• 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]

OKgrannie said:
It's disingenuous to "rename" the embryo "an innocent baby". It's not dismissive to recognize the differences in embryos and babies, and to recognize that at some stage the human acquires a value to society that it did not have earlier. Neither is it dismissive to recognize the price a woman pays to bring a new life into the world, and to grant her the respect of allowing her deciding if it is worth the cost to her.
Click to expand...

It would be far more respectful to change her world so that the pregnancy and childbirth do not cost her so much that she contemplates abortion, than it would be to offer her the choice between toughing it out and having an abortion.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
It would be far more respectful to change her world so that the pregnancy and childbirth do not cost her so much that she contemplates abortion, than it would be to offer her the choice between toughing it out and having an abortion.
Click to expand...

Change her world? Perhaps you mean to lessen the financial stresses that accompany an unplanned pregnancy? I was thinking more in terms of the stresses to her body and health and permanent damage that occurs with pregnancy/childbirth. Kinda hard to change that part of her world.
 
OKgrannie said:
Change her world? Perhaps you mean to lessen the financial stresses that accompany an unplanned pregnancy? I was thinking more in terms of the stresses to her body and health and permanent damage that occurs with pregnancy/childbirth. Kinda hard to change that part of her world.
Click to expand...

no, it's not hard at all. . the resources and advances in science are already available to provide prenatal care to do just that, it would just take a great deal of generosity and charity to make it happen, for most women who can't afford prenatal care.
 
j-mac said:
I am against irresponsible behavior
I am against killing an innocent child in the womb because the mother is an irresponsible person, and doesn't want to be bothered in following through with the decision she made that night after 2 Long Island Ice Tea's.
I am against paying for your damned stupid choices or acts.
Click to expand...

You say you are against having to pay for be mistakes of others and you are against abortion. What do you think happens when the woman is forced to give birth and then goes on welfare to support the child. You are paying for her mistakes. You can't have it both ways.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
no, it's not hard at all. . the resources and advances in science are already available to provide prenatal care to do just that, it would just take a great deal of generosity and charity to make it happen, for most women who can't afford prenatal care.
Click to expand...

It's not just hard, it's impossible. A woman's body is damaged permanently from pregnancy/childbirth. Every woman may not get ALL of this list of permanent effects, but every woman will get some.

THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)
 
OKgrannie said:
It's disingenuous to "rename" the embryo "an innocent baby".
Click to expand...

No, no, no...You have that exactly backwards...What is that growing inside the woman's womb? is it a toaster? is it an eggplant? is it a puppy? NO! It is a human child from beginning to end. The only disingenuous renaming going on here is the purposeful choice of the pro abortion crowd to rename what it is to ease their guilt in killing it.

It's not dismissive to recognize the differences in embryos and babies, and to recognize that at some stage the human acquires a value to society that it did not have earlier.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, dismissive of the life growing within you. It is such a disregard that it becomes disgusting, and perverse. Just as here you say that the bench mark is value to society, just as other tyrants throughout history have used that language to exterminate millions of people. History judged them evil, what saves you?

Neither is it dismissive to recognize the price a woman pays to bring a new life into the world, and to grant her the respect of allowing her deciding if it is worth the cost to her.
Click to expand...

What a gift women have. Being able to carry, and birth the child, as well as the bond that goes with motherhood is something to admire for sure. What women have is special, not a curse. Women do have my respect in that choice, I just believe it should be made at the point of creation, not an afterthought because of irresponsible behavior.

Your thought sound awfully close to this...

 
TheNextEra said:
You say you are against having to pay for be mistakes of others and you are against abortion. What do you think happens when the woman is forced to give birth and then goes on welfare to support the child. You are paying for her mistakes. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Nothing is perfect, but I prefer not to kill defenseless innocent children in the womb. Tell me TNE, are you on board with clubbing baby seals also? If not why not? Same thing.....
 
OKgrannie said:
It's not just hard, it's impossible. A woman's body is damaged permanently from pregnancy/childbirth. Every woman may not get ALL of this list of permanent effects, but every woman will get some.
Click to expand...

So go have your tubes tied then and NEVER have children. You obviously resent them.
 
Well, at least something good is finally coming out of that state. it as 0-2 with WallyWorld and Slick Willy....
 
j-mac said:
No, no, no...You have that exactly backwards...What is that growing inside the woman's womb? is it a toaster? is it an eggplant? is it a puppy? NO! It is a human child from beginning to end. The only disingenuous renaming going on here is the purposeful choice of the pro abortion crowd to rename what it is to ease their guilt in killing it.
Click to expand...

It is a zygote/embryo/fetus. Referring to it as a baby is an emotional appeal fallacy. Babyhood is from birth to one year of age, childhood is from birth to adulthood. Stretching those definitions to include zefs is an emotional appeal.


Sure it is, dismissive of the life growing within you. It is such a disregard that it becomes disgusting, and perverse. Just as here you say that the bench mark is value to society, just as other tyrants throughout history have used that language to exterminate millions of people. History judged them evil, what saves you?
Click to expand...

Value to society is one consideration in making law. Attempts to use the force of government to enforce religious or moral views is evil. History is now being made about the evil of laws suppressing gays and lesbians. I have not been judged by history because although I am old enough to remember a lot of history, I am still in the here and now.



What a gift women have. Being able to carry, and birth the child, as well as the bond that goes with motherhood is something to admire for sure. What women have is special, not a curse. Women do have my respect in that choice, I just believe it should be made at the point of creation, not an afterthought because of irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...

If the woman doesn't want it, it's not a gift, it's a burden. If the woman does want it, there's no more precious gift. There's nothing particularly special about being women, approximately half of all people are. Responsible women have unplanned pregnancies too, you know. Approximately half of all women seeking abortions had been using birth control. Now here is where you tell me she shouldn't have had sex at all. Heard that one before.
 
j-mac said:
So go have your tubes tied then and NEVER have children. You obviously resent them.
Click to expand...

Tying your tubes, or tubal ligation, or vasectomy for men are good options for those who already have all the children they want, but they're considered permanent so one should not undertake such a procedure lightly. And they are not perfect either. Both procedures have been known to fail. Then what? You gonna allow the woman an abortion then?
 
j-mac said:
Nothing is perfect, but I prefer not to kill defenseless innocent children in the womb. Tell me TNE, are you on board with clubbing baby seals also? If not why not? Same thing.....
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk, tsk, appeal to emotion all over the place.
 
j-mac said:
Nothing is perfect, but I prefer not to kill defenseless innocent children in the womb. Tell me TNE, are you on board with clubbing baby seals also? If not why not? Same thing.....
Click to expand...

Lol what an appeal to emotion. So here is one right back at you. I suppose you agree babes from rape are a gift from god. If not why? In either pregnancies the fetus is innocent.
 
OKgrannie said:
It's disingenuous to "rename" the embryo "an innocent baby".
Click to expand...

It's innocence could not be more complete.
It's not dismissive to recognize the differences in embryos and babies, and to recognize that at some stage the human acquires a value to society that it did not have earlier.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the next east step and follow up argument for the pro-abortionists. Deciding when and whose life is more valuable to 'society' is just around the corner. It seems you've inherited the philosophies of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood ( among others) on Eugenics in seeking to create a better society. Who lives and who dies may become a real issue in the coming years given that public debt is in the tens of trillions, the population is aging, there is not enough young people to pay the taxes necessary for the older members of society, or those who are otherwise not contributing their 'fair share'.

Neither is it dismissive to recognize the price a woman pays to bring a new life into the world, and to grant her the respect of allowing her deciding if it is worth the cost to her.
Click to expand...

It is her body, her decision, and her choice to behave irresponsibly. Men no longer play the role they once did and are now largely irresponsible. And why not? We cannot change the role of one gender and not have this reflected in the other. That is the world we've created and which the next generation, though 55 million short, will inherit.
 
OKgrannie said:
Tsk, tsk, tsk, appeal to emotion all over the place.
Click to expand...

Protests are often held in front of prisons when a person is about to be executed, and emotions run quite high. Those who do the protesting often make the claim that it is state sanctioned murder. We should not be surprised when emotions run high when a life is being taken, even if one life is guilty of murder, and the other life is innocent of any crime.
 
I wonder how much money the Arkansas State Legislators will beg the Federal Government for in order to supplement their social services and CPS cost increases as unwanted births are forced into being?

Actually...Arkansas women who choose to abortion will simply drive across state lines to have abortions. And eventually...such a law will be overturned as their younger generations become of voting age...and even become legislators. Dark Age thinking will eventually die out even in Arkansas.
 
Removable Mind said:
I wonder how much money the Arkansas State Legislators will beg the Federal Government for in order to supplement their social services and CPS cost increases as unwanted births are forced into being?

Actually...Arkansas women who choose to abortion will simply drive across state lines to have abortions. And eventually...such a law will be overturned as their younger generations become of voting age...and even become legislators. Dark Age thinking will eventually die out even in Arkansas.
Click to expand...

Actually...Abortion was tolerated in the Dark Ages and there were no laws against it.
 
I think this law is going to court next month so it should be stricken down before it takes affect.
Just last week a federal judge ruled that Idaho's fetal pain law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional.
That will set a precedent.
A major court ruling regarding abortion laws in Idaho could have implications across the country.
A federal judge ruled that Idaho's fetal pain law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional.
Idaho is the first of ten states nationwide to have such a law overturned.

Idaho's law banned abortions after 20 weeks... because experts say that's when the fetus might be able to feel pain.
Judge Lynn Winmill said the law placed an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion.

"What the judge said is what we know, these laws are unconstitutional and not based on medicine but politics." says Hannah Brass Greer of Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

Idaho abortion laws overturned - www.kivitv.com
 
Last edited:
Pilot said:
Actually...Abortion was tolerated in the Dark Ages and there were no laws against it.
Click to expand...

Shhh. He ain't trying to hear that.
 
minnie616 said:
I think this law is going to court next month so it should be stricken down before it takes affect.
Just last week a federal judge ruled that Idaho's fetal pain law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional.
That will set a precedent.

Idaho abortion laws overturned - www.kivitv.com
Click to expand...

It may seem counterintuitive but many of these State's laws are written and passed with the knowledge that they might be struck down. Striking them down creates an opportunity to appeal the decision and to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Contrary to belief, we (pro-lifers) can't go directly to the Supreme Courts and challenge Roe. It would be great if we could. However, the courts don't allow that.
 
Pilot said:
Actually...Abortion was tolerated in the Dark Ages and there were no laws against it.
Click to expand...

Thanks...for the historical tid-bit.

Well, maybe I've unfairly judged our ancestors' ability to think logically and rationally. Perhaps I've used the wrong time period in order to make my point, huh? Actually, there were several dark ages...depending on the region. But, given all of the abortions since the Dark Ages (all of them)...they haven't hampered the world's population in the least bit.
 
Welliam Wittier said:
It may seem counterintuitive but many of these State's laws are written and passed with the knowledge that they might be struck down. Striking them down creates an opportunity to appeal the decision and to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Contrary to belief, we (pro-lifers) can't go directly to the Supreme Courts and challenge Roe. It would be great if we could. However, the courts don't allow that.
Click to expand...

Your primary reason to believe that the S.C. would overturn Roe v. Wade is?
 
Removable Mind said:
Your primary reason to believe that the S.C. would overturn Roe v. Wade is?
Click to expand...

Here is the short answer.

At the time Roe was decided, the court said that there were no laws that treated a human fetus as a 'person.'

The Federal 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act' and many of the State laws against fetal homicide since - have changed that.

Unlike the times prior to Roe, we now make it a crime of murder to unjustly kill a child in utero and at any stage of their development.
 
Removable Mind said:
Thanks...for the historical tid-bit.

Well, maybe I've unfairly judged our ancestors' ability to think logically and rationally. Perhaps I've used the wrong time period in order to make my point, huh? Actually, there were several dark ages...depending on the region. But, given all of the abortions since the Dark Ages (all of them)...they haven't hampered the world's population in the least bit.
Click to expand...

So:

1. You consider us to be more logical an rational than our ancestors.
2. Abortion is far more regulated and restrictive now.
3. So, you seem to be saying that laws and restrictions are more logical and rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom