• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

Agreed. If a parent wants to abort their child at any age up to 18, then they should be able to. Sometimes parents take a long time to recognize their mistakes and they should be able to undo them legally.

Are you trying to be funny?

As you most likely know abortions can not take place after birth.
And abortion means a fetus is expelled. Some abortions such as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion happens naturally when a fetus has died in womb from natural causes. Some times a woman has what is called a missed abortion when the fetus has died in womb but it was not expelled naturally. In cases like those the woman needs a therapeutic abortion to remove the dead fetal material and prevent an infection.

Sometimes if a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy she might opt for an induced abortion.

As you see now ...not all abortions are elective some are spontaneous , others are medically needed and some are induced.
 
No, like this



and this

Fair enough. I'll concede that the current legal definition per the SCOTUS excludes the unborn. However I disagree with that and I am hopeful that this bill will bring it back to the court.
 
We should mak abortion mandatory in DC.
 
The end result is still the same - if you ban a doctor from performing an abortion, you are still stopping women from getting an abortion thus the only remaining scenario is that women either seek illegal help or travel across state borders for an abortion.

Or, you know, don't kill your kid in cold blood. Being a decent human being instead of a scumbag is always a valid scenario.
 
This simply means lots of women travelling to the next state for an abortion or worse still - back room abortions if they are not allowed to travel.

I agree this will result in women traveling to have abortions. Some people without morals will stop at nothing to fulfill their selfish needs. Including killing their unborn children.
 
Are you trying to be funny?

As you most likely know abortions can not take place after birth.
And abortion means a fetus is expelled. Some abortions such as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion happens naturally when a fetus has died in womb from natural causes. Some times a woman has what is called a missed abortion when the fetus has died in womb but it was not expelled naturally. In cases like those the woman needs a therapeutic abortion to remove the dead fetal material and prevent an infection.

Sometimes if a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy she might opt for an induced abortion.

As you see now ...not all abortions are elective some are spontaneous , others are medically needed and some are induced.

No, I don't see it as funny. Children would be much more well behaved if their parents could still abort them. As for abortions after birth, tell that to the doctor in Philadelphia who did just that.
 
There is/are no child/ children until birth.
There are no chickens until they are hatched.
An embryo or fetus is not a child or a person until it is born.
I have 4 grown children. I am a mother of 4.
I had 6 pregnancies , 2 ended in miscarriage.
One miscarriage was early 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
The other was about 20 weeks.
Those miscarriages were not children.
 
There is/are no child/ children until birth.
There are no chickens until they are hatched.
An embryo or fetus is not a child or a person until it is born.
I have 4 grown children. I am a mother of 4.
I had 6 pregnancies , 2 ended in miscarriage.
One miscarriage was early 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
The other was about 20 weeks.
Those miscarriages were not children.
Even when the unborn baby is fully developed and identical to a child that has been born?
 
Even when the unborn baby is fully developed and identical to a child that has been born?

An unborn is not identical to a child who has been born.
The body functions are completely different.
It is not a child/ person until it is born.
I will agree that once a fetus becomes viaible it is a potential person and I agree with Roe vs. Wade that abortions should be limited to the extreme cases once viability is reached. The extreme cases are cases where the woman's life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue, where the fetus has died in the womb, when it will be stillborn or when it so malformed it would live only a few minutes or hours.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks gestation.
Less than .08 of all abortions in the USA take place at or after 24 weeks gestation.
They are the extreme cases that I mentioned above.
 
'The measure bans most abortions at about 12 weeks of pregnancy, once a fetal heartbeat can be detected by a standard ultrasound. It includes exemptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and major fetal conditions. Doctors who violate the prohibition would have their licenses revoked by the state medical board.'

Seems fine to me.

I mean, the woman had 12 weeks (more or less) to make up her mind if she wanted to abort it or not. If that is not enough time - tough.

I am for abortions before there is brain activity.

But once there is brain/heart activity, it is no longer a potential person - it IS a person...and to abort it is killing.
 
Or, you know, don't kill your kid in cold blood. Being a decent human being instead of a scumbag is always a valid scenario.

You can use all the emotional blackmail you want to but it doesn't change the practical reality on the ground that for some, abortion is a personal choice that a woman can make. It doesn't change that many women have always needed the availability of safe abortion and if it is not available to them they will seek other help.

I agree this will result in women traveling to have abortions. Some people without morals will stop at nothing to fulfill their selfish needs. Including killing their unborn children.

It's a woman's choice what she does with her own body, not yours. It's far more selfish to put unwanted children onto this world where they won't have the support and care anti-abortionists think they do. How many kids would end up living miserable lives in children's homes just to satisfy the selfish whims and morals of the anti-abortionist?
Far better that the children who do get born are those who are wanted and who will be cared for than we ban abortion and have many born who face difficult lives and childhoods in children's homes just because you think abortion is a selfish act.

And anyway, it is still the choice of the woman. On the other side, I am quite happy that if a woman chooses to have a child and the father says no that he has a reasonable time period to make his decision and be absolved of child care costs if the mother goes ahead.
 
At 12 weeks a fetus is not viable. This law will be thrown out faster than you can say "Get me a coat hanger".

I agree. This state law is clearly in violation of our federal laws.
I also feel it will be thrown out very quickly.
 
Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation - chicagotribune.com


I don't know the exact wording, but wasn't Roe v. Wade vague in the age of the fetus? I think this is borderline in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling and will probably end up going to the SCOTUS.
The Arkansas law is in conflict with Roe and Webster, which, combined, state that abortion for reasons other than to save the mother's life/prevent grave ill-health can be disallowed by the states after the unborn human reaches the age of medically assisted viability.

The age of medically assisted viability is presently near 26 weeks .. but it is descending, as medical science continues its technological improvements.

But 26 weeks is a far cry from the Arkansas law's 12 weeks.

So clearly the Arkansas law is a challenge to Roe and Webster .. likely a deliberate one, hoping to make its way to the SCOTUS.
 
It's a woman's choice what she does with her own body, not yours.

Unless she wants to rent it out for an hour or two. That old cliche has never made any real sense because there are so many laws to the contrary.

It's far more selfish to put unwanted children onto this world where they won't have the support and care anti-abortionists think they do. How many kids would end up living miserable lives in children's homes just to satisfy the selfish whims and morals of the anti-abortionist?

And how many children would have happy lives with loving families who are prepared to adopt them?

Far better that the children who do get born are those who are wanted and who will be cared for than we ban abortion and have many born who face difficult lives and childhoods in children's homes just because you think abortion is a selfish act.

There are many children who have grown up with women on their own who are quite happy to be alive. Abortion is a selfish act and there is no getting around that. It should be legal, but it has to be understood also that it is immoral.
And anyway, it is still the choice of the woman. On the other side, I am quite happy that if a woman chooses to have a child and the father says no that he has a reasonable time period to make his decision and be absolved of child care costs if the mother goes ahead.

Yes, it's time that father's had a say in all of this as well. If a woman is responsible for her body that pretty much removes the responsibility from the man. And with the number of unwed mother's around that's seems to be the social situation we see now.
 
?...And with the number of unwed mother's around that's seems to be the social situation we see now.
And I feel it is pro lifers and the religious right that has demonized abortion and elevated single women who give birth and thus made single moms into heros.
 
And I feel it is pro lifers and the religious right that has demonized abortion and elevated single women who give birth and thus made single moms into heros.

Abortion should not be 'demonized' but it should certainly be frowned upon. Who can look at single mothers as 'heroes' until they see the quality of their maternal care?

It seems to me you are attempting to 'demonize' those who are pro life. Do you see a negative in supporting life?

There have been over 50 million abortions since R vs W. That has huge implications for the future of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Abortion should not be 'demonized' but it should certainly be frowned upon. Who can look at single mothers as 'heroes' until they see the quality of their maternal care?

It seems to me you are attempting to 'demonize' those who are pro life. Do you see a negative in supporting life?

There have been over 50 million abortions since R vs W. That has huge implications for the future of the United States.


I see a negative is wanting a law which would force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
No one and no country should force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
A woman should be able to choose if she wants to continue her pregnancy or if she wants to choose an early abortion.

I will not support a law that would force a woman to risk her health and possibly her life to continue a pregnancy.
I will also never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.

The decision is the woman's. She has a right to privacy and body soverinty.

There have been over 150 million live births since Roe vs Wade .
That has huge implications for the future of the United States.
 
I see a negative is wanting a law which would force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
No one and no country should force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
A woman should be able to choose if she wants to continue her pregnancy or if she wants to choose an early abortion.

I will not support a law that would force a woman to risk her health and possibly her life to continue a pregnancy.
I will also never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.

The decision is the woman's. She has a right to privacy and body soverinty.

There have been over 150 million live births since Roe vs Wade .
That has huge implications for the future of the United States.

Seeing as sex education doesn't work, as it was once supposed it would, what do you suggest be done to prevent women from becoming pregnant?

There is education, all sorts of contraception devices, the social legacy that the majority of single mothers leave behind, the expense to the State for supporting these people, and the known struggle single mothers have as far as any career options go. Are we witnessing the Bimbofication of America?

What are the 'huge implications' of 150 million babies being born? Have you a reason for saying this or is it just a rejoinder that has no real meaning at all?
 
This simply means lots of women travelling to the next state for an abortion or worse still - back room abortions if they are not allowed to travel.

Good, let an individual kill themselves while killing an individual. It may sound harsh but I call that poetic justice.

Imagine if you were aborted - I wouldn't be typing this now would I?

Think about it.
 
Unless she wants to rent it out for an hour or two. That old cliche has never made any real sense because there are so many laws to the contrary.

If a woman rents her body out it is still her choice to make, she has rights over her own body so I don't see how your point addresses what I said?

- And how many children would have happy lives with loving families who are prepared to adopt them?

The fallacy many pro-life people make is that all these children would have happy caring homes to go to. In the last set of US statistics, 400,000 children were in care. Not adopted and not living idyllic rosy happy lives.

-

There are many children who have grown up with women on their own who are quite happy to be alive. Abortion is a selfish act and there is no getting around that. It should be legal, but it has to be understood also that it is immoral.

Please explain?

-- There have been over 50 million abortions since R vs W. That has huge implications for the future of the United States.

Yeah, add another 50 million humans to the equation, if a large proportion of those unwanted kids had gone on to be born - what percentage would be adopted / in foster care / in children's homes?

Would pro-lifers be happy to foot the bill for all those extra millions?

Good, let an individual kill themselves while killing an individual. It may sound harsh but I call that poetic justice.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Especially if you are supposedly "pro-life..."

Imagine if you were aborted - I wouldn't be typing this now would I?

Think about it.

I think you need to think about making your argument a lot more cohesive? If I hadn't turned my computer on this morning, I wouldn't be typing this now would I? See, that has as much connection to the discussion as your statement.
 
i have asked this question over and over, .....but i get no real answer from the left.

if a woman has a right to her body, to do as she please, becuase it is her body.

then does not a person have the right to do with their personal property, as they chose, since it is also their property?
 
If a woman rents her body out it is still her choice to make, she has rights over her own body so I don't see how your point addresses what I said?



The fallacy many pro-life people make is that all these children would have happy caring homes to go to. In the last set of US statistics, 400,000 children were in care. Not adopted and not living idyllic rosy happy lives.



Please explain?



Yeah, add another 50 million humans to the equation, if a large proportion of those unwanted kids had gone on to be born - what percentage would be adopted / in foster care / in children's homes?

Would pro-lifers be happy to foot the bill for all those extra millions?



Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Especially if you are supposedly "pro-life..."



I think you need to think about making your argument a lot more cohesive? If I hadn't turned my computer on this morning, I wouldn't be typing this now would I? See, that has as much connection to the discussion as your statement.

How cohesive is: "You shall not murder"

Let me guess you're gong to label me a religious nutter next?
 
How cohesive is: "You shall not murder"

Let me guess you're gong to label me a religious nutter next?

I can only repeat your own words back to you.

i have asked this question over and over, .....but i get no real answer from the left.

if a woman has a right to her body, to do as she please, becuase it is her body.

then does not a person have the right to do with their personal property, as they chose, since it is also their property?

What does "left" or "right" have to do with abortion?

In the UK, abortion is not a matter of left wing or right wing politics, I guess things may be different in the USA?
 
i have asked this question over and over, .....but i get no real answer from the left.

if a woman has a right to her body, to do as she please, becuase it is her body.

then does not a person have the right to do with their personal property, as they chose, since it is also their property?

I've been saying the same thing for a long time...

No, you will get no answer..

Progressives are snug like that.

Their answer is "just because." No principal - "just because it sounds good and could potentially favor me."

Progressives are greedy little devils who only care about themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom