• 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]

"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.
Are you aware that I already said that myself in post #149? I even linked to source material. I don't understand why you feel the need to copy pretty much word for word what I already said as though it's your original content, unless you're just trying to be a troll.

Here is that post:
Even when abortion was illegal, most abortions were performed by doctors in their office. What you meant to say was "back ally", not "back room", meaning the doctor would let the patient into the office through an ally exit so as not to be seen. It doesn't mean the abortion was performed in an ally.

Back-ally abortion;

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/2157/26/5 Myths About “Back Alley” Abortions

Myth #1. Illegal abortions were performed by unlicensed, unskilled hacks.


Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians. Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training.

The term “back alley” referred not to where abortions were performed, but to how women were instructed to enter the doctor’s office after hours, through the back alley, to avoid arousing neighbors’ suspicions.

An illegal abortion may be called a "back-alley", "backstreet", or "back-yard" abortion.

The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known illegal abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1960 printing of the American Journal of Public Health:

"Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."


Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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.

More like the Surpreme Courts opinion.

Unborn victims of violence refers to feticide which is an act against a fetus not an act against a person.
 
Are you aware that I already said that myself in post #149? I even linked to source material. I don't understand why you feel the need to copy pretty much word for word what I already said as though it's your original content, unless you're just trying to be a troll.

No I wasn't aware of that

Please forgive me for not memorizing every pearl of wisdom you have posted. Your forgiveness would mean a lot to me
 
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.

It does not confict as abortions are concidered legal and the wording to exempt legal abortions is in the feticide laws.
 
Again, the fact is that SCOTUS clearly stated that, under the law, a fetus is not a person

Citation, and again, address the question of the Unborn Victims of Violence act, or I'll assume that you can't and are therefore talking out of an orifice other than the one generally meant for speaking. :mrgreen:
 
More like the Surpreme Courts opinion.

Unborn victims of violence refers to feticide which is an act against a fetus not an act against a person.

However, it is charged as murder, a capitol crime....Are we now to niggle over methods to kill the unborn?
 
Originally Posted by sangha

A fetus is not a person
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.

Defin person....people have memories can think outside the primal thouhts of food . what keeps a animal from being consider a person. a fetus is not a peson it is a atchatment of the parent untill it is born. Violence against unborn children is a violence against something that is part of the parent , but if you hurt something that is verry dear to a person especaily if it is going to be a future person that he/she who acted violently causing pain to the mother and possibly death to the fetus should be charged with something.

12 weks is close to the end of the first trimester you should know if your pregnaunt bye then so should have already decide if you want/ need a abortion by then.

The real debate would be if its right to not insure abortions
 
Citation, and again,

Roe v Wade

address the question of the Unborn Victims of Violence act, or I'll assume that you can't and are therefore talking out of an orifice other than the one generally meant for speaking. :mrgreen:

The perp is not allowed to perform an abortion on a woman without that womans consent.
 
However, it is charged as murder, a capitol crime....Are we now to niggle over methods to kill the unborn?

It's called "enhanced sentencing"

It's not uncommon for circumstances to result in a completely different charge
 
Originally Posted by sangha

A fetus is not a person
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.

Defin person....people have memories can think outside the primal thouhts of food . what keeps a animal from being consider a person. a fetus is not a peson it is a atchatment of the parent untill it is born. Violence against unborn children is a violence against something that is part of the parent , but if you hurt something that is verry dear to a person especaily if it is going to be a future person that he/she who acted violently causing pain to the mother and possibly death to the fetus should be charged with something.

12 weks is close to the end of the first trimester you should know if your pregnaunt bye then so should have already decide if you want/ need a abortion by then.

The real debate would be if its right to not insure abortions

Under the law, the word "person" refers to a human that has been born
 
Again, the fact is that SCOTUS clearly stated that, under the law, a fetus is not a person
No, SCOTUS did not say that.

SCOTUS said:
ROE v. WADE, Section 9a:
"A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses , [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ."
SCOTUS said the unborn was not treated as a person by the law, at the time the ruling was made. It's been 40 years...the law has changed since that ruling. Today, the unborn is treated as a 'person' under the 14th amendment. Lacey and Conner's Law is an example of that.
 
No, SCOTUS did not say that.

