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 Mexico Passes Law to Execute Babies at Birth

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniformKilo
a reply to: ketsuko

How about this let them have them babies and give up for adoption, and who is going to pay for it, not the right they can't stand any type of social program. I got it lets take that money from planned parenthood and pay for the children, oh wait its going to cost a hell of a lot more than that.


You are completely ignorant of the process of adoption post Little Orphan Annie.

There is a waiting list to adopt that is years long. Unless you are a millionaire, you can forget about adopting a healthy child of your own race. And yet adoptive parents get in line to adopt children with severe illness, because the urge to parent is that strong.

There are no orphanages in the USA. There is no need; the waiting list is that long. And many parents foster because they cannot get an adoptee, so there are homes waiting to take in kids that CPS or the police recover from crime scenes, car wrecks etc, even on a temporary basis.

It's not a social program. Just people who care. And they pay for it themselves. And still not enough babies to adopt.




posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniformKilo
a reply to: ketsuko

How about this let them have them babies and give up for adoption, and who is going to pay for it, not the right they can't stand any type of social program. I got it lets take that money from planned parenthood and pay for the children, oh wait its going to cost a hell of a lot more than that.


So let's just murder them instead!!

You are deranged. Simpleton.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   


Well, I guess I'll go ahead and introduce the spiritual aspects into this. This is the devil's world baby, and he's not even fronting anymore.
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

all those burnt offering to moloch are to hasten something. it almost wreaks of desperation



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This kind of legislation is nothing if not patently obscene. Maybe they could enact a law that allows us to abort politicians of any age? This world is going into the sh#$ter real fast, I think the reset is coming.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 2/8.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   
A serious question/thought:

There are a few folks on this thread that, at least according to a lot of their posts in other threads and their OPs, believe that the Constitution is the greatest document ever written, and we need to follow it to the letter.

Hence the entire gun debate: It's in the Constitution! You can't take that right away from us!

So is abortion. It's in the Constitution. "But it's just an amendment, it isn't as important as the original document!" Well...so is gun rights. The 2nd amendment.

Why are you ok with changing the 14th, but not the 2nd? It's just how your beliefs are structured. But, you're being selfish if you think the amendment you don't like can be changed, but the one you like can't be.

This all sounds quite hypocritical. I'm not saying I want the 2nd to be changed (I don't, I own several guns), but if you're so gung-ho about changing the 14th, then you need to be open to someone else wanting to change the 2nd.

Otherwise, we're all just pots telling kettles what color they are.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Please quote the specific part of the COTUS that has the word "abortion" in it, and explain how you are not depriving a baby of its life with an abortion.
edit on 8-2-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

Please quote the specific part of the COTUS that has the word "abortion" in it, and explain how you are not depriving a baby of its life with an abortion.


It doesn't specifically say the word, but that's sort of beside the point. The 14th amendment covers equal protection under the law, and the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of abortion several times, citing the 14th as the reason it's a constitutional right. So while it doesn't technically use the word "abortion", the SCOTUS seems to think the 14th is a pretty good justification that it's a constitutional right.

Where in the constitution does it specifically say "you guys can own any kind of gun you want, with no government oversight"?
edit on 8-2-2019 by narrator because: eta



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
A serious question/thought:

There are a few folks on this thread that, at least according to a lot of their posts in other threads and their OPs, believe that the Constitution is the greatest document ever written, and we need to follow it to the letter.

Hence the entire gun debate: It's in the Constitution! You can't take that right away from us!

So is abortion. It's in the Constitution. "But it's just an amendment, it isn't as important as the original document!" Well...so is gun rights. The 2nd amendment.

Why are you ok with changing the 14th, but not the 2nd? It's just how your beliefs are structured. But, you're being selfish if you think the amendment you don't like can be changed, but the one you like can't be.

This all sounds quite hypocritical. I'm not saying I want the 2nd to be changed (I don't, I own several guns), but if you're so gung-ho about changing the 14th, then you need to be open to someone else wanting to change the 2nd.

Otherwise, we're all just pots telling kettles what color they are.


Abortion is most assuredly not an amendment to the Constitution. Roe V. Wade is based upon a SCOTUS ruling having to do with a privacy clause in the Constitution that has been interpreted through judicial law-making that the founders intrinsically ruled on this issue when the document was written...in other words, bulls**t.

I actually sat down personally with Antonin Scalia when I was a cadet at West Point and discussed this very topic with him. It was fascinating. He pulled out a pocket version of the Constitution and said, "I've read this document, and nowhere within have I found the words 'a woman's right to abort her unborn fetus shall not be infringed'".



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Do not worry about me, take that worry and fold it up and save it for someone who really needs it, a family member a friend or acquaintance. Not some nameless faceless person on the internet. I have my own morale code. I believe in myself and my values. Just because I think we should be able to have control over our bodies and what is in them does not make me a bad person. This is the only thing we have complete control over, I refuse to believe someone else has the right to decide what I get to do with my body.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

Please quote the specific part of the COTUS that has the word "abortion" in it, and explain how you are not depriving a baby of its life with an abortion.


It doesn't specifically say the word, but that's sort of beside the point. The 14th amendment covers equal protection under the law, and the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of abortion several times, citing the 14th as the reason it's a constitutional right. So while it doesn't technically use the word "abortion", the SCOTUS seems to think the 14th is a pretty good justification that it's a constitutional right.

Where in the constitution does it specifically say "you guys can own any kind of gun you want, with no government oversight"?


Ok, based upon this brilliant argumentative strategy, I can state without equivocation that it is time to completely ignore you in...

5...
4...
3...
2...
1...

Go!



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

It doesn't specifically say the word, but that's sort of beside the point. The 14th amendment covers equal protection under the law, and the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of abortion several times, citing the 14th as the reason it's a constitutional right. So while it doesn't technically use the word "abortion", the SCOTUS seems to think the 14th is a pretty good justification that it's a constitutional right.


Now you're talking about a court decision; you're no longer talking about the constitution. And unlike the constitution, the court's conclusions change over time....



Where in the constitution does it specifically say "you guys can own any kind of gun you want, with no government oversight"?


It's pronounced "shall not be infringed."



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Tell me where in the constitution it states that an UNBORN FETUS has the same rights as a person outside of the mothers body. Who owns that body and all that it encompasses?



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniformKilo
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Do not worry about me, take that worry and fold it up and save it for someone who really needs it, a family member a friend or acquaintance. Not some nameless faceless person on the internet. I have my own morale code. I believe in myself and my values. Just because I think we should be able to have control over our bodies and what is in them does not make me a bad person. This is the only thing we have complete control over, I refuse to believe someone else has the right to decide what I get to do with my body.


You might not be a bad person, you're just behaving as one. The things you've stated here are abysmal and disgusting. I would never want you to watch someone's children for example...your soul is ugly.

As an aside, do you feel as passionately about sex workers. Everyday sex workers are being jailed for using their own bodies in, often, the only commerce they can engage in...these are mothers providing for families, many desperate.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I'm not a pro lifer by any means but I dont care what anyone says, aborting a healthy 7-8-9 month old fetus is murder.
A deformed or damaged fetus or an at risk mother is a different story but a healthy one....just no.

I think pretty much anyone would feel the same aborting a viable healthy at 7-8-9 Months is a baby full and complete would be murder.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SteamyJeans
Wtf is with the recent push for baby killing!?

Last 3 weeks it’s been a different state.
It’s like the “caravan” of migrants but instead it’s dems and baby killers marching forward.

Disgusting.


I wonder. Conspiracy mind just kicked on: are they systematically de-sensitizing us? Getting us used to, even BACKING, crazier and crazier and more inhumane things. They get us used to and even asking for the killing of newborn babies, we won't bat too many eyelashes when they start introducing things designed to get rid of adults who don't go along with the program that they feed to us through the MSM an social media.

They've been prepping the population for this for a while. Getting us whipped up about stupid crap, inciting us to tear each other to bits over social media and such, over things like "Russia!" and "Evil private school teenager!" and all of the other things that we've all been yelling about.

We should watch for the next de-sensitizing platform.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: narrator

It doesn't specifically say the word, but that's sort of beside the point. The 14th amendment covers equal protection under the law, and the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of abortion several times, citing the 14th as the reason it's a constitutional right. So while it doesn't technically use the word "abortion", the SCOTUS seems to think the 14th is a pretty good justification that it's a constitutional right.


Now you're talking about a court decision; you're no longer talking about the constitution. And unlike the constitution, the court's conclusions change over time....



Where in the constitution does it specifically say "you guys can own any kind of gun you want, with no government oversight"?


It's pronounced "shall not be infringed."



They ruled on it based on an amendment to the constitution. Yes, that can theoretically change. So can the 2nd. Doesn't make it the right thing to do though.
And that's exactly why NM passed this. They're worried that as the SCOTUS becomes more conservative, they'll take away this right. So they did something to protect themselves. I fully support this.
Where are all the State's Rights people? I thought we all wanted less federal government involvement and more decisions being made by states? If you don't like it, don't live in NM.

Also, having to go through a more rigorous background check and waiting period isn't infringing your right at all. You can still get the gun.
edit on 8-2-2019 by narrator because: typo



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: narrator

Please quote the specific part of the COTUS that has the word "abortion" in it, and explain how you are not depriving a baby of its life with an abortion.


It doesn't specifically say the word, but that's sort of beside the point. The 14th amendment covers equal protection under the law, and the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of abortion several times, citing the 14th as the reason it's a constitutional right. So while it doesn't technically use the word "abortion", the SCOTUS seems to think the 14th is a pretty good justification that it's a constitutional right.

Where in the constitution does it specifically say "you guys can own any kind of gun you want, with no government oversight"?


Ok, based upon this brilliant argumentative strategy, I can state without equivocation that it is time to completely ignore you in...

5...
4...
3...
2...
1...

Go!


So, no rebuttal from you? Got it.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniformKilo
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Tell me where in the constitution it states that an UNBORN FETUS has the same rights as a person outside of the mothers body. Who owns that body and all that it encompasses?


You see, some things were so obvious that they didn't need to be explicitly stated. This topic was so far from the very nature of reality of moral consideration at the time that it went wholly unaddressed. What was addressed, however, was the allowance for the altering of the constitution through the amendment process in case society changed over time and the document needed revision or updating. So far, that has never happened as it relates to abortion...they needed to rely upon judicial activism in Roe V. Wade in order to accomplish what they otherwise could not by the will of the people.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: narrator


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Hmmm ... there it is in plain text. Shall not be infringed is pretty plain.

In order to believe that the equal protection clause is being upheld in regard to abortion, you have to specifically believe that a baby is not a baby and not human in order to strip it of its basic, unalienable right to life which is what abortion does.

So please explain to me at what point we gain that basic right? You see, the law proposed in Virginia now says that the right to life is something the mother bestows on a baby, not something that a baby has by virtue of being a baby. That is the implication of a child surviving birth, being kept alive and comfortable until the mother decides whether or not it should be killed.

This New Mexico law is similar and so is New York where the baby can be wanted right up until the last days, right up until all its body but its head exists and the mother can still decide she doesn't want it because she's distressed and she can strip that right to life from it.

See, this is what troubles me. It's a move toward believing that basic, unalienable rights are things bestowed on us by agency of man rather than by simply being things instrinsic to ourselves by virtue of our being. If you mother determines that you are worthy of your right to life, then what other rights of yours do you have only because other human beings decide you are worthy of holding them? And once you start walking down that road, then all your basic rights: life, liberty, person, property, self defense, etc. ... all of them are only yours as much as other, more powerful people decide you deserve them.

And I don't know about you, but I don't trust other people to decide whether or not I get to have those things. They're mine and always will be mine no matter how much other people try to take them from me. They're the things that make me free and keep us a free people. And you better wise up and learn that lesson really quickly or you'll end up a slave to others.
edit on 8-2-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Oh look another thread of people who dont understand laws let alone actually reading the language of the laws.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join