• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana Bans Later Term Abortions

year2late said:
A profoundly mentally retarded person needs extensive help to survive at all ages. A normal chimp or gorilla does not.
Click to expand...
A profoundly mentally retarded human has roughly around the same mental capacity as a gorilla or chimp. Maybe even less so thanks for the "minor" correction in my post to further illustrate the point that humans are not defined by "highly developed brains" at all. Nothing about dependency though is in there. So why the obfuscation juvenile? :roll:


A human can have greater mental capacity then a chimp or gorilla but could be more dependent then the chimp or gorilla and not be profoundly mentally retarded at all.
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Correct, Having a "highly developed brain" doesn't refute the scientific consensus that the unborn are Homo sapiens aka humans throughout all stages of development. That's been a fact now for well over 40 years and hasn't been seriously challenged by the scientific community.

A newborn human doesn't have a highly developed brain which doesn't refute the species it belong to.

The profoundly mentally retarded are like ordinary animals mental capacity wise compared to gorillas and chimps but they are still humans. The list go's on.

Seeing that comment get multiple likes means some have been lying here.
Click to expand...

GEIxBattleRifle said:
Are feral children humans yes or no? :lol: It's a very easy question that was answered decades ago.
Click to expand...

Of course human women become pregnant with unborn's who are human with human DNA. The unborn of humans are not gorillas or chimps.

The profoundly mentally disabled children however will always need to be cared for by a caretaker or other able bodied person.
 
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle said:
A profoundly mentally retarded human has roughly around the same mental capacity as a gorilla or chimp. Maybe even less so thanks for the "minor" correction in my post to further illustrate the point that humans are not defined by "highly developed brains" at all. Nothing about dependency though is in there. So why the obfuscation juvenile? :roll:


A human can have greater mental capacity then a chimp or gorilla but could be more dependent then the chimp or gorilla and not be profoundly mentally retarded at all.
Click to expand...

Site your sources. A normal chimp/gorilla can care for their own needs. A profoundly retarded person cannot.

Site your sources.

But of course it really is neither here not there as nobody that I can see is arguing that a mentally retarded person is not human.

Again, you seem to be a rebel without a clue.
 
nota bene said:
Yes, let's--beginning with you not calling somebody else a "child."
Click to expand...

I am sorry.

"Good Lord child" is a saying from a co-worker that has rubbed off on me.
 
HB 1337

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1337#

If I'm reading it correctly, women would be barred from terminating a pregnancy because of a genetic abnormality/fetal abnormalities. The measure also would allow doctors who perform abortions in such cases to be sued for wrongful death, or possibly face professional discipline.

You could be forgiven for thinking you were reading an article from the onion.
 
Serenity said:
HB 1337

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1337#

If I'm reading it correctly, women would be barred from terminating a pregnancy because of a genetic abnormality/fetal abnormalities. The measure also would allow doctors who perform abortions in such cases to be sued for wrongful death, or possibly face professional discipline.

You could be forgiven for thinking you were reading an article from the onion.
Click to expand...
One reason I went off on the population-growth/religion tangent a few pages back is because there is a clear difference between how the secular people think regarding birth control, abortion and family planning in general versus the Theocrats--be they Muslim, Christian, Mormon or whatever. Secular people, for the most part, are OK with the idea of a gradually declining population, while the religious seem to still be clinging to this 5,000 year old "go forth and multiply" nonsense.
 
Scrabaholic said:
The one instance I can think of where a woman might abort for race is if she's been having an affair with a man of another race and gets knocked up but doesn't want her husband to find out about the affair.
Click to expand...
As if having a baby that looks like the milkman would go over much better with the husband...
In such a case it would still be not racial motivation as most certainly a woman in that situation would abort anyway.
 
prometeus said:
As if having a baby that looks like the milkman would go over much better with the husband...
In such a case it would still be not racial motivation as most certainly a woman in that situation would abort anyway.
Click to expand...

Not all children look like their father and if the husband didn't know the man she was sleeping with, she might be inclined to go through with the pregnancy. She wouldn't know which man was the father but if she was committing adultery with a man of a different race and the child is born non white, she's caught as soon as it's born.
 
calamity said:
No more late-term abortions for disabilities, race, sex or other intangibles.
Click to expand...

Race? You mean some women abort because their baby is the same race as they are? I have never heard that one before...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Race? You mean some women abort because their baby is the same race as they are? I have never heard that one before...
Click to expand...

More like the opposite.
 
calamity said:
No more late-term abortions for disabilities, race, sex or other intangibles.



I'm not sure where I stand on that just yet. I'm anti-late-term abortion in that I do not agree with abortion at will for anyone past 20 weeks unless it's life threatening. However, I can empathize with those who make the decision to abort when it comes to health of the fetus, especially when severe disability is involved. Why should someone be forced to carry an ill child to term?

I definitely do not agree with aborting a fetus in the third trimester based on sex, race or other non-health related conditions. On the flip side, in the first trimester, I see no reason to limit women's choices at all: if she wants to end her pregnancy in the first trimester, it is her right. But, after that time period--between weeks 12 and 24--I'm good with some rules being put in place, although I'd probably allow for some flexibility in the second trimester.
Click to expand...

That is some dumb ****...

What woman in Indiana is going to say her abortion is for gender, etc. As for the disabilities...that's going way out of bounds for government. I hope the Indiana Legislature who voted for this nonsense get a nasty visit from Karma.

This is abuse of power. I don't believe in hell, but after reading this I hope I'm wrong. What assholes.
 
The governor even thinking that an unborn baby needs to be protected from abortion because of race is just ludicrous. He should be laughed out of office. First of all, WTF. The baby is going to be the same race as the mother's. Is it even possible to commit a hate crime on one's own race? And if the baby is a mixed race, then the mother is probably not aborting the baby based on race either. She obviously has very little against the other race if she's sexually involved with a member of that race.

Mike Pence is a total dumbass.
 
calamity said:
More like the opposite.
Click to expand...

There baby is not the same race as them...? How is that even possible? The baby will contain the race of the mother.
 
Removable Mind said:
That is some dumb ****...

What woman in Indiana is going to say her abortion is for gender, etc. As for the disabilities...that's going way out of bounds for government. I hope the Indiana Legislature who voted for this nonsense get a nasty visit from Karma.

This is abuse of power. I don't believe in hell, but after reading this I hope I'm wrong. What assholes.
Click to expand...
What made Sarah so lovable with the Right in 2008 was her carrying a Downs kid to term and then parading it around. What the nutters don't realize is Sarah was rich. Imagine a poor person with a Downs child in Jay's utopia where "The State" washes it's hands of any financial responsibility for born children.

It's insanity in the Red states today. Pure insanity.
 
Bodhisattva said:
There baby is not the same race as them...? How is that even possible? The baby will contain the race of the mother.
Click to expand...

You never saw Mandingo. Did you?
 
David_N said:
Awful news.
Click to expand...

Not if you ask the third-trimester babies. I just talked to a dozen of them and all twelve were in favor of the Indiana law. Wouldn't you? Before you throw that handy "fetus" into the discussion, let me remind you that there is not a single woman anywhere on the globe who, upon seeing the sonogram shortly before delivery, happily exclaimed: Look at my fetus! Isn't it adorable? Doctor, is my fetus OK?

It seems that all of them never got the memo that it's not a baby and that, by calling what's inside a baby, these misguided women were waging a war on the constitutionally-enshrined reproductive rights.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
What made Sarah so lovable with the Right in 2008 was her carrying a Downs kid to term and then parading it around. What the nutters don't realize is Sarah was rich. Imagine a poor person with a Downs child in Jay's utopia where "The State" washes it's hands of any financial responsibility for born children.

It's insanity in the Red states today. Pure insanity.
Click to expand...

BS. Down can be detected in the 10th week of gestation with 98.6% reliability. You didn't disclose your gender so please be informed that a normal woman needs 40 weeks to deliver.
 
legalimmigrant said:
Not if you ask the third-trimester babies. I just talked to a dozen of them and all twelve were in favor of the Indiana law. Wouldn't you? ...
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in the thread, this law is not about late term abortions.
Nowhere in law does it mention any gestational age.
Third trimester abortions except when the woman's life is at risk is a fallacy.

Less than 100 third trimester abortions are performed a year in the US.
 
minnie616 said:
As I mentioned in the thread, this law is not about late term abortions.
Nowhere in law does it mention any gestational age.
Third trimester abortions except when the woman's life is at risk is a fallacy.

Less than 100 third trimester abortions are performed a year in the US.
Click to expand...

What were the medical reasons for those abortions?
 
Last edited:
legalimmigrant said:
What were the medical reasons for those abortions?
Click to expand...

To save the life or prevent irreparable damage to a major bodily function of the woman ( such as stroke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, etc.) if the pregnancy continued.


There are only 3 clinics and 4 doctors in all the US that perform legal clinic abortions at or past 24 weeks gestation.

In 2008 Kansas had a clinic that performed legal abortion for these extreme cases.
Doctors from all over the US would send their patients who had these extreme tragic pregnancies to Kansas for their abortions.

Kansas kept a record of all abortions that took place at or after 22 weeks gestation ( the Fox News article was 100 abortions after 24 gestation )

There were 323 abortions that took place in Kansas at or after 22 weeks gestation in 2008.

131 were because the fetus was non viable ( would be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours, these are to prevent a life threatening infection in the woman )
192 were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function ( such as stoke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down , etc.) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Please see page 8 for the 2008 Kansas abortion stats past 22 weeks gestation

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom