Jump to content

ANDY'S NEW ABORTION LAW


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, wolc123 said:

This will be stopped pretty quick because a few highly-motivated (Thank Dr. Ford for that), conservative, Trump Supreme court picks.  Odds are there will be at least one more of those before 2020.   Roe vs Wade is on very thin ice right now.  After that is overturned, there is nothing our governor will be able to do to keep up abortions in NY.  It will be just like when Arkansas tried to keep those black kids out of the Little Rock school back in the 1957.  

States are powerless against the army which is under the control of the President.   Just like Eisenhower sent the troops in to get them kids into that school, Trump will send them into NY to stop the baby murders.   Starting with Lincoln, Republicans Presidents have a long history in this country of righting the wrongs of democrats.     

 

I honestly don't think overturning Roe vs Wade would end abortions in this country.  All it would do is leave the decision up to the individual states.  Some states would surely make it illegal, while other states like NY, NJ, CA and a number of others would continue to allow it.   If it's left to the states to decide the President would have no authority to end it in those states.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wolc123 said:

This will be stopped pretty quick because a few highly-motivated (Thank Dr. Ford for that), conservative, Trump Supreme court picks.  Odds are there will be at least one more of those before 2020.   Roe vs Wade is on very thin ice right now.  After that is overturned, there is nothing our governor will be able to do to keep up abortions in NY.  It will be just like when Arkansas tried to keep those black kids out of the Little Rock school back in the 1957.  

States are powerless against the army which is under the control of the President.   Just like Eisenhower sent the troops in to get them kids into that school, Trump will send them into NY to stop the baby murders.   Starting with Lincoln, Republicans Presidents have a long history in this country of righting the wrongs of democrats.     

While I am very hopeful that Trump is able to appoint another (hopefully more than one) younger conservative judge. You know the Dems are going to do everything in their power to fight that appointment. 

The most concerning thing to me is that this country seems to get less conservative by the hour. How some of these newly elected people even got into office is down right scary. It blows my mind that anyone pulled the lever for some of these folks never mind the majority. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bigfoot 327 said:

This law completely disregards the rights of the unborn. This will not stand constitutional review.

Their view is there are no rights because the baby is not a human until birth. Seeing the smiling and cheering as Cuomo signed the bill into law made my stomach turn. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Their view is there are no rights because the baby is not a human until birth. Seeing the smiling and cheering as Cuomo signed the bill into law made my stomach turn. 

 

To them a woman going in to abort the human life inside her should be as easy as a woman going in to get a tummy tuck, a boob job or her a$$ lifted it seems.  The only difference is that insurance or the state won't pay for cosmetic surgery while they would for an abortion.  Mind boggling isn't it??

How anyone can argue that the fetus inside a mother is NOT a human life is beyond me.  No, at certain points of a pregnancy the fetus would not survive outside the mother, but that does NOT in anyway mean that it is NOT a human life or any less of a human life.  It IS life, but life at a different stage.  Just like we are tiny when we are born, then we grow in size, our brains develop (hopefully for some at least), and then we grow old, and one day we will die.  How hard is this to grasp??  It just make me sick when I see the emotion and people balling their eyes out over a stray cat that got run over by a car, or over the deer that we shot, yet they can't wrap their pea brains around what happens when an abortion takes place.  Are these people capable of any reasoning at all??  I would think even someone with an inferior brain would be able to understand at least the basics of all this.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by steve863
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Cuomo has no problem with the murder of innocent babies, but supports keeping dangerous violent sociopaths alive. An example is William Spengler.  This monster was set free while Cuomo was governor.  Read the story of how he murdered his grandmother by beating her to death with a hammer, but was set free during the Cuomo administration to murder several other innocent people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Webster,_New_York_shooting

Here is more proof of Cuomo's love of the violent criminals:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/nyregion/judith-clark-brinks-robbery-parole.html

Cuomo is not interested in protecting the innocent.  Cuomo supports abortion, keeping monsters alive and sometimes setting them free and taking away your right to self defense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst thing is.... Somehow women today are supposed to be PROUD to have an abortion.... I find that totally disgusting!  The decision should be hard and gut wrenching.....  you SHOULD be embarrassed to get one unless your life was at stake.

Over the years the "Progressive" party has made abortion seem as a simple and Unconscious decision to squash an Ant on your floor....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Culvercreek hunt club said:

Their view is there are no rights because the baby is not a human until birth. Seeing the smiling and cheering as Cuomo signed the bill into law made my stomach turn. 

I find that weird though.... because many times in the paper and news you'll see headlines.... Pregnant Mother killed... Mother with unborn child killed in crash.... A lot of times a killer will get more time in jail Because of that... So...Why mention it if that baby doesn't count?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that weird though.... because many times in the paper and news you'll see headlines.... Pregnant Mother killed... Mother with unborn child killed in crash.... A lot of times a killer will get more time in jail Because of that... So...Why mention it if that baby doesn't count?

Read the new law. Any of those charges that were in force were modified under this law. The baby will no longer weigh into those charges
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst thing is.... Somehow women today are supposed to be PROUD to have an abortion.... I find that totally disgusting!  The decision should be hard and gut wrenching.....  you SHOULD be embarrassed to get one unless your life was at stake.
Over the years the "Progressive" party has made abortion seem as a simple and Unconscious decision to squash an Ant on your floor....

Being on social welfare programs use to have a stigma as well that was an incentive to get off them. Not anymore.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ApexerER said:

 

The most concerning thing to me is that this country seems to get less conservative by the hour.

