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: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Just beautifully well said. Bravo!




posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

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


Oh look...another post of someone jumping into the conversation and acting like the narcissistic jacka** that they are, lording some presumption of intellect over the others presently engaged with some vague reference to their grand understanding without bestowing said understanding upon the intellectual minions here because that might open up the fragility of their ego to evaluation and criticism.

Otherwise...very good post.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:28 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.
. (emphasis added)

I thought you said you were a man???

Not that your gender would matter, in regard to the gravity of you opinions. I just find it odd, that you were misleading (either then, or on this page) about that aspect of yourself.....



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Sorry unintended redundant post has since been aborted.


edit on 8-2-2019 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl

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.

We should watch for the next de-sensitizing platform.


Pedophilia is next and it will have defenders just like the full term baby killers. I wouldn't put it past same ones here defending full term abortions to side with that as well.


edit on 8-2-2019 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Theres been a dozen of these threads within the last 3 weeks. It's the same thing over and over.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Graysen
Sorry unintended redundant post has since been aborted.



You aborted your post?! Monster!



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Theres been a dozen of these threads within the last 3 weeks. It's the same thing over and over.


Then don't respond, dude. There is a robust conversation happening here regardless of your opinion on whether or not it's redundant. It obviously is far from being resolved, hence the discussion. If you have nothing to add...add nothing. Don't just jump on and act superior because you're not.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Whatever you say boss, I am quite good with children and I have two of my own. Sex workers should be able to work, why not it is the oldest profession. Just because some people disagree with what they choose to do with their bodies or are disgusted by it does not mean its wrong. It is their body. I just do not believe that we as a society have any right over the property the truest form of property, the actual only thing we truly own our bodies. It is hard for me to wrap my head around why people feel the need to control what others do, to themselves....very hard to understand why some need to push their values onto others. You be you let me be me, if mistakes were made, and we have the ability to fix those mistakes and yes this includes unwanted pregnancies.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Any bets on when we see the forced castration of toxic men?

It will be presented as the sane solution for the whole baby murder thing.

Put me down for 2039.



edit on 8-2-2019 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

I am a man, if I want to shoot up, get a tattoo, piercing cut my penis off sell my body parts, be a sex worker whatever I should be able to do it, I was talking in the third person. A women with child should have those same rights. Its really not hard to understand. You may say that's a human life, sure it is but without the carrier it is nothing, and if that carrier does not wish to carry any longer why is that any of your business?



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
Any bets on when we see the forced castration of toxic men?

Put me down for 2039.







It'll be sooner than that, and if we're allowing mom to bestow a right to life, we'll soon be all kosher with sex selective abortion too. After all, if men are toxic, it would be very, very distressing on a mother's mental state to learn that she was having to bear one of those monsters into society!

And barring that, it will soon be permissable for her to not only confer his right to live upon him bot to also allow for him to be castrated at birth just to make sure he can never become toxic.
edit on 8-2-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ker2010

originally posted by: KansasGirl

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.

We should watch for the next de-sensitizing platform.


Pedophilia is next and it will have defenders just like the full term baby killers. I wouldn't put it past some ones here defending full term abortions to side with that as well.



You're right! They've been prepping that one for years. Think of the recent thing with the child "transgender" who has been dancing at strip bars and being praised on the mainstream news for it.

The transgender thing is all mixed up in it too. Specifically, the recent debate/screaming matches about giving puberty blockers and breast removals and hysterectomies to children and adolescents who "identify" as the opposite sex.

If one looks at all the pieces of the picture, it really looks like a program of grooming the populace to be more and more idiotic and barbaric. The public is so stupid to fall into the trap. So stupid.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: narrator


They ruled on it based on an amendment to the constitution. Yes, that can theoretically change. So can the 2nd.


Wrong.
while the court's ruling can be changed by a later course, the 2nd amendment can only be changed by a constitutional convention...




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.


I'm a states' rights person. I just think the NM assembly is wrong; not saying the Federals need to jump in and coerce them in the direction of ethics. Any more than the Feds should get mixed up in a state limiting abortions... oh wait, then the "choice" people will sue the state into eternity, for violating the Supremes' decision.... The pro-choice side has more to lose from states' rights in the big picture, I think



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.


Can you get the gun while the check is still pending? No. See, That's infringement.


edit on 8-2-2019 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: UniformKilo

Why can you not understand that it is not the woman's body that we're discussing here? It is another, living American BABY at issue. This specifically brings the abortion ethics to the forefront, because pro-abortion monsters such as yourself used to be able to hide behind the "clump of cells" argument, the time of the formation of life and such...but at 9 months?? Viable outside of the womb?? When does the other human's rights enter into your philosophy of such dire concern?

I'll make you a deal, demon. Watch the following video and refute the merits of this woman's life, and I'll watch anything you want me to in return...




posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.


And I'll ask again, how do better background checks and waiting periods infringe your right? You can still get the gun, you just have to prove you are capable of safely using it beforehand.

Most people jump the gun (no pun intended) about my beliefs on abortion. I am pro choice, to be sure. However, late term abortion is where I draw the line.
There seems to be a lot of fear-mongering about this, infanticide and whatnot. The truth is, sometimes it is much less traumatic (for mother and child) for that child to be aborted than be born. For example, if the fetus isn't viable, it's heart is outside it's body or is missing half the brain or something tragic like that. If the baby is born, it'll survive for maaaybe a week, while being hooked up to a bunch of machines and terrified the entire time (or in a drug induced coma), the parents have to watch the child suffer for that week, and then it dies, leaving the parents emotionally scarred for life, not to mention the GIGANTIC medical bills they'll be saddled with for keeping that child on life support for a week.

I would argue that, in instances like that, it is better for everyone involved (including the child) to abort. But, I've also been called heartless before, so who knows.

And I think that's the main point of these rulings of late. It isn't to allow a mother to decide the day before "nah, turns out I don't want it, kill it", it gives parents and doctors a legal way to minimize suffering in tragic circumstances. You'd be really hard-pressed to find a doctor willing to give an abortion that late-term just because the mom decides she doesn't want the kid. It's for medical reasons, not a change of heart.

As for my personal stance on abortion...taking out medical reasons to abort, here's what I think: If the child were born, and could survive outside the womb without tremendous amounts of medical intervention, then the baby should be delivered. I'd argue that before that point (outside of womb viability), a fetus isn't a living person, because it wouldn't be able to survive outside the womb. If something can't live, it isn't alive.
ETA: Excluding biological necessities. I don't mean going to the store to buy itself some formula, obviously relying on parents for food and shelter is a given. What I mean is, if the child could be born and survive with only the biological necessities, then it should be delivered (outside of medical emergencies). If the child would require being hooked up to ungodly numbers of machines in order to possibly survive, then it isn't a viable human.

But again, I've been called heartless before.
edit on 8-2-2019 by narrator because: ETA



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: UniformKilo
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Just because some people disagree with what they choose to do with their bodies


Its no longer her body thats were you fail in you're argument.

Both of these baby's are within 3 months of each other, both have brains, hearts, fully developed body's of THEIR OWN and both can live outside the womb. One you can kill the other would be considered murder (at least right now). Your logic doesn't stand buddy.




edit on 8-2-2019 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

No, it wouldn't be.

...and like those cases, who do you suppose this is going to effect the most?? The same ones as last time. Odd, huh?

This is nothing less than evil. Infanticide. Good to know that we've come so far since the days when infants were left out for the wolves to eat.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Thats why its BS when Dems say they only wanna ban Ar15s. This whole abortion scenario is a perfect example of how far and extreme they will go.

Give an inch they will eventually take a mile. Same with guns. Same with abortion.

Ban Ar15, next semi auto handguns and shot guns, next revolvers, next any gun able to shoot more than one bullet before reload, next BB guns.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ker2010

Perhaps the best post in this whole disgusting thread. Just seeing the beauty of both of those little innocent babies and the comparison that you so simply and eloquently stated, a picture truly is worth a thousand words. Thank and God bless you...




top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join