• 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]

Infinite Chaos said:
Do you have a link to a US example of this law please? I know an MP tried to bring in a private member's bill in 2008 here following cases of the murder of pregnant girlfriends in Canada but it didn't become law and even then the MP wanted his bill to apply only to wanted fetuses, not the unwanted.
Click to expand...

Sure, hope this helps.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
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?
Click to expand...

People don't have the right to do as they please with their body or their property. They cant choose to use their body (or their property) to kill other people

But people have the right to decide which medical procedures they will consent to and which they will not.
 
j-mac said:
No way to prove that though. PP can say all they want that they don't use taxpayer funds in their abortion side, but the funds are not segregated, and therefore, since money is fungible, I'd be more than willing to bet that it is indeed the case that taxpayer money goes for abortion.
Click to expand...

I think the funds for abortions is segregated at Planned Parenthood I know that when Kormen donated monies to PP those funds were set aside for cancer screening. Many people donate monies
to PP and ask that funds would be used toward helping women fund abortions or some ask that their funds be used to birth control more affordable for the poor.
Other donations with no requests goes into their general funds.
 
minnie616 said:
No taxpayer monies are used for abortions as the Hyde amendment forbids using taxpayer monies for abortions
Click to expand...
.Perhaps.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last sentence.
Click to expand...

It seems clear.


Right to privacy means reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

Then why not say what they mean? The two are not connected. No one is questioning the reproductive rights, the right to reproduce. It's abortions, the ending of the production for a living being that is causing the concern.

The right to privacy means they get to plan their families, they get to plan the number of children they want, how far apart they want their children etc.
Click to expand...

That has always been the case and no one is interfering with a families right to plan on the number of children they want. Families have always had this right and it's always been as private as they've wanted it to be.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
sorry i should have added something to my statement, is not my personal property mind to do as i please ,---->as long as i do not infringe on the rights of other people.
Click to expand...

Abortions do not infringe on the rights of any other person
 
Jerry said:
Just as a point...aren't all medical procedures performed in a "back room"? I mean, have you ever seen any non-emergency procedure carried out in the lobby?
Click to expand...

"Back room abortion" is something called "a figure of speech" and is not meant to be taken literally, just as "Just as a point" is a reference to an argument, not something with a tapering end or a mathematical concept indicating a location with no dimensions
 
Cable said:
Thanks Minnie. Do you have some biblical or even scientific basis for forming your opinion as to when a fetus is a person?
Click to expand...

For legal purposes, the law defines when a fetus becomes a person, and that happens when the fetus is born
 
j-mac said:
I understand where you are going with this, however, one argument may well be that although you have a right to be secure in your person from unreasonable search, and or seizure, the moment you are talking about a separate life, as in the child growing inside you, that person has the same right to be secure.
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a person
 
Grant said:
Perhaps.

Then why not say what they mean? The two are not connected. No one is questioning the reproductive rights, the right to reproduce. It's abortions, the ending of the production for a living being that is causing the concern.
Click to expand...

The right to privacy was settled by the Supreme Court in 1965 and that set the precedent for the Roe vs. Wade decision.
I think the Supreme Court was very wise in decision since they chose viability as the point in which states could take a compelling interest in the " potential person". Before viability a fetus can not live apart from the woman. If she dies it dies no matter how much medical help the pre viable fetus gets. Until viability the fetus can only grow by using the blood and other nutrients in the woman's body just like her arms, legs, and organs do.

That has always been the case and no one is interfering with a families right to plan on the number of children they want. Families have always had this right and it's always been as private as they've wanted it to be.
Click to expand...
Families have not always had that right. As I pointed out Connecticut had a law in the 1960's that required any couple that wanted to use BIrth control need to get counseling before they could buy Birth control pills. That case went to SC and was stricken down
because the Surpreme Court determined people had the right to privacy.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
The right to privacy was settled by the Supreme Court in 1965 and that set the precedent for the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Click to expand...

That is not in dispute, although nowhere in the Constitution does the word 'abortion' appear. This was an activist court, usurping the power from State rights.

I think the Supreme Court was very wise in decision since they chose viability as the point in which states could take a compelling interest in the " potential person". Before viability a fetus can not live apart from the woman. If she dies it dies no matter how much medical help the pre viable fetus gets. Until viability the fetus can only grow by using the blood and other nutrients in the woman's body just like her arms, legs, and organs do.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court should involve themselves in the law as it relates to the Constitution and not involve themselves in medicine, an area in which they are not trained.

Families have not always had that right. As I pointed out Connecticut had a law in the 1960's that required any couple that wanted to use BIrth control need to get counseling before they could buy Birth control pills. That case went to SC and was stricken down because the Surpreme Court determined people had the right to privacy.
Click to expand...

That was a bad law and should have been struck down.
 
Grant said:
That is not in dispute, although nowhere in the Constitution does the word 'abortion' appear. This was an activist court, usurping the power from State rights.
Click to expand...

The word "immigration" also does not appear in the Constitution. Do you deny the govt the power to regulate immigration, or do you believe the govt can't stop anyone from entering the country?


The Supreme Court should involve themselves in the law as it relates to the Constitution and not involve themselves in medicine, an area in which they are not trained.
Click to expand...

If you read Roe v Wade, you'd see that they did exactly what you say they should do.
 
sangha said:
"Back room abortion" is something called "a figure of speech" and is not meant to be taken literally, just as "Just as a point" is a reference to an argument, not something with a tapering end or a mathematical concept indicating a location with no dimensions
Click to expand...
It has no meaning. I know some folks here would like to to mean something negative, but it doesn't. All medical procedures are don behind a veil of secrecy. It's called "privacy".
 
sangha said:
For legal purposes, the law defines when a fetus becomes a person, and that happens when the fetus is born
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Some conclusions in Roe vs. Wade decision:
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.
This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

<SNIP>
OUTLINE OF KEY POINTS

Roe v. Wade is a LEGAL ruling, not a moral analysis. It deals with the legal question of whether abortion, as a medical procedure, is constitutionally protected. Roe. v. Wade argues that
in the absence of explicit legal rights for fetuses, and with a Constitutional implication against the existence of such rights, the court (and state legislatures!) had no reason to treat abortion differently from other health procedures, particularly contraception.

Three key points:

A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons. In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice.

Since 1891, the U.S. has recognized a right to privacy in some "zones" of activity, which means that individuals can make decisions and act upon them without informing other people and without state interference. (Example: Your discussions with your lawyer are private and confidential.) The court has previously recognized that adult women have a privacy right when it comes to contraception and reproduction.



Conclusion: Because fetuses are not legally protected and abortion is a safe medical procedure protected by privacy rights, adult women have the right to receive an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, and states can only interfere where the interference is appropriate to the woman's health.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade - edited text
 
Jerry said:
It has no meaning. I know some folks here would like to to mean something negative, but it doesn't. All medical procedures are don behind a veil of secrecy. It's called "privacy".
Click to expand...

"back room abortions" refer to abortions that are performed but aren't subjected to the normal regulations and inspections that other medical procedures are subject to because of laws which criminalixe abortion.

I would also note that the original term was "back alley abortions" because women were often told to enter the doctors office through the back alley to avoid detection.

And privacy is not the same as secrecy, though there is a lot of overlap.
 
minnie616 said:
Conclusion: Because fetuses are not legally protected and abortion is a safe medical procedure protected by privacy rights, adult women have the right to receive an abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, and states can only interfere where the interference is appropriate to the woman's health.
Click to expand...

Then why stop at six months? Does the woman's rights expire after six months? Why not seven or eight months? Is there an expiration limit on privacy?
 
Grant said:
Then why stop at six months? Does the woman's rights expire after six months? Why not seven or eight months? Is there an expiration limit on privacy?
Click to expand...

Why don't you read Roe v Wade? They explain in detail why the govt has the power to regulate abortion once the fetus becomes viable.
 
minnie616 said:
I think the funds for abortions is segregated at Planned Parenthood I know that when Kormen donated monies to PP those funds were set aside for cancer screening. Many people donate monies
to PP and ask that funds would be used toward helping women fund abortions or some ask that their funds be used to birth control more affordable for the poor.
Other donations with no requests goes into their general funds.
Click to expand...

At the very least PP should be investigated....

"Planned Parenthood has spent much of the last few years demanding that taxpayers add millions more to their coffers, citing their non-profit status and so-called focus on women's health. What have we received for our money? While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all-time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business. Destroying nearly one million children in three years is not healthcare and does not reflect a concern for vulnerable women and girls. As Planned Parenthood's funding goes up, abortions increase and real health services for women go down.

"As if these numbers weren't already horrifying, Planned Parenthood has upped the ante even further by mandating that all affiliates provide abortions beginning this year. Americans are sick and tired of underwriting the nation's largest abortion business. We call on Congress to immediately investigate and defund Planned Parenthood."

Planned Parenthood has stressed that it provides healthcare and preventative services to indigent women. But Mallory Quigley with SBA List tells OneNewsNow that this latest annual report is telling.

"Contraception services dropped by 12 percent since 2009, and cancer-screening and prevention services dropped by 29 percent," she points out. "So Planned Parenthood spent much of the last couple of years making the case for why they should receive taxpayer funding and really relying on taxpayers to fill up their coffers -- and they're not providing the healthcare services that they claim."

According to Quigley, that "absolutely" means more of the federal money going to Planned Parenthood is freed up to perform abortions.

"Money is completely fungible -- and as we've seen, as their taxpayer funding has increased over the last three years so has the number of abortions that they provide," she explains. "And all the while, the healthcare services and their so-called 'focus on women's health' has declined."

Quigley adds that Planned Parenthood does 145 abortions for every adoption referral, which she says is indicative of the organization's priorities.

Jim Sedlak with American Life League comments on the record number of abortion reported.

"They've had an increase of about 4,000 more babies that they've killed. Planned Parenthood now kills over 900 babies a day in their own facilities, so every three days they kill the same number of innocent human beings who died on September 11, 2001, in the terrorist attacks on the United States."

And regarding the record amount of taxpayer funding: "They reported that for the latest year, they received $542 million," notes Sedlak. "So Planned Parenthood has increased another $60 million last year -- and of course the gates are about to open wide as ObamaCare gets implemented and Planned Parenthood gets millions more."

The ALL spokesman notes that Planned Parenthood two years ago said that as of January 2013 "every single one of their affiliates had to have a clinic that did abortions." That, he says, makes the organization the largest abortion-provider in the nation -- mostly at taxpayer expense.

Planned Parenthood: Record year for abortions, taxpayer funding
Click to expand...

Obamacare requires every American to purchase health insurance, it requires every state to establish health insurance exchanges, and it dramatically expands Medicaid. Each of these – private health insurances programs, exchanges, and Medicaid – can, and in some case are required to, provide coverage for abortion. The result is hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled to the abortion industry every year and the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

In fact, the law specifically provides that state health exchanges may cover abortions unless the state enacts specific legislation prohibiting abortion coverage. Moreover, the law’s requirement that insurance providers cover “preventive services” and preventative care are so broadly defined that they could be used to force coverage of abortions and abortion related drugs. Thus, all Americans are forced to purchase health insurance that could cover abortion and in some cases is required to cover abortion.

How ObamaCare uses Taxpayer Money to Pay for Abortions | ObamaCare, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
That is not in dispute, although nowhere in the Constitution does the word 'abortion' appear. This was an activist court, usurping the power from State rights....
Click to expand...

The Court ruled in favor of the Roe vs Wade by a 5 to 2 vote.
The Roe v. Wade (1973) decision was written by Republican appointee Harry Blackmun and he was joined by fellow Republican appointees Potter Stewart, Lewis Powell, and Warren Burger.
 
sangha said:
A fetus is not a person
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. If that is indeed the case than you need to justify the federal law surrounding the Unborn victims of violence act then.
 
sangha said:
No, it's not just my opinion. It's the law.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, that wasn't the entirety of the post now was it...Tell me how your opinion on the law here conflicts with the federal statute.
 
Grant said:
Then why stop at six months? Does the woman's rights expire after six months? Why not seven or eight months? Is there an expiration limit on privacy?
Click to expand...

Because by viability they have a good chance of surviving outside the woman's womb with or without medical help.
Also after 6 months there is a much higher risk for the womans life if she has an abortion.
 
j-mac said:
I am sorry, that wasn't the entirety of the post now was it...Tell me how your opinion on the law here conflicts with the federal statute.
Click to expand...

Again, the fact is that SCOTUS clearly stated that, under the law, a fetus is not a person
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom