• 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]

Bonzai said:
"Human rights" are fundamentals that no government, no religion, no "group" can intrude on..........................
Click to expand...

WTF are those? You're smarter than this...
 
sangha said:
I asked "Where does the constitution say that govt at any level has the power to regulate or ban abortion?"

Is your answer "It doesn't" ?
Click to expand...

The answer is that those powers not vested in the Federal government are left to the States...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
WTF are those? You're smarter than this...
Click to expand...

No. You're arguing as if the "government" is somehow a negative thing and the only one at that. Wrong...................
 
sangha said:
Where does the constitution say that the power to regulate or ban abortion is one of "those powers"?
Click to expand...

You've come full circle from stating that individuals have no control to asking about a controlling authority? It's little wonder why I usually ignore your posts...
 
Bonzai said:
No. You're arguing as if the "government" is somehow a negative thing and the only one at that. Wrong...................
Click to expand...

No, you were asked a simple question. If you choose not to answer, I'll understand...
 
Bonzai said:
They aren't so easily summed up, like some people would like us to believe, in 10 little quips of do's and don'ts................
Click to expand...

You either have a view on inherent rights or not. Muddying the waters doesn't help...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You've come full circle from stating that individuals have no control to asking about a controlling authority? It's little wonder why I usually ignore your posts...
Click to expand...

And you have never left your position of making crap up

I haven't said anything about any controlling authority

I asked you a simple question. Where does the constitution say that any govt has the power to regulate or ban abortion?

And when you claim to be ignoring my posts, you are once again making crap up. This thread has dozens of examples of you not ignoring my posts
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, you were asked a simple question. If you choose not to answer, I'll understand...
Click to expand...

No, *you* were asked a simple question:

Where does the constitution say that govt at any level has the power to regulate or ban abortion?

If you choose not to answer, I'll understand...
 
sangha said:
When will you stop refusing to answer one single question:

Where does the constitution says the govt has the power to regulate or ban abortion?
Click to expand...

i ever POSED the question in the first place......so why are you PRESSING me for the answer?

it comes down to :

is government doing its primary duty by-----> protecting life?

some say the unborn is life, ...........and others say it is not, and they believe the woman is the one to decide what to do.

does the woman have the RIGHT, To do with her body IE. PROPERTY ,as she wants to, or can government control her, IE .property, and ban abortion?
 
Grant said:
Yes, that is true for the moment but medical knowledge continues to expand and there is no apparent reason why babies might be viable in less that 24, 20 or 16 weeks. Laws in these areas cannot be written in stone.
Click to expand...

There is a very long way to go before medical knowledge takes us to the point that an early pre-term baby can be put into the equivalent of a female body and then develop as fully as if it had stayed in the body of the mother. I agree laws may change when that day comes along but as a physical fact rather than a discussion of the US constitution - there are currently no biological arguments that would take away the need for a 24 week limit on abortion.
 
sangha said:
Where does the constitution say that govt at any level has the power to regulate or ban abortion?
Click to expand...
Specifically?
It doesn't.

Generally?
The Commerce clause seems to be a catch all, so lets start there, as abortion is a medical procedure, and as such is commerce.
And with girls crossing State lines to get abortions, and I wouldn't put it past them to try and argue it, so lets start there.
Or how about under the authority of the Constitution to tax, as we all have seen how well that works as an argument.


Me? I think Arkansas Republicans have stepped over the line.
But then again, that is just me.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
.....

does the woman have the RIGHT, To do with her body IE. PROPERTY ,as she wants to, or can government control her, IE .property, and ban abortion?
Click to expand...

As I said before...the woman has a right to privacy. Women have to right to control reproductivity. It really is not about PROPERTY.
It is not about her owning her body.
I think that is where your confusion lies.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i ever POSED the question in the first place......so why are you PRESSING me for the answer?

it comes down to :
is government doing its primary duty by-----> protecting life?
some say the unborn is life, ...........and others say it is not, and they believe the woman is the one to decide what to do.
does the woman have the RIGHT, To do with her body IE. PROPERTY ,as she wants to, or can government control her, IE .property, and ban abortion?
Click to expand...

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That could be interpreted as anti-abortion.
The unborn child is certainly a life, is alive.
The unborn child is genetically a unique individual, so is not "a part of the mothers body." The child is a unique individual within the mothers body. That is a scientific fact.
Currently the law allows for the woman to decide whether to kill this unique life within her body, up to a point.
The pivotal point of decision would appear to be "when is that unique body actually a human being." This point is usually set in a very arbitrary fashion by most people.
For me, I believe it is a unique human life at conception. It is at that point everything it is ever going to be, in process.
But there are those who will say until it can walk around on it's own, it is not a viable human being and is therefore not human.
It is a very God-like decision to be making in my mind, to decide when a human life is actually human. Especially when that human existence hinges on the outcome of our decisions.
Would it not make sense to err on the side of caution? Or are we really smart enough to know the exact point of humanity?
 
Cable said:
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That could be interpreted as anti-abortion.
The unborn child is certainly a life, is alive.
The unborn child is genetically a unique individual, so is not "a part of the mothers body." The child is a unique individual within the mothers body. That is a scientific fact.
Currently the law allows for the woman to decide whether to kill this unique life within her body, up to a point.
The pivotal point of decision would appear to be "when is that unique body actually a human being." This point is usually set in a very arbitrary fashion by most people.
For me, I believe it is a unique human life at conception. It is at that point everything it is ever going to be, in process.
But there are those who will say until it can walk around on it's own, it is not a viable human being and is therefore not human.
It is a very God-like decision to be making in my mind, to decide when a human life is actually human. Especially when that human existence hinges on the outcome of our decisions.
Would it not make sense to err on the side of caution? Or are we really smart enough to know the exact point of humanity?
Click to expand...

The fetus is attached to woman until the cord is cut. A pre viable fetus is Not a separate entity as It cannot live apart from the
woman until it reaches viability ( the point it survive outside the woman's womb with or without medical help).
A pre viable fetus is a part of woman's body just as her arm is. If you detach a woman's arm it will die if it remains detached.
If you detach a pre viable fetus it will not survive because a pre viable fetus like the woman's arm is a part of her body and depends on her blood and nutrients ...without those it dies.

Women have to right to privacy and that gives her the right to decide if she ready , or if she feels she is healthy enough and wants to take risk of gestating and giving birth.
 
minnie616 said:
The fetus is attached to woman until the cord is cut. A pre viable fetus is Not a separate entity as It cannot live apart from the
woman until it reaches viability ( the point it survive outside the woman's womb with or without medical help).
A pre viable fetus is a part of woman's body just as her arm is. If you detach a woman's arm it will die if it remains detached.
If you detach a pre viable fetus it will not survive because a pre viable fetus like the woman's arm is a part of her body and depends on her blood and nutrients ...without those it dies.

Women have to right to privacy and that gives her the right to decide if she ready , or if she feels she is healthy enough and wants to take risk of gestating and giving birth.
Click to expand...


Again, you have defined whether the unborn child is a separate entity arbitrarily as being at the point it can survive apart from the mother. There is nothing scientific or factual about this definition you espouse. It is simply that you have a "feeling" that it isn't a person until it can survive on it's own.

The unborn child is nothing like a woman's arm or other body part. It has it's own blood and circulation, and is only fed from the mothers blood as nutrients transfer from the mothers blood to the child's blood through the placenta. It is indeed a unique life developing within the mothers body, and not like an arm that is just another part of her body.

Women have a right to privacy, I agree. She does have the right to decide whether she will conceive a child or not.
My stance is that once she has conceived, her decisioning is done regarding the life of the child inside her. At this point, the child should have rights, just like the mother. The child is not able to stand up for his/her own rights, so we must stand up as a society for the rights of the defenseless. Anything less is uncivilized and inhumane.
 
Cable said:
Again, you have defined whether the unborn child is a separate entity arbitrarily as being at the point it can survive apart from the mother. There is nothing scientific or factual about this definition you espouse. It is simply that you have a "feeling" that it isn't a person until it can survive on it's own....
Click to expand...

Viability is not abritrary. It is when a fetus can live outside the womb.
If a pregnant woman dies before the fetus is viable the fetus will also die even if doctors removed it and and gave it all the medial help they could.

Once viaibity is reached a fetus "presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb..

From Roe vs Wade:
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.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade - edited text

No it not that I have a "feeling" that it isn't a person until it can survive on it's own.
It is because a fetus is NOT a person under US law.

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.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade - edited text
 
minnie616 said:
Viability is not abritrary. It is when a fetus can live outside the womb.
If a pregnant woman dies before the fetus is viable the fetus will also die even if doctors removed it and and gave it all the medial help they could.

Once viaibity is reached a fetus "presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb..

From Roe vs Wade:


Roe v Wade - edited text

No it not that I have a "feeling" that it isn't a person until it can survive on it's own.
It is because a fetus is NOT a person under US law.



Roe v Wade - edited text
Click to expand...

I understand what the law says. It's the same law that said at one time that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. So while it is the law, it does not make it right. So much for the law.

While viability isn't an arbitrary thing, assigning human rights at the point of viability is. That is what I meant, if not what I said. Your definition of human life appears to be arbitrarily based on viability outside the womb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom