• 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]

The Court defined viability as a stage where the fetus's life "ay be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.

Viability is ridiculous as a standard for when to consider a life human...A short time ago viability was at 30 weeks, today it is 23 to 24 weeks, with some cases documented as early as 21 weeks. As medical science gets better, viability only speaks to our ability to SAVE the LIFE, NOT to judge if it IS a life.
 
The Court defined viability as a stage where the fetus's life "may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.
Sometimes the State is wrong and we have to think for ourselves. We should not take everything the State claims as being right.
 
Sometimes the State is wrong and we have to think for ourselves. We should not take everything the State claims as being right.

Yet until the 13th amendment slavery was totally condoned by the state....I guess they were right then too.....
 
No it not illegal to carry out an abortion after the fetus is viable.

Did you ever hear a mother refer to her baby as a 'fetus'? Certainly you can call it a fetus, a gathering of cells, a blob of mush, or whatever you chose. But it is still a living human. being

Abortions after the limit of viability are very rare.
"Very rare" isn't never, and those who do perform late term abortions have been hailed as heroes by the pro abortion people.
Only .08 percent of all abortions in this country take place after 24 weeks gestation ( which is the limit of viability).

Do you have a link to that?

They are the extreme cases. The cases where the woman's life is at risk or where irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue, where the fetus died a natural death in the womb and it was not expelled ( yes, the removal of dead fetus and the fetal material is called an abortion and would be counted in .08 percent if it was removed after the 24 week gestation mark) the cases where the fetus would be stillborn or is so malformed it will only live a few minutes or hours.

I would certainly not protest if an abortion took place under the conditions you've described.
 
Yet until the 13th amendment slavery was totally condoned by the state....I guess they were right then too.....

Quite right. In fact there are Nations/States all over the world, and I doubt that any of them are always right.
 
Why should the government be involved? Canada has no regulation on abortion and it works well for them.

What specifically do you mean by works well?
 
Viability is ridiculous as a standard for when to consider a life human...A short time ago viability was at 30 weeks, today it is 23 to 24 weeks, with some cases documented as early as 21 weeks. As medical science gets better, viability only speaks to our ability to SAVE the LIFE, NOT to judge if it IS a life.

40 years ago in Roe vs. Wade decision the SC set viability at 24-28 weeks gestation mark.

Today the limit of viabilty is 24 weeks and has not changed 12 years.

from wiki:

The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[8][9]

Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.


[10][11] Neonatologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks.[12][13]

During the past several decades, neonatal care has improved with advances in medical science, and therefore the limit of viability has moved earlier.[14] As of 2006, the two youngest children to survive premature birth are thought to be James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada, at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age),[15][16] and Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age).[17][18] Both children were born just under 22 weeks from fertilization, or a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy.

Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby.[17] She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.[19] At birth, she was 9 inches (22.86 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams).[17] She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viabili
 
Sometimes the State is wrong and we have to think for ourselves. We should not take everything the State claims as being right.

Roe vs Wade is Federal law and Federal laws have to follow the Constution.

I agree some state laws ( which are voted by congressperson who do not follow the Constutional law) are sometimes wrong including the Arkansas law which bans abortions after 12 weeks gestation.
 
Roe vs Wade is Federal law and Federal laws have to Constitional.

I agree some state laws ( which are voted by congressperson who do not follow Constional law) are sometimes wrong including the Arkansa law which bans abortions after 12 weeks gestation.


No, you have it wrong. SC rulings are sometimes overturned. Stare decisis, is an overstep of Judicial powers. The courts were never supposed to be making law....You want abortion to be a right, do it the right way, through the amendment process.
 
Roe vs Wade is Federal law and Federal laws have to follow the Constution.

I agree some state laws ( which are voted by congressperson who do not follow the Constutional law) are sometimes wrong including the Arkansas law which bans abortions after 12 weeks gestation.

Abortion laws should always have been in State Rights, not part of federal law. As has been mentioned so often, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution and had the Founders known that 'privacy" would somehow constitute the acceptance and approval of abortions, they quite likely would have worded the whole thing differently.
 
Roe vs Wade is Federal law and Federal laws have to follow the Constution.

I agree some state laws ( which are voted by congressperson who do not follow the Constutional law) are sometimes wrong including the Arkansas law which bans abortions after 12 weeks gestation.

The federal government is never wrong?
 
The federal government is never wrong?

The Supremes decides on Constitutional law.

Who said the federal government is never wrong?
Not I.
 
The Supremes decides on Constitutional law.

Who said the federal government is never wrong?
Not I.
Your sense of right and wrong is based on Supreme Court decisions? How do you handle matters that the court hasn't heard yet?
 

As we can see there are no hard facts.

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]

It does seem that Arkansas is exercising it\s State Rights.
United States
See also: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.

As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.[18] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".

The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.[18] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."[19]

Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks).[18] The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests.[20] Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".[21]

Ten states require a second physician to approve.[18] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[22] Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.[18]

Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive.[18] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus.[23]
 
As we can see there re no hard facts.



It does seem that Arkansas is exercising it\s State Rights.

It was estimated in 1997 that .08 percent of all abortions took place after 24 gestation. There are only 3 abortion doctors left in US who perform legal abortions after 24 weeks gestation.
I really think the .08 percent is much less now.


Post viabity means after viability which is currently 24 weeks gestation.
The Arkansas law even limits abortions during the first trimester which is a violation of Roe vs. Wade.
 
What specifically do you mean by works well?

Specifically, they have no more abortions than the USA in spite of having no regulations.
 
Doesn't change the absolute fact that the child is as human in the womb, and it is outside the womb.

You are using "human" as an adjective. Human eggs and sperm are also "human" and alive, yet you don't care what happens to them.
 
You are using "human" as an adjective. Human eggs and sperm are also "human" and alive, yet you don't care what happens to them.


What makes you think that? Have I said such? Or are you just making **** up?
 
No, you have it wrong. SC rulings are sometimes overturned. Stare decisis, is an overstep of Judicial powers. The courts were never supposed to be making law....You want abortion to be a right, do it the right way, through the amendment process.

Who has the authority to overturn SC rulings? The SC is called "Supreme" for a reason, and that reason is that it is the highest authority. RvW is not actually a law, it is a SC ruling that the states don't have the authority to make blanket anti-abortion laws. It overruled state law, but did not make law; it stated limits on the states for regulating abortion. It is anti-abortionists who need to pass an amendment if they want abortion criminalized, since it is assumed to be legal until declared otherwise by those with the authority to do so.
 
Originally Posted by OKgrannie
You are using "human" as an adjective. Human eggs and sperm are also "human" and alive, yet you don't care what happens to them.

What makes you think that? Have I said such? Or are you just making **** up?

I haven't heard you or anyone else complaining about eggs or sperm being destroyed. That is, before the magic moment they meet.
 
Abortion laws should always have been in State Rights, not part of federal law. As has been mentioned so often, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution and had the Founders known that 'privacy" would somehow constitute the acceptance and approval of abortions, they quite likely would have worded the whole thing differently.

Since there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and abortions were occurring during that time and it is certain the Founders knew that, we can assume it wasn't a matter of importance to them. They were content to leave that matter to the women who had been handling that matter for centuries.
 
I haven't heard you or anyone else complaining about eggs or sperm being destroyed. That is, before the magic moment they meet.

I haven't heard you complain about starving children in Africa. How could you possible be okay with starving children? I know you must be, because you have never commented on the matter.
 
I haven't heard you complain about starving children in Africa. How could you possible be okay with starving children? I know you must be, because you have never commented on the matter.

This isn't the thread for that. If I wanted to discuss starving children, I would join that thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom