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.

 

THE ABORTION AGENDA: Its Benefactors & What You Don’t Know

page: 5
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX


edit on 1-2-2019 by Sabrechucker because: My morals kicked in




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
you lot are getting hysterical and FAR too obvious.

in yesterday's thread it was "god doesn't want you to abort the foetus" and now 24 hours later it's
"THEY'RE ABORTING THE FOETUS TO DRINK ITS BLUDD"
like wow you could never possibly win that argument because you don't have a leg to stand on so magically just like that there's this whole wild new conspiratorial twist to the whole story that you're all gonna copypasta like it's facts for the next six months.
learned the lesson of president fake news real well haven't you?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

I'm guessing this is the clip that has many in an uproar.




posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I already explained to you how it won't stop illegal operations.

Take my posts in this thread as they are, I'm not going to repeat myself.

Furthermore the previous laws in NY clearly stated that any woman who aborted an unborn child after the 24 week period would be considered a murderer or someone who committed man slaughter.
But obviously the constitution protects the mother, thank god. But what this new law does do is it takes the added stress off the mothers shoulders if she does decide to go the abortion route.

But you have made you point clear. You are no for these new laws, and we can agree to disagree. At the end of the day, we both are not women, and will never be in this situation.
Just be thankful you were born in a free society that at least has the choice and democratic process to hone down laws until they are foolproof and meet the middle ground.


edit on 1-2-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


In the face of calls at the federal level to weaken abortion rights, the bill maintains abortions as legal within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy – “or at any time when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.’’ Late-term abortions had previously been authorized under state law if they meant saving the life of a woman


buffalonews.com...

So it seems I was right

In New York it was legal for doctors to give third trimester abortions when their life was in danger

So this law was not needed for that

Show me the abortion doctors charged for murder in New York in that situation



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It was legal based on federal law. The present admin has said they are trying to overturn those laws.

This law was needed, in the opinion of state legislators, to keep the options available if that was to happen.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grambler

It was legal based on federal law. The present admin has said they are trying to overturn those laws.

This law was needed, in the opinion of state legislators, to keep the options available if that was to happen.


Why not just write the state law to say late term abortions are legal if the mothers life is in danger then?

Instead they made it apply to almost any pregnancy

So clearly this was about more than just protecting status quo abortion laws
edit on 1-2-2019 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Because they abide by Federal law...

All states must abide by federal law is a woman's health is in immediate danger. It's all constitutional.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

First a news link:
New York is latest state pushing abortion laws amid fears Roe vs. Wade will be overturned

and one from a pro reproductive rights site


Our state law was written in 1970, three years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. The state law is inconsistent with, and falls short of, the constitutional protections of Roe and its progeny, but it remains on the books in New York—which means that New Yorkers have no state statutory protection if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, a promise the GOP has made for years and may now be in a position to fulfill.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

Because they abide by Federal law...

All states must abide by federal law is a woman's health is in immediate danger. It's all constitutional.


Yes so there are no police running around arresting doctors for performing late term abortions to save women’s lives

Again I ask, if this was only about that, why not write the law to say late term abortions are allowed only to save a woman’s life or because the baby is non viable?

Clearly the law was written to make late term abortions easier to obtain and not just to preserve current standards where doctors aren’t arrested for performing abortions to prevent a woman from dying

As I said, the law was written intentionally to effectually say any pregnant woman can now get a third trimester abortion



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not sure it was written to make it easier to get a late term abortion but it does seem to be written to include a wider scope of special circumstances.

Is that the same thing? I don't think so and I don't think it is deserving of the hype.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not sure it was written to make it easier to get a late term abortion but it does seem to be written to include a wider scope of special circumstances.

Is that the same thing? I don't think so and I don't think it is deserving of the hype.


So we should look at what that wider scope is

And we are back to my original point in this

The doe v dolton case which defines a woman’s health in pregnancy

And so as my original post on this thread shows, the new law is written so just about every pregnant woman can claim her health is affected by pregnancy, and this she legallyep is entitled to a third trimester abortion

And yes, that is disgusting and worth the hype



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Every woman who is pregnant should have the option of abortion. Just like every man had the option to pull out or use protection. But see the difference in the two?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

Every woman who is pregnant should have the option of abortion. Just like every man had the option to pull out or use protection. But see the difference in the two?



I am for early abortions

That doesn’t mean we should accept third trimester abortions

Do you think a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy for any reason, even 8 to 9 months in because it’s her choice?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




They aren't celebrating abortions, do you know how hard it is for a mother to make that decision? I worked with someone who's wife had the choice to abort their child because it developed a brain tumor and couldn't be removed at all and would kill the child regardless of the outcome or surgery, they opted out and just got the child removed, he died 2 weeks later. His due date was just a month away. Sad story. But just having the option, without the looming threat of being charged with murder or man slaughter is what this law is doing. Can you even fathom what it would be like to be in the position that my co-worker was in and then also having the thought that if you do go through with it police will come knocking at your door? I can't even imagine, luckily where I live they never even had to even think of something like that happening. His story changed my view on abortion quite a bit.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Can you ol ask answer the question above?

I will happily respond to this anecdote after that



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I gave you my answer. Many times, you ignore it.

I even attempted to agree to disagree.

I am for abortion within' medical reason.

I am a man, not a woman, you are a man and not woman, both of us cannot imagine what it would be like to make such a decision, yet here you are making judgement on a woman issue. And don't start on "the man has a right as well" BS, they had their chance when they pumped their seed into the woman. And now the female needs to live what ever life throws at them while the man just stands by and tell him what he thinks.
edit on 1-2-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Since when did a real American give a # about federal law? You are correct in your legal copy and pastes, however most of us go with our gut as a law. Imagine if our Government spent their money on educating youngsters on safe sex, free birth control pills and actually condoned,controlled and punished the "Networks" such as Nickelodeon, Disney and MTV that promote a 13 year old as a sex symbol. "Children know what we have taught them" and as of late, the likes of Miley Cyrus and others have been taught at a very young age that sex sells. WTF could go wrong there?. Now in all honesty, boy's will be boy's and Girl's will be Girl's, I lost my virginity at 14. It was quite the # show as she would attest, and that's the point. Children should be making out and maybe touching a boob, not making humans. We spend millions to eliminate the "problem" and don't do nearly enough to stop the promotion of these actions.



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

What does within medical reason mean?

Here is the plan parenthood connected guttmacjer instittute giving numbers in why women decide to have late term abortions


So, why do these babies die? The Guttmacher Institute has looked at the reasons for late-term abortion, and the reasons are chilling. First, the top-line finding is clear: “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women 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 nulliparous [had never given birth].”

Interestingly, even in some of the anecdotes chosen by Guttmacher, the women describe their decision to have a late-term abortion as “easy” or “very easy.” They didn’t find out they were pregnant until later in the pregnancy, didn’t want the child, and aborted it. Their only challenge was raising the money or finding the clinic. The thought that they were killing a viable infant — a person who would could be raised in a loving home if the mother didn’t want her child — apparently doesn’t factor into their decision-making. It’s treated as casually as an early-term abortion


www.nationalreview.com...

Do you think a woman should legally be allowed to have a third trimester abortion because raising a kid alone would depress them?



posted on Feb, 1 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That's a much bigger issue. And you're digging into poverty issues, where the male figure is absent in the scenario.

You are branching out from the initial laws we were discussing.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join