumer to anyone.

                      I disagree with DeVoss on her recommendation to remove funding to the Special Olympics, and am glad that Trump overrode her. It might be true that the Special Olympics has sufficient other revenue streams. However, unless we can’t keep the lights on, I like to see the government supporting such events. Removing funding sends a message that it does not support it, regardless of whether they would survive without it. I do find it ironic that the Left pushes for almost all Downs Syndrome babies to be torn apart while still alive in the womb, at the second trimester or later, but it gets up in arms about the Special Olympics without a shred of irony. These are the very people they want to kill.


                      Ever see what the union does when a principal tries to fire low performing teachers and replace them with better ones? They phrase it as a war against teachers. That is how voters are manipulated. Say it’s a war against the poor, teachers, nurses, women, whatever. It’s not true, but it makes a catchy slogan.

                      Also, I posted a link to the NY public health department on the abortion figures. The reason why I included that information is that NY did not have a dearth of access to abortion that would explain such a law that would allow abortion up until the moment of birth.

                      The fact that there is no medical standard to qualify when there is a health reason for a 9th month abortion, rather than an emergency delivery, should concern everyone. The fact that NY rescinded a law that considered the killing of an unborn child against the mother’s wishes a homicide should concern everyone. The fact that NY rescinded a law that requires that children born alive after an abortion attempt be afforded the same level of medical care as an infant born alive should concern everyone. The fact that Democrats all refused to sign a law that would have required such care, at the same standard as any other infant, should concern everyone.

                      I read a lot of denial and pushback. No one seems willing to stop and think for a moment that there might be a problem. That critics might have a point, and perhaps their concern is not misogyny.

                2. Do you ever feel there comes a point where the fetus has any rights?

                  Rarely. But it would probably involve a definitive and obvious lack of faculty of the mother. Do you think a fetus should have more rights than say, a 3 year old? Is the man who causes a woman to abort (as in miscarry) through abuse and menacing accountable? Is the Corporation accountable for the woman who is fired due to pregnancy and then miscarries or the one who is worked to the state of miscarriage? Every abortion is the sum total of a lot of factors, to effect change you have to identify the right causative factors….and change them. Education would do that. Forcing people to abide cruel laws that leave everyone in unbearable situations will probably cause the kind of social unrest that leaves everyone hurting. Economic conditions could be changed to allow for a livable wage and we don’t have to be as humane and generous as France but they have a better idea of how to protect peoples rights and lives over there. They do truly support family and care about children, you can see it in their laws, in their educational system, they have decent food, they believe in art.

              2. Woosty/Becka (the 2 names make it confusing!) One point I was trying to make with you, is that you do not feel that you suddenly became misogynistic when you decided 8th month is too late. You do not feel anti woman at such a late gestation.

                I ask that you consider that if someone feels the same way about an earlier gestation, you give them the same benefit of the doubt that they, too, are not coming form a misogynistic perspective. Rather, they have an earlier limit to what they feel is ethical.

                1. Karen, sorry for the Gemini effect, I don’t feel misogynistic at all. Abortion is misogyny but don’t lay that at the womans feet. Abortion happens when the ultimate result of a pregnancy fails or is likely to. Sometimes that is as simple as a man walking away from it. A woman is not choosing to have or not have a child in such black and white terms as you decree. She may have many other people in her life that she must account to and for. You want to force a result on a human being without even knowing all the factors that must be dealt with? That is unbearable in the truest sense of the word.
                  Abortion, like pregnancy, takes all of 2 separate sexes and the damage cuts both ways as well.

                  1. Becka, there is no excuse for killing a full term, healthy infant. It saves the mother nothing, as she goes through labor and delivery. It gives her the right to kill her baby because he has not yet drawn breath. He could be killed moments before filling his lungs, and that’s fine, but a minute later, it’s murder. That makes no sense.

                    A full term, healthy infant should be given the chance to be adopted.

                    At some point, the baby has the right to survive. Where that point lies is the disagreement.

                    Do I want to “force” someone not to kill their full term, healthy infant a minute before he draws breath? Yes, just as I would “force” the same person not to kill their full term, healthy infant a minute after he draws breath. Infanticide is not misogynistic, either. The mother is free to give her baby up for adoption. No one is forcing her to raise the child. They are saying it’s wrong to kill a full term, healthy 9th month gestation infant just because he hasn’t yet filled his lungs with air.

                    As I said, only 13% of Americans believe this is OK.

                    Unless Democrats mislead people about what this law does, this is going to have consequences for them. It already has. Support for abortion was falling in the polls the last I checked.

                    It’s fine that we disagree. There is a lot of disagreement on the topic. Everyone needs to be able to talk about this issue without dehumanizing critics as misogynistic.

          3. What a lovely rationale for murder – it’s inconvenient. The misogynists are women who reject their natural function of pregnancy, childbirth and nurturing sufficient to grow and defend a nation. Women hate the functions of women – that’s misogyny. If women don’t have babies, what is their raison d’être; hedonism? Not to mention, misogynistic women violate most, if not all, of the Ten Commandments.

            1. George you are an idiot. You seem to see babies as fodder for some future profitable war you are already planning for….and profiting from. Misogyny is a MALE trait, thankfully, in the world of decent men, it is not dominant…..

          4. Becka….I don’t know if you’re familiar with the female human body, but most of us have only one head, 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 heartbeat, etc…not twice that. A fetus’ body has its own head, limbs, heartbeat, etc., that belong to the fetus. If you have an abortion, it is the fetus’ limbs being torn apart, not yours. The fetus’ head being crushed, not yours. The fetus’s heart stopping, not yours. See how it works?
            There are 2 separate bodies: the fetus’ and the mother’s.
            How do I know? SCIENCE.

            1. No Cindy, your SCIENCE is most lacking. They are NOT 2 SEPARATE bodies. They are not separate at all. How do I know? REAL (not made up) SCIENCE. And if I have an abortion, in a back alley by some quack, it is MY BLOOD LOSS and my life on the line.
              And the fetus is my loss as well, it being a part of my body. Not some separate thing. You know who has a problem understanding Human A&P? People who think they know everything and are right about everything regardless of the actual facts and science involved. Not to mention the human suffering and risk. Toodles.

              1. Woosty………First, you’re lying.
                Second, as far as “human suffering” goes….Yeah, with your presence here, I see what you mean. Thanks!

          5. Becka G– The thing that has always bothered me about the “woman’s right to choice” argument is that it ignores the fact that most often actually two choices are being made but the first always is ignored. In the vast, vast majority of cases, the first choice is choosing to have unprotected sex. The second choice is whether to accept responsibility for that first choice or avoid responsibility by having an abortion. In that small minority of cases where the unprotected sex was not consensual or where in spite of protection a pregnancy occurs, I am a little more sympathetic to a woman’s right to choose, although it still is hard to swallow the extermination of a living being. In most cases, the “woman’s right to choice” is nothing more than a choice to avoid responsibility for one’s own conduct, an ethic that seems increasingly rampant in our society.

            1. sorry mr dis-honest, but your inability have interactions with women are your fault alone; society or women in general are not at fault. I suggest mixing in a salad once in awhile, taking the stairs every now and then, trimming those nosehairs and using enough deodorant.

              this is to “if they would only be bad with me” mostly

            2. ” In the vast, vast majority of cases, the first choice is choosing to have unprotected sex. The second choice is whether to accept responsibility for that first choice or avoid responsibility by having an abortion. ”

              I don’t disagree, mostly. But how many are underage kids? Single women w/no incomes? Uneducated people who don’t have a clue about birth control or access to it? We paint with such a broad brush on this forum that there is no room for consensus or anything but argument but in real life the problems can’t be solved, only mitigated to some extent. Education and and access would do more to that end. IMHO. Mostly. 😉

        2. Sorry, you’re allowed your own opinion–no matter how uninformed–but you are not allowed your own facts. Here in the world of reality, the screechings of wackjobs on Pravda Faux News isn’t a legitimate source of anything remotely factual. Merely because some wingnut says “live children are killed every day” doesn’t make it true in this universe. In fact, because your bullsh*t detector didn’t go off when the wingnut sold that to you merely identifies you as one of the cohort of gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors or grifters on the make who support the day glo bozo.

          this is to “but I just never learn from my mistakes” antonio

      2. Denying a survivor of an abortion attempt medical care is negligent homicide, I believe. You know, while they make the injured baby comfortable and have a discussion with the mother about what she wants to do with the baby she just tried to kill while in the birth canal.

        It’s on tape, Anon.

        This whole 9th month abortion and denial of emergency medical care to born infants literally makes me cry. I keep thinking about a newborn wailing for help and being ignored. I just cannot bear it. It’s depraved. I don’t typically jump into the abortion arguments, but this actually makes me feel ill. In New York you can kill a full term, viable, healthy fetus in the birth canal during labor and delivery, despite what the father wants, because it is considered the woman’s right to choose. Just claiming that having a living baby or giving the baby up for adoption would stress her out is enough of an excuse. This takes up to 2 days longer than an emergency C-section for a medical reason. Oh my God, I cannot imagine. There is no defending this. A 9th month abortion does not save the woman the danger of carrying a pregnancy to full term, the pain of labor, or spare her from delivering the infant.

        Anon, this is so bad. Dang it, I’m tearing up again.

        I cannot remember who said this to give credit, but it is true that everyone who supports 9th month abortion has already been born.

        1. What you describe only occurs when the fetus is not viable. In such cases prolonging it’s life is torture for both the newborn and it’s family. Tear up over that, because that is what is happening and it is a tragedy you will make worse..

          1. “What you describe only occurs when the fetus is not viable.” What is that statement based on? In addition, someone who is born is called an infant or a baby, not a fetus.

            Are babies injured from botched abortion attempts given the same medical care that wanted infants would get? Dems went on record to say, no.

            NY now allows the 9th month abortion of a full term, healthy fetus. Authors of the bill are on camera admitting that this may happen even in the very birth canal, during labor and delivery.


            1. Late abortion is only allowed for the health of the mother or if the fetus is not viable. You show no compassion for those who have to deal with the tragic reality of these situations and want to insert your rigid moral viewpoint into their decision. I hope no one in your family ever faces this worst nightmare of a pregnancy but if they do at least in some states people like you will be kept out of dictating the options.

          2. Video of abortion provider describing killing babies born alive. I have no knowledge of the host website, and just did a quick search for what I was looking for. In addition, since she says the solution in the jar makes it unable for them to breathe, she is talking about later gestation where a baby can breathe, and not only earlier development stages. My friend was born at 24 weeks. She was about the size of a Barbie Doll and could sleep in a shoe box. Her father’s wedding ring was huge on her wrist. Though small, she was 24 weeks, and viable. Vulnerable.

            If this is their policy, and there is no database tracking it, no one has any idea how often this happens.


            1. Karen, the real question is: “Do we want the police and courts involved in abortion?”

              Should we gag doctors and forbid them from giving the best medical advice to women patients?

              Should women be misled into carrying pregnancies that might endanger their lives?

              Should women be forced to carry pregnancies that result in severely deformed babies who require 24 hour medical care?

              Should E R staffs be required to call the police on every woman who miscarries?

              Should the homicide squads of every police department be assigned the task of investigating all suspected abortion activity in their districts?

              Should children be transferred to foster care when their mothers are charged with illegal abortion?

              Should children be put up for adoption while their mothers are serving prison time for abortion?

              If your answer is ‘No’ to any of these questions, than criminalizing abortion may not be good policy.