SCOTUS said:

SCOTUS said the unborn was not treated as a person by the law, at the time the ruling was made. It's been 40 years...the law has changed since that ruling. Today, the unborn is treated as a 'person' under the 14th amendment. Lacey and Conner's Law is an example of that.

You're citing the argument which was made by the pro-life side; an argument that SCOTUS rejected.
 
Under the law, the word "person" refers to a human that has been born

Actually no. That's an individual state's decision. Here's a listing of states and their definitions of person where it comes to the unborn. The real state of affairs is that some states define the unborn as a person, some do not.

This law in Arkansas fits with their state's definition of person:

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13) defines "person," as used in § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105, to include an unborn child of 12 weeks or more gestation. The law specifies that these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented, an act committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during testing or treatment, or an act committed in the course of medical research, experimental medicine or an act deemed necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-10-101 through § 5-10-105 define capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter and negligent homicide.
 
You're citing the argument which was made by the pro-life side; an argument that SCOTUS rejected.
I don't think I'm making the point clear.

SCOTUS rejected it 40 years ago, and rightfully so, imo. 40 years ago the unborn had no established legal standing.

It's been 40 years now. The law has changed. The unborn now have legal standing.
 
Those laws do not apply to abortion. We're talking about abortion. Please find something relevant to post

They do in this context where the law at discussion limits the permitted abortion window. But you go on as usual and ignore anything that doesn't fit your script.
 
Who here beleives 12 weeks is a fair amount of time for a female who is pregnaunt to get a abortion who here disagrees
 
She will be arrested as a prostitute. She can use that explanation with the judge but she might still go to jail.

That still doesn't change that she could make the decision herself to do with her own body.

-- I certainly never said ALL these children but if they were allowed to be born at least they would have a chance to live in a happy caring home.

That's the idealised picture, but what is the reality? Can you enumerate the chance of a happy family home?

If they find they are not happy then perhaps they can later self abort

:doh :roll:

Perhaps these children should also should have some rights over their bodies.

They do once they pass 24 weeks within the womb.

-- Explain what? It seems I was quite clear.

You claimed abortion was immoral, can you explain why?

-- I have no idea, but should we abort babies because you don't know which home they might go to? I'm sure there are people who have an understanding of where children are wanted and have homes available for these babies.

"We" don't abort babies, women do for a variety of reasons. Very few could be called "immoral." The point remains that making women carry through to full term the 50 million babies would have an impact on society through large numbers of babies ending up in care homes.

If there were no children in care homes because they were being found safe good homes very quickly, you might have a point but you don't. Facts on the ground don't support you.

-- It seems clear they would. Those babies who were aborted are also those who would grow up to be taxpayers to support the social programs initiated by the same people who expect these social programs. Who is to pay for these programs if we are killing millions of the next generation?

You are presupposing. Firstly those children have to be cared for in care homes, then the expense of finding, vetting and transferring to family homes if they exist in the numbers that equal the number of children who would be born.

No need to cry just because I called you out on your hyperbole.

Hm. the 20 week pregnancy check is hyperbole.... riiiight. Steps away.

Even when abortion was illegal, most abortions were performed by doctors in their office. What you meant to say was "back ally", not "back room", meaning the doctor would let the patient into the office through an ally exit so as not to be seen. It doesn't mean the abortion was performed in an ally.

Back-ally abortion;

"Back room", "back street", "back yard" and "back alley" are all expressions used in the UK. I suppose you have to cling to the one point you think you have over me.

Someone even wrote a book called "Back Rooms, Voices from the Illegal Abortion Era" but let's just call this more "hyperbole."

:doh

How does it not?

Don't worry, we'll just agree that things like the 20 week anomaly scan and all the medical problems that are scanned for are hyperbole.
 
I don't think I'm making the point clear.

SCOTUS rejected it 40 years ago, and rightfully so, imo. 40 years ago the unborn had no established legal standing.

It's been 40 years now. The law has changed. The unborn now have legal standing.

Wrong

None of the laws you cited change the finding that under the constitution, the unborn are not persons and therefore have no right to life
 
"As used in this section" means that the word person does not apply to abortion or whether the unborn have rights under the constitution
That's for SCOTUS to decide.
 
They do in this context where the law at discussion limits the permitted abortion window. But you go on as usual and ignore anything that doesn't fit your script.

No, they don't

State laws do not overturn the constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom