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.

 

Fricken Trudeau

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

do your parents belive in abortion sookie?

or do they hate womens reporductive rights?

asking for a friend.




posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Wrong! They removed the charge of "homicide" for fetal death. Good for them, because a fetus isn't a person. That doesn't make it "perfectly
legal to attack a pregnant woman.

Also, not extending the suffering by putting a terminally ill newborn on life support, stuck with needles and threaded with tubes, against the wishes of the parent and against the advice of doctors is not murder, or infanticide.




You should take some reading comprehension classes... I never wrote that they made it legal to attack the mother, but rather that the murder of the unborn, even if the mother and father wanted the child, is no longer considered a crime in New Murder York... They also took off the provision that would help the child if he/she was born alive after surviving an abortion... the "death practitioners" can now just let the baby die and it's perfectly legal in New Murder York...

The law would allow ANY EXCUSE to be used to murder the unborn, and even newborns who survive abortions. The law doesn't specify that it is only in rare cases AT ALL. The one lying is YOU.

BTW...your democrat ancestors also thought that black people, and minorities were nor persons, but were property the democrats/demoncrats could do anything they wanted to them...including murder them...

Ironic how demoncrats (big difference to democrats who still have some sense) have gone full circle into believing ONCE AGAIN, that certain humans are not humans when it is convenient for demoncrats...




edit on 2-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jun, 2 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




I never wrote that they made it legal to attack the mother,


You can't harm the unborn without attacking the mother.



but rather that the murder of the unborn


The definition of murder is the willful killing of a person. A fetus is not a person, therefore, it isn't murder.



but rather that the murder of the unborn, even if the mother and father wanted the child, is no longer considered a crime in New Murder York...


That's not true. It's just not homicide



The law would allow ANY EXCUSE to be used to murder the unborn


Just stop it! Of course that's a lie. In New York, viability is the cut off for abortion on demand. It's still illegal to attack a pregnant woman.



The law would allow ANY EXCUSE to be used to murder the unborn, and even newborns who survive abortions.


Nobody is aborting healthy newborn babies. If there is a late term abortion it's because the fetus has a fatal morbid deformity or a terminal condition. And don't go showing me YouTube videos of 40 year old women claiming that they are abortion survivors.



The law doesn't specify that it is only in rare cases AT ALL.


It doesn't have to. LOL

You're lies, anger and insults don't make you smarter, and your selective outrage doesn't make you moral.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

You can't harm the unborn without attacking the mother.


Moving goal posts like always...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The definition of murder is the willful killing of a person. A fetus is not a person, therefore, it isn't murder.


Just like your democrat ancestors who thought killing black people and minorities wasn't murder of a person... Again, you are choosing out of convenience when YOU, and those who agree with you, want to define when a human is a person... First it was skin color and differences in anatomy which to "democrats" made people "not really human..." Now you choose to go after even more innocent humans who can't defend themselves...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That's not true. It's just not homicide


Homicide is a crime, but now in New Murder York the murder of an unborn, even if the mother wants the child, is not considered as a crime, only the attack on the mother is the crime, but not the murder of the unborn. You can't even comprehend what you read and instead try to change the law to what you want to think it says...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Just stop it! Of course that's a lie. In New York, viability is the cut off for abortion on demand. It's still illegal to attack a pregnant woman.


It isn't a lie when "health of the mother" includes STUPID excuses like money, the woman not wanting her body figure to change due to having to give birth, etc, etc...

Even the lady that was represented in Roe vs Wade ADMITTED it was all a lie. She wasn't raped like she claimed in another attempt to get an abortion and later in life she realized the mistake and crimes she committed out of IGNORANCE.


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Nobody is aborting healthy newborn babies. If there is a late term abortion it's because the fetus has a fatal morbid deformity or a terminal condition. And don't go showing me YouTube videos of 40 year old women claiming that they are abortion survivors.


Only a small portion of abortions are because of "fatal morbid deformities." not to mention the fact that many people who have such conditions are ALIVE TODAY but people like you want to claim that is an excuse to murder them...



I wonder where you got that idea that these types of people don't deserve to live?...


Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject. Adolf Hitler

www.goodreads.com...

Even your idol Margaret Sanger was a freaking nazi and you embraced those same ideals that they had...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
It doesn't have to. LOL


I really have to wonder what your IQ is... If it doesn't specify in what cases abortion, or the murder of newborns, is permitted then any and all excuses can be used to murder HUMAN BEINGS...


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You're lies, anger and insults don't make you smarter, and your selective outrage doesn't make you moral.


I proved even in this thread I wasn't lying, but it is you who keeps lying, and moving the goal post... if I am angry is at the FACT that morons today are devaluing ONCE AGAIN human lives that are the most innocent of them all...

In great part of the second and all the third trimester the unborn already feel pain, they feel comfortable when the mother is happy, and feel distress when the mother is angry, or sad. Yet people like YOU want to claim they are still not human beings, nor persons because they don't fit into your little left-wing box of falsities which were ingrained into your little head by none other than a nazi sympathizer known as Margaret Sanger.


...
The Birth Control Review frequently highlighted the mission of its parent organization: “The American Birth Control League. Its Aim: To promote eugenic birth selection throughout the United States so that there may be more well‑born and fewer ill‑born children ― a stronger, healthier and more intelligent race.”[iii] Sanger neatly summarized the intimate relationship between the eugenics and birth control movements:

Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. … Birth control of itself, by freeing the reproductive instinct from its present chains, will make a better race … Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.[iv]
..


www.hli.org...

The above was written by Sanger "[vii] Margaret Sanger. “Birth Control and Women’s Health.” Birth Control Review, Volume I, Number 12 (December 1917), page 7."






edit on 3-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Bluntone22

In reality abortion isn't anyone's business... except the womans.


The business of abortion is the Doctor's business....830 Billion $ a year.


If it was a murderer, instead of an innocent we were going to kill, there'd be an appellate judge and a state panel and petitioning the governor.

But because it is the mother's own unborn child, we leave the choice up to a scared teenager, and a doctor who only gets paid if she goes ahead with the abortion.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




It isn't a lie when "health of the mother" includes STUPID excuses like money, the woman not wanting her body figure to change due to having to give birth, etc, etc...


Have you been living under a rock? Ever since Roe V Wade, women have been able to get abortions on demand, for any reason, up to viability. New York has not changed that. They've codified it into their state law to guarantee women's reproductive rights should Roe V Wade be nullified by SCOTUS. Changing the homicide law aligns with Roe V Wade and the numerous times that SCOTUS ruled a fetus is not a person protected by the 14th Amendment.



Only a small portion of abortions are because of "fatal morbid deformities." not to mention the fact that many people who have such conditions are ALIVE TODAY but people like you want to claim that is an excuse to murder them...


Moving the goal posts much? What does this have to do with your lies about New York state letting people murder babies?

There is no US state that allows doctors or parents to murder newborn babies. There is no state that allows a women with a perfectly health, viable fetus to get an abortion because she's poor, or mad at her baby daddy...





edit on 3-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

if a fetus is not a person, can you show just ONE person that was not a fetus??

you only have to show one non fetus person, out of the 7 billion on this planet

the odds "should" be in your favor.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati




if a fetus is not a person, can you show just ONE person that was not a fetus??


Geeez! You're so brilliant with your original argument! You should be writing Amicus briefs for the Supreme Court!



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Bluntone22




So hes written no legislation in an attempt to ban abortion?


The Executive Branch doesn't write legislation. They implement policy, and the Trump administration has implemental anti-abortion and anti-contraception policy.


Good god shut the hell up....I bet you're one of these people who just interrupt with "what about abortion" in every conversation aint ya?
edit on 3-6-2019 by w810i because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

What a Dick!



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Have you been living under a rock? Ever since Roe V Wade, women have been able to get abortions on demand, for any reason, up to viability. New York has not changed that.
...


