• 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]

I thought we'd been over this already? At 23 weeks and under, a child born prematurely has a very low chance of survival even with medical care. Those 9 in 100 that do are often afflicted with problems because they have not developed sufficiently to become "viable." Also as I stated, if you wish to extend the concept of viability then it goes right up to death at old age because we all need some form of constant care and outside help.

Exactly~! Therefore using the term "viability" in order to destroy a life is a false and immoral position to take.
Medically, viability is clearly defined and this is why there is a 24 week limit on abortion in many countries.

And I'm saying that that is a 'goalpost' that should not even be there.

I admire your stand and attempt to debate this on moral ground however I personally find that morality and definitions of morality can be even more based on foundations of shifting sand which is why the biological argument (rightly) takes precedence.

Not if we genuinely examine the issues.

One argument given that God exists is the fact that human beings have a conscience (CS Lewis). Whatever your belief in a deity might be we still have that conscience and we know, or should know, the difference between right and wrong.

We agree, for the most part I assume, that smoking should be avoided, and we have passed laws restricting the activity. The 'rights' argument for smoking didn't stand up for long. We might also agree that sticking a needle in your veins in order to get a high is equally stupid and self destructive.

My feeling is that abortion should be looked at in the same way. Legal, yes, but also one that might be a seriously flawed decision when there are certainly alternatives available. Some women who have had abortions, when said consciences kick in, later regret that they didn't explore those alternatives.
 
Do you really think women are so shallow that they think appearence or social life is more important than motherhood?As a women I cannot fathom that.

OKgrannie said this and you gave it a "like" so i can assume there are at least two women who feel that their appearance is a factor.

Originally Posted by OKgrannie
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 this and you gave it a "like" so i can assume there are at least two women who feel that their appearance is a factor.

So pelvic floor disorder,
Urinary and rectal incontinence,
Loss of calcium,
Alzheimer's,

Are all about appearance...I don't think so.

Add to that kidneys permanently damaged which is also on the Liz library list and an ailment I have because I had extreme morning sickness during my first pregnancy and I could not keep enough fluids down. Did you hear about Kate Middleton being hospitalized because she had the same type of morning sickness I had? Well, I had it almost 40 years ago, and even today with lots of advances in medicine that extreme morning sickness still causes extreme weight loss ,eyesight problems, kidney problems, and in some cases renal failure.

So since OKgrannie posted a link and I liked it ...it makes 2 women are who vein and are worried about our appearances .If you really think that then you really have a low value of women and you have no idea how badly my body was affected by my pregnancies.

I am one of about 10 percent of women who actually had a life threatening pregnancy, so I know that at any given time a pregnancy can become life threatening. For that reason among others I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to continue her pregnancy. On the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force a women to have an abortion.

Women should have a choice.
 
Last edited:
Are all about appearance...I don't think so.

Of course you are being dishonest here, aren't you?

I said "OKgrannie said this and you gave it a "like" so i can assume there are at least two women who feel that their appearance is a factor".

"A factor" is quite different then your claim that I said it was "All about appearance".

It seems Leftists will never hesitate to lie if they feel it will help their argument. But is it worth it to you?
 
Of course you are being dishonest here, aren't you?

I said "OKgrannie said this and you gave it a "like" so i can assume there are at least two women who feel that their appearance is a factor".

"A factor" is quite different then your claim that I said it was "All about appearance".

It seems Leftists will never hesitate to lie if they feel it will help their argument. But is it worth it to you?

This is your original statement, not mentioning any other health issues and implying that women choose abortion only for appearance and social issues. Not to minimize the importance of appearance or social issues, you are definitely projecting here when you claim someone else is dishonest. At the very least, you took those issues out of context to distort what was said.
Right. It seems that many of them are not ready for that responsibility. Their appearance is more important, or their social life.
 
Of course you are being dishonest here, aren't you?

I said "OKgrannie said this and you gave it a "like" so i can assume there are at least two women who feel that their appearance is a factor".

"A factor" is quite different then your claim that I said it was "All about appearance".

It seems Leftists will never hesitate to lie if they feel it will help their argument. But is it worth it to you?

And I am saying I posted a like because of the health issues listed not appearence issues.
Are you calling me a lier or are just Leftists liers?
 
And I am saying I posted a like because of the health issues listed not appearence issues.

Your 'like' didn't say that. And, contrary to what you said, I said appearance was "a factor".
Are you calling me a lier or are just Leftists liers?

It doesn't really matter. I'm done with you.
 
Your 'like' didn't say that. And, contrary to what you said, I said appearance was "a factor".


It doesn't really matter. I'm done with you.

My mistake you did say did say appearence was a factor but you also implyed that I clicked like because I agreed appearence is important.

To me appearence ranks pretty low.
There are many things much more important to me than my appearence. , health being one of them.

When you click on the like you can't add any comments to the like.

Take your cursor to the bottom of the post and like or share will appear.
If someone clicks on like it will say like and the persons screen name that clicked like.
 
“Today, in what Harvey Mansfield calls our "gender-neutral" society," there are no social norms. Eight decades after the Titanic, a German-built ferry en route from Estonia to Sweden sank in the Baltic Sea. Of the 1,051 passengers, only 139 lived to tell the tale. But the distribution of the survivors was very different from that of the Titanic. Women and children first? No female under fifteen or over sixty-five made it. Only 5 percent of all women passengers lived. The bulk of the survivors were young men. Forty-three percent of men aged 20 to 24 made it.” - Mark Steyn

I remember hearing about it when the sank but I could not remember the details and I never read the stats you posted so I tried to look up why only 5 percent of women passengers survived and the article I found said that
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Caught in a violent storm, 852 passengers died within minutes after winds ripped off the bow door of the ferry Estonia in 1994, sending icy water gushing through the car deck.

On Friday, authorities sought clues after another "roll-on, roll-off" ferry sank in the Red Sea with nearly 1,500 people aboard. The cause was unknown, but experts said the vessel's design may have been a key factor.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-314043.html


Those that did survive may have done so by huddling together, in life rafts that were thrown from the ship, as it was going down. A trauma physician from Turku University Hospital said that all of the victims that were brought to his facility were suffering from hypothermia,

http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/es_tonis_supplement.htm

Hypothermia could account for girls and women under 15 or over 65 not surviving. The lower their body weight or the poorer their health ..the less likely they would survive hypothermia. It might also explain why many males age 20 to 24 survived since they would be among the strongest
Or the young men could have just been near the life rafts when the ship sink and they threw them in the water.

Did anyone investigate? do you have a link? I would be interested in readin more.
It all happened so fast , they said the ship was down within minutes ...
What a sad tragedy for all the victims and their loved ones.
 
Last edited:
-- Exactly~! Therefore using the term "viability" in order to destroy a life is a false and immoral position to take.

And I'm saying that that is a 'goalpost' that should not even be there.

Sorry, this is a non sequitur.

Viability in childcare as used by many in the medical profession is the cut-off or start point at which intensive medical treatment may or may not have an effect on the survivability of a preterm baby. Before this, the chances of the baby surviving outside the uterus are very slim. 24 weeks is the standard and that is why it is also the cut-off for where an abortion may be performed for non emergency reasons. Before 24 weeks there is little liklihood of the baby surviving: after 24 weeks, there is a very strong chance and that is why you are then (if having an abortion) harming someone who may survive.

-- My feeling is that abortion should be looked at in the same way. Legal, yes, but also one that might be a seriously flawed decision when there are certainly alternatives available. Some women who have had abortions, when said consciences kick in, later regret that they didn't explore those alternatives.

I have no problem with high quality information being presented to a pregnant mother about alternatives she may have if she allowed the baby to carry to term however anti-abortionists already use emotive and highly charged terms to describe abortion and mothers who have abortions. I don't trust that alternatives won't be presented in ways that pressurise women to keep their unwanted babies or simply end up with many unwanted children living in childcare where the next problem arises which is who will pay for them.

Introducing morality into this serves the same purpose as reducing abortion from 24 weeks to 12 to 6 as we presumably now see in North Dakota is going to lead to a complete ban - that is the end game of taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and what happens to it. Morality simply puts the blame on an unhappy mother who should have had the choice whether or not to carry to term.
As for the financial solution to having many unwanted babies sitting in children's homes needing feeding and care - I await the proposals of many on the anti-abortion side.
 
Introducing morality into this serves the same purpose as reducing abortion from 24 weeks to 12 to 6 as we presumably now see in North Dakota is going to lead to a complete ban - that is the end game of taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and what happens to it.



From where does the "right" originate? I purpose that this so called "right" of the woman to have the complete say of whether or not to allow the unborn child to live is not a right at all, and actually takes away the rights of not only the man involved in creating the pregnancy, but the rights of the unborn child as well.
 
From where does the "right" originate? I purpose that this so called "right" of the woman to have the complete say of whether or not to allow the unborn child to live is not a right at all, and...

The right is the right to privacy.
The woman and/or couple has the right of privacy regarding reproductivity.
She/ they can choose when to have a child, how many children they want and the spacing of their children.
 
Sorry, this is a non sequitur. Viability in childcare as used by many in the medical profession is the cut-off or start point at which intensive medical treatment may or may not have an effect on the survivability of a preterm baby. Before this, the chances of the baby surviving outside the uterus are very slim. 24 weeks is the standard and that is why it is also the cut-off for where an abortion may be performed for non emergency reasons. Before 24 weeks there is little liklihood of the baby surviving: after 24 weeks, there is a very strong chance and that is why you are then (if having an abortion) harming someone who may survive.

It's fine if it's used in the medical profession, of course, but now it is being used by the non-medical profession, such as politicians and the courts. Deciding someone's life or death because of their 'viability' was probably never intended by the originators of the term.

I have no problem with high quality information being presented to a pregnant mother about alternatives she may have if she allowed the baby to carry to term however anti-abortionists already use emotive and highly charged terms to describe abortion and mothers who have abortions.

And why not? Unless there are lies being told then all information should be made available.
I don't trust that alternatives won't be presented in ways that pressurise women to keep their unwanted babies or simply end up with many unwanted children living in childcare where the next problem arises which is who will pay for them.

There are many myths about adoption, and many who are willing to set the record straight.The truth about domestic adoption | BabyCenter

Strangers and Kin: The American Way of Adoption | Adoption Information from Adoptive Families Magazine: Domestic, International, Foster and Embryo Adoption Resources

Introducing morality into this serves the same purpose as reducing abortion from 24 weeks to 12 to 6 as we presumably now see in North Dakota is going to lead to a complete ban - that is the end game of taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and what happens to it. Morality simply puts the blame on an unhappy mother who should have had the choice whether or not to carry to term.

Morality has to play a part in these decisions. How can it not?? Also it will probably encourage more young women to take extra precautions and make the right decisions in her life.
As for the financial solution to having many unwanted babies sitting in children's homes needing feeding and care - I await the proposals of many on the anti-abortion side.

There are plenty of good people ready to help with the care, feeding and attention of children. We need to have more trust in our fellow citizens rather than assuming the worst and heading directly to the abortion clinic.
 
Last edited:
The right is the right to privacy.
The woman and/or couple has the right of privacy regarding reproductivity.
She/ they can choose when to have a child, how many children they want and the spacing of their children.

Our so called right to privacy does not trump another person's right to their life.
 
Our so called right to privacy does not trump another person's right to their life.

then what is your justification for trying to trump the womans right to life? Why dont you value her right to life?
 
then what is your justification for trying to trump the womans right to life? Why dont you value her right to life?

Current laws have exceptions for the health and safety of the mother, I don't think he is proposing that we change that.
 
then what is your justification for trying to trump the womans right to life? Why dont you value her right to life?

It would be up to a doctor whether or not a woman's life is at risk. I doubt anyone would want to risk a woman's life.
 
Current laws have exceptions for the health and safety of the mother, I don't think he is proposing that we change that.

no current laws have exceptions for EXTREME and IMMEDIATE risks

but the fact remain that ALL pregnancies are a risk, so banning abortion is factually a violation of her right to life if one believes in such a thing
 
It would be up to a doctor whether or not a woman's life is at risk. I doubt anyone would want to risk a woman's life.

why up to the doctor? when did the doctor get the legal right to force a person to risk their life against their will?
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should
 
no current laws have exceptions for EXTREME and IMMEDIATE risks

but the fact remain that ALL pregnancies are a risk, so banning abortion is factually a violation of her right to life if one believes in such a thing

That's for the obstetrician to decide, not you.
 
That's for the obstetrician to decide, not you.

what are you talking about?
"i" havent decided anything, i stated a fact
 
The right is the right to privacy.
The woman and/or couple has the right of privacy regarding reproductivity.
She/ they can choose when to have a child, how many children they want and the spacing of their children.

No one ever said differently, but please tell me how that extends to killing a defenseless child in the womb....Their choice should begin before they contemplate committing the act that results in the pregnancy to start with. Now, you say "She/They" as if you think that the father of that unborn child has a say one way or the other. This is how disingenuous the pro abortion side of the argument really is.
 
why up to the doctor? when did the doctor get the legal right to force a person to risk their life against their will?
no thanks i want rights to remains where they should

Abortion is not a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom