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.

 

And you wonder why we think the left is nuts?

page: 11
61
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

I just don't care about abortion and they're not going to be killing any babies the day before they're born like you all are freaking out about.

I just think it's so funny you all care so much about life that is not even life yet but when it comes to actual people you're not too concerned



It is examples like that of "TinySickTears" that shows that despite claims from many in the left to "hate nazis," many of them in fact embrace beliefs of the "nazis..."


...
The phrase "life unworthy of life" (in German: "Lebensunwertes Leben") was a Nazi designation for the segments of the populace which, according to the Nazi regime of the time, had no right to live.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Not to mention the fact that "if abortions weren't going to be done after 24 weeks, and up to the due date of the baby," then there would be no reason for making this law in New York in the first place...

Then again, such members are ignoring that this law decriminalizes murder if the unborn, up to the due date, are killed and it doesn't even matter if the mother actually wants to have the baby anymore...

The law also changes the need for a doctor in case the unborn survive the abortion and are born alive, which makes them newborn... Now the "healthcare professional," which doesn't have to be a doctor, can simply not help the newborn which would cause their death...which in actuality would make it the murder of newborns in New York...

All these changes in the law in New York also helps the argument for "infanticide of newborns/babies" to become more of a reality since many left-wing doctors, researchers, scholars, etc have already argue that in their minds there is no difference between the unborn and newborns and as such, in the mind of these diabolical people, the murder of newborns should be allowed in all cases in which the unborn are allowed to be killed. Including if the newborn are perfectly healthy...

Anyone who doesn't understands, or sees this as "diabolical" and in fact a call to murder the unborn and even newborn by making any excuse is deluding themselves.

Soon enough even the call for "murder of the unborn up to the due date, and even the murder of newborns and babies to fight climate change, and for the good of the collective" will become a reality, apart from using other excuses to facilitate the murder of what leftists think is life unworthy of life...


edit on 27-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment and excerpt.




posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Yes it is very different... Roe V. Wade argued that on the third trimester (after 24 weeks) the state could intervene in favor of the unborn because life is viable...


Roe V Wade left it to the states, how to regulate abortion after viability. New York is exercising its rights. This is all in line with Roe V Wade.



Also, Roe v. Wade did not abolish murder charges if the unborn were murdered when the pregnant woman was attacked.


Roe V Wade did not address that issue. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was enacted in 2004. Roe V Wade was enacted much earlier, in 1973.


Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.


So, you see, New York is well within the law. Fetal homicide laws aren't mandatory for states.



Also, Roe v. Wade did not abolish the law that made it a requirement for a doctor to be present if the unborn survived the abortion and was born alive, which by law except in New York now, the doctor had to do his/her best to keep the newborn alive.


Again, Roe V Wade leaves this up to each individual state. It doesn't address it.



If the unborn survives the abortion and is born alive, it is perfectly legal for the "healthcare professional" (which doesn't have to be a doctor) to leave the newborn to die...


Again, Roe V Wade doesn't address how states should handle failed late term abortion. That's also left to the states.



It was the case Doe v. Bolton that redefined "health of the mother" to be any excuse the doctor or pregnant woman want to make...



Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia.[1] The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.
en.wikipedia.org...



Roe v. Wade affirms the constitutional right to access safe, legal abortion. The case was decided by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. More than 40 years later, Americans overwhelmingly support the decision.
www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Nothing has changed since 1973, as far as Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton. This New York law changes nothing. It simply reaffirms a woman's right to access safe and legal abortion in the State of New York, should Roe V Wade be reversed.

So again, you're wrong, wrong, wrong, about this New York law. But, you're welcome to your opinions of abortion and your vile hatred of anything left of your center.






edit on 28-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are working from irrational fears, and if you think “the left” are all cool with the things you mentioned in your sick projection of unreality, then you indeed live in a terrifying world of leftist boogie men and baby-killing monsters.

It is useless to discuss this topic with you as you are not approaching it with rationality, or even true compassion for all concerned, but with hatred, pre-judgement, fear and a heaping helping of deep belief in basic untruths.

I’m done trying to have this conversation, as it is pointless.

I hope that you never find yourself or your family in such terrifying and difficult circumstances that would require you to need such laws in place, and that if, God forbid, you did, you might be grateful the State didn’t limit your liberty to choose for yourself how to handle such an intimate and painful circumstance that no one in their right mind would wish on another human being, ever.



edit on 28-1-2019 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2019 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Roe V Wade left it to the states, how to regulate abortion after viability. New York is exercising its rights. This is all in line with Roe V Wade.


It did not. You keep trying to change what Roe v. Wade actually decided. Roe v. Wade argued the state could prohibit abortions because life is viable after 24 weeks. Roe v. Wade argued in favor of the unborn in the third trimester, not against the unborn. The only exception being if the life or health of the mother was at risk. But Doe v. Bolton changed the definition of "health of the mother."

Since Roe v. Wade argued in favor of the unborn in the third trimester, that was also the first law which protects the unborn.



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Roe V Wade did not address that issue. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was enacted in 2004. Roe V Wade was enacted much earlier, in 1973.


There were other cases that argued in favor of the unborn such as the California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Davis (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 797.

Not to mention the fact that many states decided in their penal codes to also protect the unborn at least since the 1870s. For example, "California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 187"


...
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
...

codes.findlaw.com...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
So, you see, New York is well within the law. Fetal homicide laws aren't mandatory for states.


Just because a view is passed as law doesn't make it a good law... More so when that law takes away the rights of the unborn not only up to the date they are to be born, but also if the unborn survive the abortion and are born alive the healthcare professional simply has to do nothing to help the newborn, and the newborn will die...




originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...
Nothing has changed since 1973, as far as Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton. This New York law changes nothing. It simply reaffirms a woman's right to access safe and legal abortion in the State of New York, should Roe V Wade be reversed.

So again, you're wrong, wrong, wrong, about this New York law. But, you're welcome to your opinions of abortion and your vile hatred of anything left of your center.



Yes it has changed...


...
What does the third trimester allow?
It declares that states may restrict or ban abortions as the foetus nears the point where it could live outside the womb; a woman can obtain an abortion if doctors certify it is necessary to save her life or health.
...

quizlet.com...

Roe v. Wade decided in favor of the unborn in the third trimester.

What "health of the mother" means was redefined by Doe v. Bolton, not by Roe v. Wade. Doe v. Bolton allows for any excuse to be used. That case even went as far as arguing that "because of medical improvements it is safer to have an abortion than to bear the child." Which is a ridiculous claim.

Not to mention the fact, again, that the left keeps on moving the goal post. First it was abortions only when the life or health of the mother was at risk. Roe v. Wade decided in favor of the unborn in the third trimester. The meaning of health of the mother was changed to allow any excuse. But for years, if not longer, many in the left have been arguing that the unborn and newborns are exactly the same and as such "after birth abortion" should be legal in all cases where abortion of the unborn is legal.

You don't see it because like the left did for over two hundred years devaluing the life of "certain humans." Now once again the left have devalued the life of humans for decades. The unborn and newborn are human, a completely separate human being.


edit on 28-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

It is not "irrational fear." I posted the arguments made by left-wing researchers, philosophers, etc. In which they use the argument of abortion to claim that the killing of newborns should also be made legal... This New York law actually starts legalizing the murder of newborns. After all, if the unborn survive the abortion and are born alive, those babies are newborn.

The fact that New York has abolished murder charges against the unborn, even if the mother and father wanted the baby, it's not an "irrational fear..." It is a fact that all protections for the unborn up to the due date have been abolished in New York.

It is not an "irrational fear" the fact that this law doesn't protect anymore the life of newborns who survived the abortion. Now the "deathcare professional" can leave the newborn to die and it is perfectly legal...

I could say the same thing about trying to argue with you, and others like you who have decided to devalue the human life of those you deem to be not worthy of life.

BTW, you should leave God out of it. There are several passages in the bible in which God states the murder of the unborn is a crime.




edit on 28-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



It did not. You keep trying to change what Roe v. Wade actually decided. Roe v. Wade argued the state could prohibit abortions because life is viable after 24 weeks.


Roe V Wade said that the states could restrict abortions past viability, not past 24 weeks. It didn't say that the state must proscribe abortion. It's a states' right issue.



Roe v. Wade argued in favor of the unborn in the third trimester, not against the unborn.



Roe v. Wade decided in favor of the unborn in the third trimester.


No, it did not. Nope. Roe V Wade allows states to legislate in favor of the potential life of the fetus, not that it must. The court affirmed that fetuses have no constitutional rights, according to the 14th Amendment.

Roe V Wade allowed the states to proscribe abortion after viability, or not. Roe V Wade acknowledged that the fetus has no rights, but that states have rights to protect the potential life of the fetus.



The only exception being if the life or health of the mother was at risk. But Doe v. Bolton changed the definition of "health of the mother."



What "health of the mother" means was redefined by Doe v. Bolton, not by Roe v. Wade. Doe v. Bolton allows for any excuse to be used.


Since both cases, Roe V Wade and Doe v Bolton were ruled on on the same day, I think SCOTUS knew what they were doing. This New York law changes nothing. It only protects women's and doctors' rights, should Roe V Wade be reversed or otherwise killed.



Not to mention the fact that many states decided in their penal codes to also protect the unborn at least since the 1870s. For example, "California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 187"


California is not New York. Again, this is a states' rights issue. Roe v Wade doesn't address fetal homicide.



Just because a view is passed as law doesn't make it a good law...


Cheer up. Roe V Wade could be dead as soon as tomorrow. thinkprogress.org...


edit on 28-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



There are several passages in the bible in which God states the murder of the unborn is a crime.


Citation needed.

There are plenty of places in the Bible where killing of the unborn, or a pregnant woman, is commanded.



edit on 28-1-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Roe V Wade said that the states could restrict abortions past viability, not past 24 weeks. It didn't say that the state must proscribe abortion. It's a states' right issue.


For crying out loud... Made a mistake. The viability of life for a fetus starts at 24 weeks.


...
Now a baby born at 24 weeks could have between a 10% to 70% chance of survival, a lot of factors impact that percentage, including why their mom might have gone into labor.
...


Week 24: Viability

Roe v. Wade stated on the third trimester life is viable.


edit on 28-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

edit on 28-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link and add excerpt.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Citation needed.

There are plenty of places in the Bible where killing of the unborn, or a pregnant woman, is commanded.


There are reasons why this happened.

If you read the Book of Enoch, in chapter 7 it describes that the fallen angels, the Nephilim, had women for wives and had children who were giants. That was not the plan God had for life on Earth. These giants are described to be cannibals who devoured humans, who were described as also performing bestiality.

book-ofenoch.com...

Even the bible talks about this. The flood was supposed to have gotten rid of those abominations. But the progeny of Cain survived. If you read the Torah, in it it is explained that Cain was born of Eve and the serpent in the garden of Eden. Cain's progeny are the seed of the serpent who were cursed by Elohim. Enoch himself was a son of Cain. Cain's progeny probably exists to this day.

Later on it is also described in the bible, and the Book of Enoch that the mating between the fallen angels and mankind was also a sin.

As for where the bible says the unborn have to be protected.


Exodus
...
22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
...

www.biblestudytools.com...


Jeremiah 1:5
...
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
...

www.biblestudytools.com...

Like the above, there are many others.

Anyway, this is going off topic.



edit on 28-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




The viability of life for a fetus starts at 24 weeks.


Not always. Some fetuses never achieve viability. Viability is defined as that point when a fetus can survive outside the uterus.


Viability, as the word has been used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine.
en.wikipedia.org...



Roe v. Wade stated on the third trimester life is viable.


Roe V Wade stated no such thing. Roe v Wade deferred to medical science and doctors' best judgements.

Also, we're not talking about fallen angels and gods' extermination of mankind, as the story goes. We're talking about biblical condemnation of abortion. It doesn't exist. As a matter fact, the Bible gives men excuses to force abortions on women. Do I need to provide biblical citations for you?



22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


This is an example of the The Code of Hammurabi, where women and children are property and property losses are dealt with like fines and economic business transactions. An eye for an eye, and a fetus for a fetus. Fair is fair, right?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Not always. Some fetuses never achieve viability. Viability is defined as that point when a fetus can survive outside the uterus.


Still, life is viable even then. Many kids have been born premature and survived.



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Roe V Wade stated no such thing. Roe v Wade deferred to medical science and doctors' best judgements.


Really? is that why left-wing websites have argued against the decision of Roe v. Wade which states life is viable at third trimester?...


...
The US Supreme Court played God and pretended to know life began in the third trimester thus tied state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy. But for certain it supposed life existed once fetal viability could be assured outside the womb.
...


Absurdities of Roe v. Wade like Fetal Viability




originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Also, we're not talking about fallen angels and gods' extermination of mankind, as the story goes. We're talking about biblical condemnation of abortion. It doesn't exist. As a matter fact, the Bible gives men excuses to force abortions on women. Do I need to provide biblical citations for you?


You stated God killed people, including kids, and I gave you some of the reasons why that happened. But now you simply don't want to admit it. If you don't want to go off a tangent, then don't make claims about what you know nothing about.

That excerpt i gave from the bible clearly states that if the unborn are hurt whoever cause the hurt had to not only pay fines, but be exacted for what he/she did. If the unborn were to be killed by someone who attacks the pregnant woman and the baby dies, the bible says to exact the an equal penalty upon those who caused harm to the unborn.



Jeremiah 1:5
Embed

5 i“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born j I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet kto the nations.”

biblia.com...

In that statement God not only states that Jeremiah was a prophet, but that he knows who we are since he formed us in the womb, and that life is consecrated in the womb.




originally posted by: Sookiechacha
This is an example of the The Code of Hammurabi, where women and children are property and property losses are dealt with like fines and economic business transactions. An eye for an eye, and a fetus for a fetus. Fair is fair, right?


That was a code of the Babylonians. The Babylonians are seen as sinners by the Hebrews and Christians. They are mentioned in the Torah and bible as "the great evil of the tower builders is their sinful pride against the rule of God."







edit on 29-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

This is an example of the The Code of Hammurabi, where women and children are property and property losses are dealt with like fines and economic business transactions. An eye for an eye, and a fetus for a fetus. Fair is fair, right?



Wrong...you like to twist what is actually written a lot... The bible doesn't say "exact the death of a fetus with the death of another fetus," like you claim... What it says is that if someone harms a pregnant woman and the baby dies, then death should come to that person who murdered the unborn.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: AboveBoard

It is not "irrational fear." I posted the arguments made by left-wing researchers, philosophers, etc. In which they use the argument of abortion to claim that the killing of newborns should also be made legal...


got a uhhhhhhh
got a source for that?
i spend a fair deal of time around people you'd consider to be extremely leftist and i'm yet to hear a single one say anything even remotely like this. i assume since you're so worked up about it, you have a good amount of sources close to hand?



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: AboveBoard

It is not "irrational fear." I posted the arguments made by left-wing researchers, philosophers, etc. In which they use the argument of abortion to claim that the killing of newborns should also be made legal...


got a uhhhhhhh
got a source for that?
i spend a fair deal of time around people you'd consider to be extremely leftist and i'm yet to hear a single one say anything even remotely like this. i assume since you're so worked up about it, you have a good amount of sources close to hand?





May I suggest banging your head against the wall now before you get into a to a fro with EU, you will retain more brain cells that way...
edit on 29-1-2019 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: free advice



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

what can i say, i've been running a fever for the last couple days and it has me feeling way more quixotic than normal



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: continuousThunder

Carry on then... 😂



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


The US Supreme Court played God and pretended to know life began in the third trimester thus tied state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy. But for certain it supposed life existed once fetal viability could be assured outside the womb.
Absurdities of Roe v. Wade like Fetal Viability


That's what happens when you depend on bias web sites that give you fake news. SCOTUS didn't rule on when life begins. SCOTUS ruled on when it was appropriate for the states to intervene to protect the potential life of a fetus. The justices cited the the 14th Amendment, which grants constitutional rights to "persons born", not potential life or "persons unborn".

And again, there is no biblical admonishment of abortion. But, there are several places where forced abortion is commanded.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: continuousThunder

got a uhhhhhhh
got a source for that?
i spend a fair deal of time around people you'd consider to be extremely leftist and i'm yet to hear a single one say anything even remotely like this. i assume since you're so worked up about it, you have a good amount of sources close to hand?


I have given those links several times already, including in this thread.

BTW, part of the change this new law does in New York is to abolish the part in which a doctor has to be present in case the unborn survives the abortion and is born alive. Under the new "change" the "deathcare professional" just has to leave the newborn by himself/herself until he/she dies.

That New York law already is condoning the murder of newborns, because when the unborn survive the abortion and are born alive they are newborn.

That law, in New York, also abolishes all protections for the unborn, even if the parents want to have the baby. If a robber, or some insane neighbor, or family member attacks a pregnant woman and causes her unborn to die but the woman is fine, no longer will those who attack and cause miscarriages on women will be charged with the murder of the unborn. Even if the mother/father want or wanted that baby.

If you want to find on your own how many people in the left who are academics and are in favor of infanticide, all you have to do is search "after birth abortion."

There have even been already some court cases in which very "liberal judges" have decided cases in favor of the mother, even when the mother has drowned, or murdered in some other way their newborns/baby.


After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
...

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we callafter-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
...

jme.bmj.com...

Unfortunately there are many in academia, and lean to the left in politics, who even argue that "infanticide/after birth abortion should be legal."

One such academic is Peter Singer.


Infanticide Should Be Legalized

The United States should allow the use of infanticide in the case of infants with severe medical complications. This policy should be adopted because euthanizing infants in some scenarios can be a valid moral option since certain infants can be born with absolutely terrible life prospects. For example, there are a number of instances where infants can have terminal ailments that cause them to suffer immensely after birth before killing them shortly thereafter. In these situations, infanticide should be an option available to the parents of infants with these conditions. Additionally, there are strong grounds that can justify infanticide in a broader context since infants are not rational and self-conscious agents. Because infants cannot hold a conscious desire to continue living – and have never held a conscious desire to continue living - they can't be given the same rights as persons. Therefore, painlessly killing an infant cannot be wrong in the same way that killing a person is wrong. Of course, there would have to be parameters set around the practice of killing infants. And such technical matters are, indeed, important. But, for now, it is sufficient to recognize that there are certain situations in which intentionally killing infants can be justified.
...

www.debate.org...

Even when very "liberal" students in Universities have been asked about "infanticide/after birth abortion" many have been in favor of that sort of disgusting and downright evil argument.


TRENDING: More college students support post-birth abortion
...
Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”
...

The College Fix

Even the so called "conservative Democrat Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam," has admitted what this is, and even then he has argued in favor for "infanticide/after birth abortion..."




Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam defends bill allowing abortion during labor

By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on Wednesday defended a proposed bill that would allow abortion up until the moment of childbirth.

Virginia Democratic Del. Kathy Tran, chief sponsor of the Repeal Act, sparked headlines this week after she said her bill, which seeks to repeal restrictions on third-trimester abortions, would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy while shes in labor.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth,” Republican state Rep. Todd Gilbert asked Ms. Tran during a hearing Monday, “would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so-certified? She’s dilating.”

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Ms. Tran answered.
...

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam defends bill allowing abortion during labor

edit on 30-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's what happens when you depend on bias web sites that give you fake news. SCOTUS didn't rule on when life begins. SCOTUS ruled on when it was appropriate for the states to intervene to protect the potential life of a fetus. The justices cited the the 14th Amendment, which grants constitutional rights to "persons born", not potential life or "persons unborn".

And again, there is no biblical admonishment of abortion. But, there are several places where forced abortion is commanded.


Funny coming from a person using links like wikipedia, which was obviously written by another "pro-death" left-winger, as valid sources when that "left-wing person" is simply ignoring and dismissing what Roe v. Wade actually argued in the third trimester...

No...it is YOU, and others like you who keep twisting what Roe v.s Wade actually was/is about... You claim this New York law is the same as what Roe v. Wade decided, and that is simply FALSE...

Roe v. Wade decided in favor of the unborn in the third trimester except in very extreme circumstances, but the left was already arguing the redefinition of what "health of the mother means" in Doe v. Bolton to allow any excuse.

The New York law takes away ALL PROTECTIONS from the unborn, and even from newborns who survive the abortion and are born alive...


edit on 30-1-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The following is the human life you left-wingers claim is not worthy of life




new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join