              However the so-called ‘right to life movement’ would rather you not even consider these questions. They don’t want to address the very consequences that led to the Roe vs Wade decision. They’d prefer instead that those consequences become a rude surprise that takes everyone by shock. By then the right-to-life movement will have scattered to the wind.

              1. P Hill, from my perspective, it appears your position is that the law should not criminalize abortion, whether abortion itself is right or wrong. I can understand different sides of this emotional issue. And I actually agree with you that everyone needs to hear all arguments and concerns.

                Dr Gosnell is in prison because he killed full term infants in the birth canal by severing their spinal cord, and he killed infants who were born before he could kill them in process. That is a really gruesome crime. I read about his case, and he truely was a serial killer. What also came out was that most of the late term abortions were healthy, viable fetuses. Most were actually not because there was a serious abnormality with the fetus. The mothers were not spared gestation, not saved labor, and the process took longer than an emergency C section.

                As for forcing women to carry imperfect babies, perhaps you should hear some of the Downs Syndrome people who have spoken out about Eugenics to Congress.

                No matter whether you are Pro Choice or not, have you considered what the consequence would be if 9th month abortion became legal nationwide, and the infant is not considered a patient with a standard of care prior to birth? A problem with the fetus is not a prerequisite in NY. Dr Gosnell will be multiplied across America.

                1. Also, please understand that “Roe” admitted later she lied about rape, deeply regrets her actions, and is now a Pro Life activist.

                  1. Karen…….Norma (Roe) actually passed away 2 or 3 yrs ago…..but you are correct…She was very pro life the last 20 years of her life, I’d say. I think I’ve mentioned this before, but about 5 years ago I was shopping in our local Walmart, here in my small town, and a woman was about to pass me in an aisle and I looked up and almost fainted.. It was Norma. She didn’t even live here. And I thought …what an almost cliche, ordinary setting in which to run into the woman who became a symbol for the most dramatic revolution, I would say, in the history of American women. And of course, invoking the words “Roe v Wade” is like reciting the Lord’s Prayer for the Left.
                    I had seen her, of course, at rallies in the early days………but seeing her that day just so nonchalantly shopping at Walmart , with American political parties ready to go to “war” against each other, almost at the mention of Roe, was like being in a Jim Jarmusch or Mike Leigh film, I swear.

                    1. What a chance encounter. She must have had very complicated feelings about Roe v Wade and its aftermath. I hope she was at peace when she passed.

              2. P Hill – I neglected to mention that the mainstream Pro Life position is not to criminalize getting an illegal abortion, but rather performing one. The person charged would be the doctor. For instance, it was serial killer Dr Gosnell who was charged and convicted, not all the mothers of healthy, full term babies who went to him for an illegal late term partial birth abortion.

                If full term abortion were illegal, than it would be the doctor killing the baby in the birth canal who was arrested, not the mother who made the terrible decision to allow him to do it.

                This NY debacle affected me very deeply. This isn’t right.

                1. Karen, we don’t want doctors, nurses and hospitals to become the front line in abortions wars. Healthcare shouldn’t be politicized.

                  And your statement above shows the anti-abortion forces don’t have the heart to go after women. So they’ll go after doctors instead! Like doctors are less sympathetic. That’s how dumb it gets.

                  1. P Hill – Doctors have a standard of medical care. The debate is regarding whether an unborn child should be considered a patient deserving of a standard of medical care.

                    As stated previously, there is a range of opinion on this, from those who believe that the day after pill should not be permitted, to those 13% of the country who believe abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth. There are even those who believe that those born after an abortion attempt still should be considered patients deserving a standard of medical care.

                    There is a range, and most people do, indeed, believe there should be restrictions on abortion. The rhetoric against pro-life people don’t hold up, because at some point, everyone believes there should be limits. Those people are not suddenly misogynists after that threshold.

                    Doctors are always on the hook for medical standards. For example, a patient could go to a back alley doctor performing plastic surgeries without a proper license. It’s not the patient who gets charged, but rather the doctor. Dr Gosnell was charged in the most infamous abortion example.

                    Please at least try to understand that there is a range of opinion on the matter among good and sincere people, who are not dumb, not waging war on women, or doctors, or have any other malicious intent.

                    I agree. Healthcare should not be politicized, but the abortion debate unfortunately is one of the most politically charged issues of our time. Sadly, politicians keep using rhetoric like “war on women” and “misogynists”, which stymies debate on the matter, and casts aspersions on anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand full term. It’s very divisive.

            2. Gullibility in action. Again, so sorry for your condition.

              this is to “iffen it be on the interwebs, its gots ta be true” karen

              1. Mark M – yeah, I can see how the NY Public Health and NY Senate official websites must be too questionable for you.

                Perhaps you could try contributing to a real conversation instead of just insulting anyone who disagrees with you. Ad hominem is well known false logic, and signals an inability to discuss facts.

                Please be aware that whenever you call people names, I infer that you cannot contribute to an argument or debate. You have nothing to say of any worth or meaning, so all you’ve got is school yard names. You don’t have to catcall when you don’t know what else to say. Just form an actual opinion and explain or defend it.

                1. You, as always, entirely miss the point. I don’t consider those of your ilk to be reasonable people amenable to good-faith debate. You’re a wackjob, wingnut, goggle-eyed fool. My beloved country will be improved when demographics take their immutable toll and tools like yourself and your ilk just pass onto the next plane. You don’t like “those people”; check. You are bamboozled daily by the farcical Pravda Faux News; check. You’re incapable of identifying a con-man flim-flam grifter from an actual public servant who wishes to serve all Americans as President; check. You have failed all the criteria necessary to be eligible for rational discourse. If you don’t prefer to pass onto the next plane, I suggest writing a letter to your congressman, or hannity; unfortunately, since both have undoubtedly taken an accurate measurement of your credulity, I doubt either one would respond.So sorry for your loss, and your condition.

                  this is to “but constitutional rights are up for a vote, right?” karen

      3. I do not condone cruelty to animals in any way shape or form It is hideous and despicable. However, once when I was at Penn Station NY I met a group of PETA activists and inquired regarding their views on abortion. The two women were pro abortion advocates too. They were surprised when I suggested that at very least they should feel same empathy for an in the womb human as they do for an animal. I would contend that both living beings need compassion and protection and favoring the animal over the human is philosophically indefensible

        1. John – there is a movement of people who go out and check roadkill opossums to see if they had attached babies in their pouches. The newborns are incredibly tiny. They swallow the nipple entirely, which is how they stay attached in the pouch. There are instructions for people to stock their cars with gloves, something to keep the babies warm, how to release them safely from the nipple without harming them, and even how to just wrap a female dead possum in a trash bag, while keeping it open to provide ventilation if they did not feel comfortable getting the babies.

          It’s a lot of effort for pinky possums who are, in all fairness, very cute. 9 month old viable human fetuses do not get he same care and attention from strangers in NY as possums do, I’m afraid.

          1. The Avatar of Empathy said, “9 month old viable human fetuses do not get he same care and attention from strangers in NY as possums do, I’m afraid.”

            And how many baby ‘possums have you suckled? Did you know that they swallow the nipple entirely? That’s how they stay attached under the surrogate mother’s bra until they’re ready to be weaned onto such solid food as, say, road-kill ‘possum, for, instance. Be sure to bring their own mother’s carcass back home with you. It’ll keep in the freezer until her offsprings’ adult teeth erupt. And you don’t even have to thaw it, neither.