Keep on lying... Roe vs Wade didn't do what you claim... Even though you have been shown dozens of times directly from Roe vs Wade you keep spouting lies like it was the truth...



3.
Once the fetus reaches viability, the States may choose to prohibit abortion except where necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.

"For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
...


What was the Trimester Rule established in Roe v Wade?


Roe vs Wade states that on the third trimester life is viable, and as such the state can PROHIBIT ABORTION unless the life or health of the mother is at risk... Yet liars in the left keep making false claims about Roe vs Wade.

Not to mention the FACT that Roe vs. Wade DID NOT make it legal to just let newborns whom survive abortions die, nor did it take off any laws, or provisions that criminalize the murder of the unborn if the mother/parents wanted the baby...

It was also another case, Doe vs Bolton, which changed the meaning of "health of the mother" to include ANY excuse even if it does not cause any type of harm to the mother...


...
The Doe v. Bolton case defined thehealth of the mother in such a way that any abortion for any reason could be protected by the language of the decision. Its definition of health includes “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well-being of the patient. ALL these factors may relate to health.
...

www.all.org...



United States Supreme Court
DOE v. BOLTON(1973)
No. 70-40
Argued: December 13, 1971 Decided: January 22, 1973

...
Appellants then argue that the statutes do not adequately protect the woman's right. This is so because it would be physically and emotionally damaging to Doe to bring a child into her poor, "fatherless" 10 family, and because advances in medicine and medical techniques have made it safer for a woman to have a medically induced abortion than for her to bear a child. Thus, "a statute that requires a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term infringes not only on a fundamental right of privacy but on the right to life itself." Brief 27.
...

DOE v. BOLTON



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Moving the goal posts much? What does this have to do with your lies about New York state letting people murder babies?


I didn't move the goal post... First learn what that phrase means... It was YOU who claimed that abortions on the third trimesters are only done in rare cases when the HUMAN fetus is not viable or in case of major deformities...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
There is no US state that allows doctors or parents to murder newborn babies. There is no state that allows a women with a perfectly health, viable fetus to get an abortion because she's poor, or mad at her baby daddy...


For crying out loud... In New Murder York they took off the provision from the law that protected newborns that survive abortions.

Not only that, but your demonrat friends even blocked the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act at least twice... But You in your IGNORANCE want to claim this is not true?...

Here is the excerpt to the law DEMONRATS blocked. But I am sure, like always, you will either ignore the truth, or you will cheer such measure...


Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (01/31/2019)

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.

A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.

A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.

The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.

A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.
...

www.congress.gov...

Democrats Block Bill to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortion Attempts and Are Born Alive

Why would DEMONRATS/DEMONCRATS block such a law if it wasn't because the changes in the law in New York, and other demonrat states, allows the murder of newborns whom survive abortions?...

As for Trudeau... He is nothing more than another demented and sick left-winger who wants to protect murderers and terrorists, but also claims that the unborn and even newborn whom survive abortions don't deserve to live and are not human...



edit on 3-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment and add link.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Once the fetus reaches viability, the States may choose to prohibit abortion except where necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.


That's what I've been saying. It's not about the gestational period of a fetus, it's about viability. Some fetuses never achieve viability.



Not to mention the FACT that Roe vs. Wade DID NOT make it legal to just let newborns whom survive abortions die, nor did it take off any laws, or provisions that criminalize the murder of the unborn if the mother/parents wanted the baby...


Correct, these are states' rights. That's why New York, Illinois and Kansas, among others, have passed laws preserving Roe V Wade standards, should it be nullified. States' rights.

States absolutely have the right to define murder as the willful killing of a born person, according to the US Constitution and several SCOTUS rulings.

Born alive bills forcibly prolong the misery and suffering of dying infants, over the objections of their parents and attending physicians. These are nothing more than demented and sick people, pushing these unnecessary and cruel laws.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's what I've been saying. It's not about the gestational period of a fetus, it's about viability. Some fetuses never achieve viability.