 

I think a lot of people mistakenly think that because Trump won the last election that we have a conservative majority in this country.   I've got some news for them.  Conservatives may have won the battle this time, but they are losing the war in my opinion.  And I worry that some of Trump's antic's might be a death blow to it in the long term where conservatism will somehow be even more negatively linked to him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am greatful that my wife and I never had to make a decision on abortion.  In fact the thought never came up.

That being said there is already several unwanted children in this world that have had worse things done to them then death. I do not have a realistic solution to the unwanted children anymore than anyone else. And sorry but making the parents take responsibility of an unwanted child does not turn out well for that kid. The abuse can be unthinkable. 

I do not see everyone against abortion opening their doors and taking in these unwanted children. Hell we do not even want to pay to support them, let alone raise them.

Its a terrible world we live in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just Lucky said:

there is already several unwanted children in this world that have had worse things done to them then death. I do not have a realistic solution to the unwanted children anymore than anyone else. And sorry but making the parents take responsibility of an unwanted child does not turn out well for that kid. The abuse can be unthinkable. 

I do not see everyone against abortion opening their doors and taking in these unwanted children. Hell we do not even want to pay to support them, let alone raise them.

I don't think there is anything more terrible than death, but that's me.

The parents can give it up for adoption.  There are millions of couples looking to adopt a baby and can't get one.

There are also millions of foster parents that do open their doors and take these children in.

What I do not want to support is abortion centers like PP with my tax dollars.  You want an abortion, you pay for it.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Just Lucky said:

I am greatful that my wife and I never had to make a decision on abortion.  In fact the thought never came up.

That being said there is already several unwanted children in this world that have had worse things done to them then death. I do not have a realistic solution to the unwanted children anymore than anyone else. And sorry but making the parents take responsibility of an unwanted child does not turn out well for that kid. The abuse can be unthinkable. 

I do not see everyone against abortion opening their doors and taking in these unwanted children. Hell we do not even want to pay to support them, let alone raise them.

Its a terrible world we live in. 

So you are ok with the new law becasue of the issues you stated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rattler said:

I don't think there is anything more terrible than death, but that's me.

The parents can give it up for adoption.  There are millions of couples looking to adopt a baby and can't get one.

There are also millions of foster parents that do open their doors and take these children in.

What I do not want to support is abortion centers like PP with my tax dollars.  You want an abortion, you pay for it.

 

There is several kids currently not adopted, and foster homes are aweful. Just ask kids who have been there. I wish it was as easy as you stated. That would be great.

And pp budget is not just abortion,  thats a misconception.  There is free birth control, and education.  Also gynecology, std treatment.I think pp does alot of good for a community that doesn't get publicity because it does not make a good story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just Lucky said:

No, I just do not have a solution to the problem. Its easy to find fault, but the solution to the problems with society are not. Its a really sad subject when kids are not wanted.

what problem? Moral decay?  How best to sever the spine from the skull of an unborn baby at week 38? Being unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rattler said:

I don't think there is anything more terrible than death, but that's me.

The parents can give it up for adoption.  There are millions of couples looking to adopt a baby and can't get one.

There are also millions of foster parents that do open their doors and take these children in.

What I do not want to support is abortion centers like PP with my tax dollars.  You want an abortion, you pay for it.

 

And I would think a 3 year old locked in a closet by his parents or foster parents, thats starved, neglected and sold to adults for sex, yeah that would be an example of worse than death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2019 at 9:23 AM, Belo said:

feared, but didn't realize how bad a full democratic state would be. college tuition for illegals was announced recently as well. 

The dems are very good at handouts with other people's money  until the check comes and we are all stuck paying the bill . 

Edited by Storm914
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By mike rossi
      http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/politics/cuomo-finds-endorsement-decision-in-grisanti-panepinto-race-difficult-20140919
       
    • By NFA-ADK
      They can create all the Illegal laws they want, it has been proven that gun owners would rather become felons with guns than to be victims of a corrupt Government that want to take away our rights.  Facts do not lie and we will not comply! 
       
      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/04/12/the-assault-weapon-rebellion-n1822409?utm_source=ArticleFeelingsWidget
       
      What is Cuomo going to do?  NOTHING!!!  He should stick to banning soda to save us.  So effective!  True savior of NY, LMAO.  Funny how abstract they get when power is at hand, like thinking you have a ticket to heaven on the fast track because you banned soda or guns.  That is a good one!
       
      Funny how he has guns to protect him at all times yet he feels it is OK to take away your guns.  Double standard?  You better believe it!
       
       
       
       
       
    • By mike rossi
      Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife?
      Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case....
       
      News August 19, 2013
      Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife
       
      Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers?
      August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon
      (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal
      Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo
      Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen
      Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones.
      On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week.
      Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets.
      “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania.
      There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said.
      Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers.
      “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.”
      That is where drones could play a crucial role.
      “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said.
      “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.”
      Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania.
      “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added.
      However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1.
      Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem.
      “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said.
      An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy.
      A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.”
      “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.”
      Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching.
      The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn.
      “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya.
      The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said.
      The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said.
      Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements.
      Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said.
      Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
      In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia.
      The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
      “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said.
      Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation.
      The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation.
      “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said.
      However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns.
      Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done.
      “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said.
      Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July.
      Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking.
      “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said
       
       
      Appeals courts considers shark fin ban
      Obama's staff backs challenge to California law
      Bob Egelko
      Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013
       
      With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy.
      The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins.
      But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources.
      Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
      He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown."
      But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination.
      "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked.
      The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks.
      By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught.
      The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey.
      The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future."
      "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court.
      If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.
    • By mike rossi
      http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html
    • By mike rossi
      This video will supposedly be removed soon, so you should watch it soon.
       
      http://youtu.be/AdlVH1IjQu4
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...