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: 6
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

It's deeper than just eugenics, it's pure satanic worshipping. There's tons of couples wanting to adopt American children, there's no reason for aborting a healthy child in this day and age.




posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I am remembering after the scotus nomination that there was talk that there would be a revisit of rowewade and then they said it is safe for now. So in response the left decides to force the boundaries of the laws and goad the right into revisiting the issue. It does not seem very strategic .



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ker2010

Then why does the women carry the fetus for 9 months? if the fetus is fully able to function at 3 months what is the need for the other 6 months. The fact remains there is no law that states an unborn fetus has the same rights as a breathing baby born via delivery vaginally or c-section. Call me whatever guys, these are just my opinions, we have only one body and I cannot under any circumstance feel like it's my right to tell other what they can or cannot do with their bodies. I find it hard to understand how those on the other side feel it's up to them to tell someone people what they can and cannot do with their body. The mother is the carrier of life, she is the vessel it is her choice to bring you to term or not, we are the lucky few. Count your blessings folks, we are here for a short time make the best of it. Dont hate what you can't control.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

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.
But again, I've been called heartless before.


Not looking to pick (or further) a fight with you. But I want to point something out.

The viability argument, that the fetus is not a human if it's not viable, is a huge slippery continuum.

Is a person in a coma not fully human?

How about you when you're sleeping? You're not fully conscious---so are you not fully human?

What is it that makes you human, even when you're really sick or in a coma? Is it the potential that you will recover? If so, then a brand new healthy baby probably has more potential than you or I do... And what if that sick fetus has potential that you cannot fully measure? I have a friend that was born with horrible birth defects, a horseshoe kidney, fused ribs, the works. He's making good money as a musician, trying to go pro. He would have been a medically indicated abortion, but the mom insisted on carrying him to term, regardless. Her choice.

What is it that makes us human? a healthy body? independence? the potential for future independence? Or is it some innate, essential quality of our existence?

I was arguing with another poster on this thread, who was basically arguing it's none of my business if a woman has her fetus killed.

I guess I'm arguing that society is nothing more than the aggregate of all the decisions that all of us make. I want us to be a society that affirms life. Even when it's hard and painful and dangerous. I don't want us to be a society that affirms one person's feelings over another person's future. Or one that is so morally ambivalent that it cannot say that death is always a bad thing, even when it's inevitable or necessary for the greater good, that death is always a bad thing.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Molloch must be appeased.

But seriously, why?

When you stop valuing life, what do you value?



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

A made up right among others by activist judges does not make an amendment, made up rights are fungible as a decision at anytime could reverse them.

A real right as spelled out in constitutional amendments can only be changed, added to or removed by process dictated in the constitution and was made difficult for a reason by founders.

2nd amendment is a clear right that is continually infringed even though it says not to, this by same activist judges who make up non-existent verbiage and reasoning. Note that 2nd is ONLY amendment with emphasis "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" might be a reason no others have that verbiage.

Abortion has no such clear amendment nor language in support - to compare the two is apples and oranges - in fact comparing abortion ruling to any defined constitutional right is ridiculous.

IMHO the extremism being shown by examples NY, VA, NM and probably others is going to end up self fulfilling prophesy as SCOTUS reacts to its prior error in opening pandoras box by making up rights that have no moral limits only legal technicalities.

By legal technicalities I mean unlimited in nature. Nothing in this recent batch of state laws really prevents a parent from killing their child at anytime they feel health threatened, inconvenienced, impoverished or just plain unhappy. Anytime being right up to adulthood. Sounds extreme but not really when one considers precedent based legal decision making that flies in face of any common sense.

Anybody for abortion of this nature can claim hoohy on this tack but I must point out they also claimed hoohy years ago when it was warned this would end up in full pregnancy terminations - again wheres the limit, I mean legal hard limit not wishful thinking limitations.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.


Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Also the hippocritical oath was changed. For hundreds of years doctors swore to treat people from conception to death with respect. Now it says from birth to death.


















yes i know Hippocratic



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.


Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.



Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If Democrats keep up these evil Trends, Supreme Court will intervene to correct things.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Woman here who is pro abortion up to the first trimester.

I am really sickened by this. The first three month, I can understand, and I will forever be pro, because lets face it, it's only a potential human at the point. Nature often aborts all by itself up to that point because the fetus isn't viable or the mother is stressed etc.
You can tell at that time if it will be deformed or has no brain etc. Mother may be distressed or had been raped; and her life comes first as she is a grown adult with many years invested, whilst the fetus at the time is literally a few cells shaped vaguely human.

But this.
IT's murder, it's murder as soon as the fetus/baby could in theory live all by itself. To murder a perfectly healthy ready to be born human [which it is at that time, it just hasn't entered our reality yet] is literal infanticide, murder.

This cannot be made legal, it's unbelievable.
Does anyone have the exact wording of this bill? I need to see this as it is written.
All I heard about this was a woman doctor who seemed switched on and made sense and talked about literally anencephalic babies and others that may die shortly after birth but who would suffer in those few hours. Which would again make sense to me.
So I don't know the details. I really cannot believe that there would a law that allows healthy babies to be killed. But I will believe it when I see it. And if it's true, whoever made that law is literally Hitler and Herod.

I'm going to see if i can find the bill cited somewhere. Then I'll come back to this.


Back: Can't find anything at all. Only news articles from all sides. Apparently their laws are outdated because abortions can only be performed if the kid or the mum are ill or in rape cases. I only found that people fear it may also go up to birth but not from any decent sources.
Where can I find the exact proposition?

edit on 8-2-2019 by Hecate666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Me pointing out the obvious is acting superior? Sorry to say, but I'm not the one labeling myself as the all supreme intellect, you are.

I read the comments, on a public forum, and left a comment, pointing out that people are acting off their emotions rather than actually looking into the subject, and you started calling me names. Why? Did you not read the laws and got offended?

This subject is ridiculous to even have a civil conversation, especially when people think women are aborting healthy new borns in hospitals, and celebrating abortions, because they arent.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.


Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.



Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.


Religious gatherings and followers are responsible for MANY deaths throughout history. IMO, religion is just as deadly as a physical weapon. More so in many ways, so it is relevant



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Me pointing out the obvious is acting superior? Sorry to say, but I'm not the one labeling myself as the all supreme intellect, you are.

I read the comments, on a public forum, and left a comment, pointing out that people are acting off their emotions rather than actually looking into the subject, and you started calling me names. Why? Did you not read the laws and got offended?

This subject is ridiculous to even have a civil conversation, especially when people think women are aborting healthy new borns in hospitals, and celebrating abortions, because they arent.


Exactly. Sensationalism in media is wreaking havoc on our country. Do some research, learn the actual facts, and form your own opinions, don't just parrot what some talking head told you to be upset about.

Preach.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.


Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.



Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.


Religious gatherings and followers are responsible for MANY deaths throughout history. IMO, religion is just as deadly as a physical weapon. More so in many ways, so it is relevant


It might be relevant in your head, but it's ridiculous to compare a gun to a Mass. A crazy guy goes to church...nothing happens, he gets to eat a wafer and listen to horrible music. A crazy guy buys a gun without proper vetting...bad stuff happens.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.


Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.



Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.


Religious gatherings and followers are responsible for MANY deaths throughout history. IMO, religion is just as deadly as a physical weapon. More so in many ways, so it is relevant


It might be relevant in your head, but it's ridiculous to compare a gun to a Mass. A crazy guy goes to church...nothing happens, he gets to eat a wafer and listen to horrible music. A crazy guy buys a gun without proper vetting...bad stuff happens.


I guess Jim Jones doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess A crazy Islamic Jihadi goes to worship, and decides to blow up a mall because he is told there that his god demands it doesn't qualify huh??
I guess the whole Spanish Inquisition doesn't qualify huh?


Should I continue, or have I made my point yet?



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Me pointing out the obvious is acting superior? Sorry to say, but I'm not the one labeling myself as the all supreme intellect, you are.

I read the comments, on a public forum, and left a comment, pointing out that people are acting off their emotions rather than actually looking into the subject, and you started calling me names. Why? Did you not read the laws and got offended?

This subject is ridiculous to even have a civil conversation, especially when people think women are aborting healthy new borns in hospitals, and celebrating abortions, because they arent.


And yet this is the first time in this thread you've lent anything salient enough to the argument that I even know what side you come down on or your viewpoint at all. I snapped at you because I get sick of people jumping into the middle of threads and contributing nothing but some high-minded condemnation of the discussion to which they've contributed nothing. If you have nothing to say, say nothing at all. To come on and label it as stupid only makes you look stupid.

And no, the subject is not ridiculous to have a conversation about. That's when nothing gets done. That's where evil operates, when good people remain silent and do nothing. So Lukewarm, go find a thread you find worthy of your high-mindedness and leave the hard work to us in whom you hold no intellectual value.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

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...





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.



The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.


Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.



Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.


Religious gatherings and followers are responsible for MANY deaths throughout history. IMO, religion is just as deadly as a physical weapon. More so in many ways, so it is relevant


It might be relevant in your head, but it's ridiculous to compare a gun to a Mass. A crazy guy goes to church...nothing happens, he gets to eat a wafer and listen to horrible music. A crazy guy buys a gun without proper vetting...bad stuff happens.


I guess Jim Jones doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess A crazy Islamic Jihadi goes to worship, and decides to blow up a mall because he is told there that his god demands it doesn't qualify huh??
I guess the whole Spanish Inquisition doesn't qualify huh?


Should I continue, or have I made my point yet?





You're listing violent religious organizations. I understand your point, I just completely disagree with it.

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things.

Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I want to thank you because I vowed not to waste any more time or thoughts on the brain-trust known as 'Narrator', so I'm happy to see that essentially every response I would have otherwise made has been covered quite well by you.





top topics



 
54
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join