          2. I’m one of those possum fetchers :). Glad you brought it up 🙂 Possums are North Americas only marsupial and one of the least understood and most cruelly treated. There are festivals that drop them from heights, moronic rednecks that chase and hunt and kill for the thrill thinking they are like ‘rats’. People in cars often go out of their way to run them down and kill them. They are a most beneficial animal that has a very short life span and they do nothing but good for us whilst living. they will chase off and kill rats, roaches, pests of many sorts in your yard, clean up diseased corpses of animals, they have a metabolism that protects them from rabies and other noxious diseases and are being studied as key to protecting us as well. They are nocturnal so they don’t get in yer face and when frightened will try to scare you off by acting and looking ferocious but they are so non-aggressive it would take an act of G*d for them to bite. They are so sensitive that when menaced they ‘play dead’ which is actually an unintentional and uncontrollable act of neural overload shutting them down into a coma-like state. It serves as protection but isn’t very effective against humans….who think cruelty is ‘funny’.
            They are a tad ugly as adults (to the untrained eye 😉 but seriously adorable as babies and adolescents. The have such ingrained instinct that you can foster them without overly fearing that they will become un-releasable.
            Ask me about my possum! I have many photoes…….. 😛

        2. John Jansen says: March 29, 2019 at 9:30 PM

          “I would contend that both living beings need compassion and protection and favoring the animal over the human is philosophically indefensible.”

          Well I’ll be darned. John Jansen is the first Jainist I’ve ever heard about who doesn’t have Indo-Aryan name.

          Does anyone else want to bet against the possibility that John Jansen is a carnivore?

          1. Excerpted from the article liked above:

            Mahavira’s religion followers are less extreme than him in diets. They are vegetarians. But the religious Jains will do everything possible to prevent hurting any being. They won’t walk in fields where there are insects to prevent the possibility of stepping on them. They also cover their mouth to prevent the possibility of swallowing small invisible microbes. They mostly do not work in professions where there is a possibility of killing any living being like in agriculture instead professions like banking and business. But it is not clear what came first, businessmen who adopted Jain philosophy because it was easy for them to follow or Jainish philosophy which convinced the Jains to adopt non violent professions.

    1. I can volunteer to answer that: I am outraged by both. To see those two hunters tone deaf to screaming cubs is amazing disclosure of their total absence of humanity. Same goes for VA governor who talked about newborn baby being made comfortable before mom/docs decide whether they want to carry out execution.

    2. nope. The killing of an 8 month of fetus is pretty much murder given that it has passed the majority of viability standards. And a newborn that is full term? or are you just trying to ignite emotions around a fully separate issue of abortion? Cuz that would not be nice. People need to quit calling those predators ‘Men’ and tell it like it is…..a cowardly moronic expression of unbridled aggression and waste.

      1. “The killing of an 8 month of fetus is pretty much murder given that it has passed the majority of viability standards.” Does this make you a misogynist interfering with a woman’s right to choose? Engaged with a war on women? Do you not have “a clue to need or other elements involved”? That was what you said about people who did not support abortion prior to the 8th month. The fetus is actually viable at 6 months, at the earliest.

    3. Kindly point out a case where a newborn has been killed. Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

      this is to “well, rush said it might have happened, so I just went with it” antonia

  9. Their real punishment is living with a mental structure that thrives on depravity, brutality, anger, lust to kill, lack of morality, ethics or empathy on any level. Normal people have much better happier lives.

  10. The Right to Arm Bears! They need to protect themselves against deviant humans. My name is Liberty 2nd because I support the Second Amendment Right to Arm Bears.
    If some human would shoot these two humans while they are asleep in their home tonight it would be justice for all. And for all a good night.

  11. My last trip into the woods was some years ago. Some buckshot passed too close over my head and I didn’t return although I did curse the irresponsible hunter. That said, I didn’t blame all
    hunters as irresponsible louts because of one aberration. It’s all too easy to paint stereotypes and infer generalizations from one terrible incident. Most hunters I know would consider this unsporting and plain wrong.

    1. I agree; I have no problem with “hunters” per se; I just question whether these reprobates can be fairly included in that category of persons. In my neck of the woods, most hunters have a deep respect for our fellow mammalian relatives and would not condone in any way the senseless killing of a mother bear and her cubs.

      to mespo

Comments are closed.