It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York legislature votes to legalize abortion up to birth, let non-doctors commit abortions

page: 15
32
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

umm. my sister in law had to have a hysterectomy, it came with a whole mess of side effects!! sure you don't mean tubal litigation?




posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Prepare to be sickened right down to your soul.

Inches become miles, as I said before. Are other states following suit?

Here is what VA is trying to do now:

Virginia Democrat Pushes Bill That Would Allow Abortion Up to the Moment of Birth


Under questioning by Republican Delegate Todd Gilbert, Tran revealed that her bill would not limit abortion even after the point of viability, where the child could survive on his or her own. In fact, she said her bill would potentially allow a woman to seek an abortion as she was in the process of giving birth. Here’s a portion of the exchange which you can watch below:





edit on 29-1-2019 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

This is insane. The left has become insane, and this insanity won't stop here. I have already shown that rich liberals like the Gates believe in forcing sterilizations and abortions in third world nations "to fight climate change..." That argument, among other inane arguments, will be used in developed nations to try to convince those of us who see how evil these "changes" the left want are.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Literally doesn't make sense. But that's lefties for you.

Abortion refers to aborting a pregnancy. Pre-childbirth an operation is needed. During childbirth and labor the female's body is aborting a pregnancy as nature intended, meaning the pregnancy is over and this live human being will be pushed out of the body.

So an abortion at at labor makes zero sense. You want your pregnancy to end but it literally is in the process of ending in a few hours.

So it's murder.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

They sure like to do lots of "erasing" don't they?

Too bad they can't be "erased" so easily.

If this is truly the case, we are well past due to part ways with these cowards and killers. Well past the point of being sick of being told to tolerate their BS and turn a blind eye to mass murder.

Now is time for real Americans to draw a big red line in the sand, with a big old warning saying "You damned well better not cross this"



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 12:13 AM
link   

t the adoption of the Declaration of Independence 236 years ago on July 4, 1776, abortion was banned in all of the 13 American colonies.

The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier “knowledge” regarding human reproduction.

In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she “felt life,” but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the “Offenses Against the Persons Act,” eliminating the above punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception.


Abortion not only existed at our nation's founding but was actually outlawed. Our founders were well aware of this practice, yet did not enumerate it is any sort of a "right." Killing an unborn child is not a right. It is not the mother's life to take, period.

theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com...

"Abortionist: murdering children is our business, and business is good"



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Planned Parenthood is trying to kill two birds with one stone. This evil company wants to "help society", while also harvesting baby-parts, by encouraging BLACK women to ABORT rather than give birth.

ATS Thread on the Subject: www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Planned Parenthood is trying to kill two birds with one stone. This evil company wants to "help society", while also harvesting baby-parts, by encouraging BLACK women to ABORT rather than give birth.

ATS Thread on the Subject: www.abovetopsecret.com...



That's what happens when an organization is founded by a devout eugenicist and racist. They have served Sanger well and their protectors, benefactors, and clientele have done her memory and the American Eugenics movement a fantastic service... all while being paid for via American tax dollars.

...and people wonder where Marvel got the idea of Hydra infiltrating and overtaking S.H.E.I.L.D from...



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

save the fetus

but if theyre born with a mental illness and are perceived as a threat at least we have cops to shoot them right



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: burdman30ott6

save the fetus

but if theyre born with a mental illness and are perceived as a threat at least we have cops to shoot them right

Oh yeah that’s what all cops strive for and wake up everyday praying they get the chance to kill. Come on man this is even beyond your usual levels of absurdity. I hope your being facetious or trolling.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: dawnstar



okay, a women is in her 20th, her husband and her have spent a large sum of money over the years at various fertility clinic and finally, they concieved!! they are overjoyed! but then well someone breaks into their house, and because of something that was done, she ends up miscarrying.. why isn't this couple's loss thought to be less than the couple that you have imagined?


Please clarify......
Are you saying the loss should NOT be criminalized during any timeline or it should be criminalized for the whole period?
Or are you saying the prosecutor should be given some leeway given the traumatic damage done?
Imagine a rape victim that was 50/50 on having an abortion but then decides against it, but an accident causes her to lose the baby, she decides she doesn't want to press charges, and the state declines as well.
As think the mother should have the final say if the procedural charges move forward that protect her from stupid charges on accidents and also in cases like we described where she is devastated and she could move forward with a murder charge.

I don't know how feminists could ever be against case law where the female has the absolute final say in this matter, they would be against their own self interests. And it would make people against that, and are pro-choice the biggest hypocrites in the world.

But then again do we offer no protection to the baby that is 8 months, and the mother decides to get drunk and go on drugs, causing the baby to die or become permanently damaged ? Maybe not a murder charge but what about involuntary manslaughter that carries a lesser charge ?


I think a crime should be a crime if it is a crime and not a crime if it is not a crime. The idea that an individual determines whether something is a crime or not is a slippery slope. The same exact act should also be criminal or noncriminal regardless of who does it.

This is the kind of logic that goes to say when a rich man does it it is not a crime but when a poor man does it it is.

If you have consensual sex with someone, it is not criminal, if you rape it is a criminal act. If you kill someone it is a criminal act. But you can't say that killing a late term fetus is murder if done by X and nothing if done by Y.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
[
Oh yeah that’s what all cops strive for and wake up everyday praying they get the chance to kill. Come on man this is even beyond your usual levels of absurdity. I hope your being facetious or trolling.


post made sense to who it was addressed to.

didnt say anything about cops striving for it.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 03:57 AM
link   
I think the statements over the last couple of days from VA on top of the NY law makes thungs much clearer.
Democrats are passing laws to legalise infanticide and some people ( a lot it seems) are cheering.
At least we can remove the 'pro-choice' moniker now and properly the label the movement as pro-murder.

Strange, and sickening, times.
edit on 1/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
New York legislators have reserved a place in hell for themselves.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
This little guy could have been president of the United States someday.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
New York legislators have reserved a place in hell for themselves.

mobile.twitter.com...


See though he counts because clearly his mother wants him; however in New York, however much his mother may want him, if someone had killed her and him before he was born. No one would punish that person for having killed them both.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
New York legislators have reserved a place in hell for themselves.

mobile.twitter.com...


I just wish some of the supporters of child murder would watch that and understand that under the new law, it just takes an agreement from a doctor that the mother could suffer some health issues (maybe like stretch marks
) by carrying on with the pregnancy - and the fully viable baby can be murdered.
edit on 1/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

it's the same story I've told over and over on threads regarding abortions on ATS, if you look back on this thread, you see I mention it. the only difference is that I was more concerned with falling with my baby than I was with losing the child I was carrying... something that probably would have been considered a "you should have known better moment also"!!


...People might tell you "you should have known better," but if you or any other woman is carrying their child, are also pregnant, and BY ACCIDENT fall and the unborn dies, there is no law that would prosecute you, or any other woman as "a murderer."

You are making up claims that only exist in your mind.


originally posted by: dawnstar
...
she was jailed for two days instead of home caring for her two young daughters though because, well she fall down some stairs!!!

here's another link to the story.
www.cbsnews.com...


From your source...

"Taylor told police she intentionally fell down stairs at her home because she wanted to end the pregnancy."


She was arrested because at first she stated she had INTENTIONALLY fallen downstairs TO END THE PREGNANCY. That's completely different to being charged for murder for an accidental fall...







edit on 2-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Feb, 2 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: burdman30ott6

save the fetus

but if theyre born with a mental illness and are perceived as a threat at least we have cops to shoot them right


What in the world?...

You obviously don't understand how to make a logical and intelligent argument...

IF a police officer has to shoot a man, or woman who is mentally challenged and are armed and dangerous, or try to take the cops gun to kill the officer, that is completely different than arguing that "genocide of mentally challenged people is okay."

BTW, the regimes which have ALWAYS argued in favor of "getting rid of those people we don't want to have too many of, including those who are mentally challenged" has always comes from left-wing regimes... The argument is always "for the good of the collective so and so should be sacrificed." "So and so" could be individual rights, or even individuals."

To this day "mentally challenged people who are in the care of socialist/communist regimes" suffer the worst of fates.

For example... From a "left-wing source no less...



By Yoani Sanchez

The deaths of at least 26 psychiatric patients, from hunger and cold, at Havana’s Mazorra psychiatric hospital, the death of the hunger striker Orlando Zapata Tamayo, the ongoing hunger strikes by Guillermo “Coco” Farinas and others, the attacks on The Ladies in White as they commemorate the 7th anniversary of the “Black Spring” jailing of 75 independent journalists and writers, continue to resonate across Cuba. Today’s guest post is from the blogger Claudia Cadelo‘s, and reports on the ongoing impact of these events.
...


Leaked Photos Prevent Cuban Cover-Up

Political abuse of psychiatry.

Political opponents have been for decades accused of being "mentally ill" in far left-wing regimes, and these people have been subjected to the worst torture, starvation, dehydration, etc, in order to get rid of a few individuals for the good of the collective/the good of socialism/communism."

Survivors: Cuba Has Detained Half a Million Dissidents, Still Starving Prisoners to Death

I was born, and lived part of my life in Cuba. There are still a lot of family members of mine living in that authoritarian left-wing regime. To this day atrocities are committed in Cuba against "individuals" which number in the millions, and it's all done "for the good of the collective."

China is still also committing atrocities against millions of people, for being political opponents, for being religious, etc, etc. The argument of "for the good of the collective" is also used to condone such atrocities.

Venezuela is one of the latest countries to have embraced a socialist economy and a communist regime and atrocities are being committed against MILLIONS of Venezuelans.

The ones who are in favor of arguments which will see once more to the "sacrificing a few individuals, in the millions, for the good of the collective/the good of the Earth, etc, etc, are far left-wingers.


edit on 2-2-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and excerpt.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join