You have not, you keep on claiming that the changes in laws in New Murder York, and other demonrat states, are to preserve Roe vs Wade, but Roe vs Wade does not allow abortion on the third trimester for "any reason," it does not allow the murder of newborns who survive abortions, and it didn't decriminalize the murder of the unborn if a pregnant woman is attacked and abortion is induced without her consent...


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Correct, these are states' rights. That's why New York, Illinois and Kansas, among others, have passed laws preserving Roe V Wade standards, should it be nullified. States' rights.

States absolutely have the right to define murder as the willful killing of a born person, according to the US Constitution and several SCOTUS rulings.

Born alive bills forcibly prolong the misery and suffering of dying infants, over the objections of their parents and attending physicians. These are nothing more than demented and sick people, pushing these unnecessary and cruel laws.


BS. Once again you are making false claims and ignoring the FACT that demonrats don't want to protect newborns whom survive abortions. You even claimed this wasn't true, and now you are making up another false excuse which corroborates the FACT that even YOU want to allow the murder of newborns who survive abortions...



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




You have not, you keep on claiming that the changes in laws in New Murder York, and other demonrat states, are to preserve Roe vs Wade, but Roe vs Wade does not allow abortion on the third trimester for "any reason,"


Neither do any of these state laws. They are aligned with Roe V Wade by using viability, not a heart beat or a gestation period, but viability as a standard for a doctor's decision to preform late term abortions.



it does not allow the murder of newborns who survive abortions,


Neither do any of these state laws.



and it didn't decriminalize the murder of the unborn if a pregnant woman is attacked and abortion is induced without her consent...


Neither do any of these state laws.

You are perpetuating disgusting lies.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Neither do any of these state laws. They are aligned with Roe V Wade by using viability, not a heart beat or a gestation period, but viability as a standard for a doctor's decision to preform late term abortions.


You are out of your mind... These new laws ARE NOT aligned with Roe vs Wade... Show us WHERE in Roe vs Wade does it say that abortion on demand is allowed up to the date the unborn is to be born...

Show us where in Roe vs Wade does it allow the murder of newborns who survive abortions...

Show us where in Roe vs Wade was murder of the unborn decriminalized even though the mother/parents wanted to have the child...

First you claimed that in the new laws the murder of newborns wasn't made legal, when I showed you that demonrats even blocked a bill that would have made it illegal to murder newborns whom survive abortions you made up another excuse and went on as if you didn't claim this wasn't true on the first place...

You keep on changing your argument, and keep on LYING through your teeth as if it was the truth...


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Neither do any of these state laws.


Yes it does... Again you were shown even a bill that was meant to save newborns whom survive abortions but demonrats have blocked at least twice, when you keep on claiming this is not true...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Neither do any of these state laws.


Yes it does... You were even shown the part of the bill where "homicide" of the unborn was stricken from the law in New Murder York...



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You are perpetuating disgusting lies.


It is you who keeps on lying through your teeth and ignoring facts every single time...

Either you are a troll who keeps on knowingly lying, or you are not smart enough to even understand what you read or type which would mean you have some severe mental disability.




edit on 3-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




These new laws ARE NOT aligned with Roe vs Wade... Show us WHERE in Roe vs Wade does it say that abortion on demand is allowed up to the date the unborn is to be born...


Do you think diseased fetuses that will never achieve viability just stay in utero forever? Roe V Wade preserves doctors' and women's right to terminate pregnancies before viability, without state interference. Even women carrying non-viable fetuses go into labor. Some of them go into to labor early. Many women prefer to have their terminal fetus die in the womb rather than experience prolonged suffering.



You were even shown the part of the bill where "homicide" of the unborn was stricken from the law in New Murder York...


The fact that homicide isn't charged doesn't mean that attacking a pregnant women is perfectly legal.

All your assertion are fabrications and ignorant lies.


edit on 3-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Do you think diseased fetuses that will never achieve viability just stay in utero forever? Roe V Wade preserves doctors' and women's right to terminate pregnancies before viability, without state interference.


WRONG...yet again... Roe vs Wade made it so on the second trimester the state can interfere and force a woman to abort if "it promotes the health of the mother..."


2. After the first trimester, but prior to fetal viability, the State may regulate abortion in a reasonable way, if it promotes the health of the mother.

"For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health."
...

What was the Trimester Rule established in Roe v Wade?

You keep showing to not know what in the world you are talking about...


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Even women carrying non-viable fetuses go into labor. Some of them go into to labor early. Many women prefer to have their terminal fetus die in the womb rather than experience prolonged suffering.


But the health of the mother as defined by Doe vs Bolton makes any excuse the mother or death practitioner may come up with including economic reasons, psychological reasons, familial reasons, changes in a woman's body (which happens in ALL pregnancies) she doesn't want, etc which has nothing to do with a non-viable fetus....

You keep LYING trying to claim abortions are only done when a fetus is non-viable and that is a LIE and you know it...

ATS member "Dfairlite" wrote a thread and posted the reasons for "abortion on demand" on this thread and here is a rundown on "abortion on demand by the numbers."



Fetal non-viability is only 3% of all abortions, and reasons that really have to do with health of the mother are only 4% of all abortions despite your constant lies...


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The fact that homicide isn't charged doesn't mean that attacking a pregnant women is perfectly legal.

All your assertion are fabrications and ignorant lies.



Are you really that dense?... If the definition of homicide was taken off when it involves the unborn it makes it perfectly legal for the murder of the unborn even if the mother/parents wanted the child... The only crime that is punishable in states like New Murder York is the attack on the mother, but not the death/murder of the unborn...



edit on 3-6-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and excerpt



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Roe vs Wade made it so on the second trimester the state can interfere and force a woman to abort if "it promotes the health of the mother..."


2. After the first trimester, but prior to fetal viability, the State may regulate abortion in a reasonable way, if it promotes the health of the mother.


You keep showing to not know what in the world you are talking about!
LOL "Regulate" doesn't mean forced abortions. HAHA

It's illegal, in the USA, to force, or even coerce, a woman to have an abortion.



But the health of the mother as defined by Doe vs Bolton makes any excuse the mother or death practitioner may come up with including economic reasons, psychological reasons, familial reasons, changes in a woman's body (which happens in ALL pregnancies) she doesn't want, etc which has nothing to do with a non-viable fetus....


Yes it does.


We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
en.wikipedia.org...

I know that the Supreme Court's logic, understanding of the human condition and constitutional law are not your strong points, but yeah, all those come into focus when considering a special needs baby, and the government forcing a family, a single unmarried women, or disabled parents to bare the" factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

I know that it's impossible for you to put yourself in someone else's position, but thankfully, we have laws that protect women and families from people like you.



If the definition of homicide was taken off when it involves the unborn it makes it perfectly legal for the murder of the unborn even if the mother/parents wanted the child...


Are you really that dense? Attacking a pregnant woman is a crime. In so doing, should her fetus die, that's a felony assault. Homicide isn't the only crime on the books.

edit on 3-6-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


You keep showing to not know what in the world you are talking about!
LOL "Regulate" doesn't mean forced abortions. HAHA

It's illegal, in the USA, to force, or even coerce, a woman to have an abortion.


Oh really?... The Elliot Institute which was funded in 1988 to perform research and education on the impact of abortion actually say the contrary to your claims...

Forced Abortion in America



originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes it does.


Doe vs Bolton, not Roe vs Wade like you kept claiming... Not to mention your other lies about Roe vs Wade allowing what the new laws in New Murder York are allowing...

BTW, i am still waiting for you to present evidence directly from Roe vs Wade that it allows everything that the New Murder York laws now allow...



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




Roe vs Wade made it so on the second trimester the state can interfere and force a woman to abort if "it promotes the health of the mother..."


This is a lie.



BTW, i am still waiting for you to present evidence directly from Roe vs Wade that it allows everything that the New Murder York laws now allow...


New York's new reproductive rights law doesn't violate Roe V Wade, and is in fact aligned with Roe V Wade.
www.factcheck.org...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join