• 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]

And health insurance companies have been denying health coverage for years...
But they don't call them "death panels"


Texas Newborn Baby Denied Health Insurance Coverage Days After Life-Saving Heart Surgery - ABC News

Sick people get treated all the time - insurance or not. They don't let people die now but they will when healthcare relies on rationing.

You see - right now you have YOUR healthcare, however the system will become much different when it becomes OUR healthcare.
 
Define "previable?"

Plenty of preme babies survived outside the womb...

Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... I've already explained that "viable" people who have already been birthed would die without care - what makes them any different from a fetus that CAN, COULD and DO survive outside the womb?

Pre viable means before it is "viable " meaning the stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.

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

Experts say no fetus under 21 week gestation will ever survive. Their lumgs are just too undelveloped even if more advanced neo natal units were availible.

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
 
Sick people get treated all the time - insurance or not. They don't let people die now but they will when healthcare relies on rationing.

You see - right now you have YOUR healthcare, however the system will become much different when it becomes OUR healthcare.

I disagree.
I do not feel healthcare will be rationed but that discussion is for another thread.

If you wish to continue the health care discussion please start a new thread.

Thanks~
 
I disagree.
I do not feel healthcare will be rationed but that discussion is for another thread.

If you wish to continue the health care discussion please start a new thread.

Thanks~

Of course it will be rationed, because healthcare will go from "yours" to "ours."

Imagine walking into work with "your" coffee cake and it's YOURS you have no obligation to share and you can eat as much of it as you want but you can share if you want to. Now imagine walking into work with a coffee cake and all of a sudden via de facto it's "OUR" coffee cake. Now you don't have a choice and you have to ration that cake out - guess what??? the fat guy in the corner who YOU believe is too fat to eat coffee cake won't get any cake because there is only enough cake for those who don't look fat.

Get it?
 
What do you think will happen via "Obamacare" or as progressives like to call it in their PC babble: "Affordable Care Act?"

Of course progressives won't call them "death panels" - no, they'll come up with some peachy PC word for killing people.

As the name implies, it is the government who will decide who is "affordable" and who isn't "affordable". We can see the movement in that direction already.

Once the government gets control over your body and its maintenance the Bloombergs of the nation will have all the power they need to determine what happens to your own individual body, and its life. How can it be otherwise when we give strangers that much power over our lives?

We know when people have the opportunity for power they will take it. I would never trust strong and distant centralized government benevolence over the long term no matter the feel good promises they make now.
 
As the name implies, it is the government who will decide who is "affordable" and who isn't "affordable". We can see the movement in that direction already.

Once the government gets control over your body and its maintenance the Bloombergs of the nation will have all the power they need to determine what happens to your own individual body, and its life. How can it be otherwise when we give strangers that much power over our lives?

We know when people have the opportunity for power they will take it. I would never trust strong and distant centralized government benevolence over the long term no matter the feel good promises they make now.

That's what they want - control, and how do they get that? by getting the populace to be reliant on government. They (government) want people to be reliant on them because when they are they (government) can control them because people will need the government to put food on their table or give them healthcare or meet any need they may have. Instead of them going out and getting whatever they need or want themselves they will look to government to provide them with their wants and needs.

Who pays for it tho? oh yeah those evil people who are constantly degraded because they have "too much" wealth and are too successful.

Of course the rich politicians will sit there with their wealth and that's fine because they're the ones throwing crumbs to the people and they're grateful for every free crumb they get that they didn't have to work for that government redistributed.
 
....

Once the government gets control over your body and its maintenance the Bloombergs of the nation will have all the power they need to determine what happens to your own individual body, and its life. How can it be otherwise when we give strangers that much power over our lives? ...

.

Too funny!
That is exactly how I feel about giving the government the control to FORCE women to continue a pregnancy or one the other side of the coin giving the government the control to FORCE women to have abortions.
 
Pre viable means before it is "viable " meaning the stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.

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

Experts say no fetus under 21 week gestation will ever survive. Their lumgs are just too undelveloped even if more advanced neo natal units were availible.

from wiki:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viabili

Do you not realize you (or anyone else) have absolutely ZERO right to define what is a viable life and what isn't?

You're not God, hence you or any individual should not attempt to play God by defining what life is valid or not.

Slaughtering kids just because you feel they're not valid is criminal in my opinion. It is certainly misguided and illogical IMO.
 
And health insurance companies have been denying health coverage for years...
But they don't call them "death panels"


Texas Newborn Baby Denied Health Insurance Coverage Days After Life-Saving Heart Surgery - ABC News

The same thing will happen with big government.

Once a third party comes between you and your doctor, or you and your health, they get all the control and you and your doctor have little or nothing in terms of decision making.. Can you really have that much faith in a huge faceless bureaucracy to look after your own personal interests? I don't think so. Eventually it will come to ruin.
 
In fact that question is already being raised.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Once we get into the 'who should live and who should die' debate then we have crossed a line that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Look at the ridicule Sarah Palin and her family had to put up with as a result of their decision to keep their baby. They attacked her like jackals.

Not to mention them attacking her comments on obamacare and possible death panels. Seems like she understands where this debate is going and raised a good point.
 
Too funny!
That is exactly how I feel about giving the government the control to FORCE women to continue a pregnancy or one the other side of the coin giving the government the control to FORCE women to have abortions.

I agree that a woman should not be FORCED to continue with a pregnancy but i do believe that the decision to abort a baby, unless the mother's life is at risk, is a highly immoral one to make. That's why refusing to call a baby a baby, in an effort to make the language more palatable to those who will take its life, is also immoral. Let's just say what it is rather than using esoteric medical terms that we never use in normal conversation. We know what it is and shouldn't pretend otherwise.
 
Do you not realize you (or anyone else) have absolutely ZERO right to define what is a viable life and what isn't?...defining what life is valid or not.

I think you are confusing the words viable and the words valid.

I did not make up my own definition of viable. I used the Supreme Courts definination of viable.

the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6].

Supreme Court on Abortion - Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion for full nine months
 
I agree that a woman should not be FORCED to continue with a pregnancy but i do believe that the decision to abort a baby, unless the mother's life is at risk, is a highly immoral one to make. That's why refusing to call a baby a baby, in an effort to make the language more palatable to those who will take its life, is also immoral. Let's just say what it is rather than using esoteric medical terms that we never use in normal conversation. We know what it is and shouldn't pretend otherwise.

If you want to call an embryo or fetus a baby go ahead. I will not refer to an embryo or a fetus as a baby.
I miscarried two fetuses. They were not, nor will they ever be babies.
 
If you want to call an embryo or fetus a baby go ahead. I will not refer to an embryo or a fetus as a baby.
I miscarried two fetuses. They were not, nor will they ever be babies.

I'm genuinely sorry about your miscarriages, and I believe you were too.
 
I'm genuinely sorry about your miscarriages, and I believe you were too.

Thank you for your kind words.

The first miscarriage was early in the pregnancy.
Early miscarriages happen quite often so they are not unexpected.
In fact 90 percent of all miscarriages happen in the first trimester.

My second miscarriage was about 20 weeks gestation and it was very malformed and never would have viable even if I had carried it longer. That was the hard one especially since I accidentally saw it and saw how deformed it was.
 
Last edited:
1.)Except that when the two join there is a unique new set of DNA that didn't exist before that. That is a physiological FACT.
To one who is utmost concerned with scientific FACT it is very IRONIC that you would dismiss this FACT as irrelevant to the abortion debate. I can see that you really aren't debating scientific fact at all, but rather your OPINION on what moral value this new unique life should be given.

1.) yes it is and that impacts nothing i said LMAO
2.) please stop lying it only makes you look silly, can you point out where i denied the fact that a new set of DNA is created? thats right i never did LMAO

if you disagree by all means prove your lie and quote me I cant wait LOL

so now if you would actually like to get on topic and stop embarrassing yourself and understand what i factually and actually said id be glad too.

Also while you are at it, feel free to qoute me calling anything a fact that isnt and any opinion of mine i pushed as fact. Id LOVE to read it.

also i said its meaningless to the abortion debate because regardless of what anybody calls it or considers it the some foundation of the debate still exists.

the entity, baby, kid, life, ZEF, zygote, fetus, child, jane, john etc is inside the woman, is not viable until 21 weeks at best and its presences alone is a risk of life.

I eagerly await you post and let me know if you need educated on anything else i ACTUALLY said

:D
 
the entity, baby, kid, life, ZEF, zygote, fetus, child, jane, john etc is inside the woman, is not viable until 21 weeks at best and its presences alone is a risk of life.

I am probably going to regret engaging your posting, but can you tell us just what you are talking about? Not every pregnancy is a risk to the mothers life...If you think it is, please feel free to provide us with that information....

Here is what I have....

Although the majority of pregnancies and deliveries are uneventful, some involve complications that range from minor to life threatening...

Discovery Health "Pregnancy Complications Overview"

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”

Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.

What about a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy or childbirth? - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
 
I am probably going to regret engaging your posting, but can you tell us just what you are talking about? Not every pregnancy is a risk to the mothers life...If you think it is, please feel free to provide us with that information....

Here is what I have....

yes every single one is a risk, thats a fact

the risk might be extremely low, the risk might be extremely high but every single one has an amount of risk and your sites support this

the risk being low in the majority of cases is meaningless, is that a defense if i force you to risk your life against you will?
 
yes every single one is a risk, thats a fact

the risk might be extremely low, the risk might be extremely high but every single one has an amount of risk and your sites support this

the risk being low in the majority of cases is meaningless, is that a defense if i force you to risk your life against you will?

Oh please...Everyday you get into a car to drive to work you run a risk. Walking down the street you run a risk. Everything you do in life you run a risk...If your argument is to so dehumanize the unborn child as to refer to it as a parasite, (as you have done in this thread) and a risk to the mothers health, but not disclosing that the risk is very low, are you then are against anyone having a child? Do you hate children?

There are certain situations where pregnancy is a high risk to the mother, however, this is not the norm, or even close to it.
 
1.)Oh please...Everyday you get into a car to drive to work you run a risk. Walking down the street you run a risk. Everything you do in life you run a risk...
2 .)If your argument is to so dehumanize the unborn child as to refer to it as a parasite, (as you have done in this thread) and a risk to the mothers health,
3.)but not disclosing that the risk is very low
4.), are you then are against anyone having a child? Do you hate children?

There are certain situations where pregnancy is a high risk to the mother, however, this is not the norm, or even close to it.

1.) yes this is true the huge factually difference you conveniently ignore is thats your CHOICE, you arent FORCED lmao so your example is meaningless
2.) ive never dehumanized the ZEF in my life nor did "i" call it a parasite in this thread, i pointed out that if one uses parasite in the proper context it is 100% factually accurate
3.) i have disclosed it plenty, the problem is the amount of risk doesnt matter
4.) of course not if they CHOOSE too or at least have some leigh way to do so before forced too thats great
5.) why would you ever think this, seem you never get anything right assume tons of things and have no logical backing for them at all LMAO

I love my kid, im a single dad and i won full sole custody almost 10 years ago now :D

i also love the rights, freedoms and liberties in my country and i dont want them stripped away from woman. A compromise would work but anything thats a total ban or mostly a ban and vice versa (unlimited or mostly unlimited) is unacceptable to me

anything else you would like to know or need corrected about :D
 
Last edited:
I agree that a woman should not be FORCED to continue with a pregnancy but i do believe that the decision to abort a baby, unless the mother's life is at risk, is a highly immoral one to make. That's why refusing to call a baby a baby, in an effort to make the language more palatable to those who will take its life, is also immoral. Let's just say what it is rather than using esoteric medical terms that we never use in normal conversation. We know what it is and shouldn't pretend otherwise.

You call it immoral because you attach religion to it. And the language is applicable. It's not a baby. It won't be a baby until it can sustain its own life. As a fetus, if the mother dies in gestation, the fetus dies. It depends on the life of the mother, who is the life and human factor in pregnancy, to stay alive. The host dies. so does the fetus.
 
Oh please...Everyday you get into a car to drive to work you run a risk. Walking down the street you run a risk. Everything you do in life you run a risk...If your argument is to so dehumanize the unborn child as to refer to it as a parasite, (as you have done in this thread) and a risk to the mothers health, but not disclosing that the risk is very low, are you then are against anyone having a child? Do you hate children?

There are certain situations where pregnancy is a high risk to the mother, however, this is not the norm, or even close to it.



These are moot points. The decision of WHEN to be pregnant, by WHOM, and HOW MANY TIMES remains with the woman who will be the one to support it, share it with a male, and raise the quantity of children she wants. Nothing more, nothing less. Her right to the privacy of her life to make these decisions.
 
You call it immoral because you attach religion to it.

Do you believe only religious people can have morals? Which religion are you referring to, or are they all the same?

And the language is applicable. It's not a baby. It won't be a baby until it can sustain its own life. As a fetus, if the mother dies in gestation, the fetus dies. It depends on the life of the mother, who is the life and human factor in pregnancy, to stay alive. The host dies. so does the fetus.

Pro abortionists often refer to babies as 'parasites', but parasites have life as well. In fact our bodies are full of living bacteria, good and bad, which will die if we die, but that doesn't make them any less alive.
 
Do you believe only religious people can have morals? Which religion are you referring to, or are they all the same?



Pro abortionists often refer to babies as 'parasites', but parasites have life as well. In fact our bodies are full of living bacteria, good and bad, which will die if we die, but that doesn't make them any less alive.

What's immoral about an abortion? About a woman deciding WHEN to be pregnant, HOW MANY TIMES to be pregnant and by WHOM? How is that not responsible. You on the right are always saying that women need to be responsible. You take away their access to birth control and then HOLLER because abortion is needed if a woman does NOT want to be pregnant. how is THAT not INSANE?

Sorry, but you have no moral issue here. And the pro-choice people are supporting the woman's right to decide her life. WE don't know her circumstances. WE won't help her financially. WE won't help her emotionally. SHE is responsible for making her life. We are pro-abortion. We aren't making that decision for her. We are giving her the right to MAKE that decision if SHE wants.
 
Do you believe only religious people can have morals? Which religion are you referring to, or are they all the same?



Pro abortionists often refer to babies as 'parasites', but parasites have life as well. In fact our bodies are full of living bacteria, good and bad, which will die if we die, but that doesn't make them any less alive.

And when something in my body dies when I die, it never had a life. If it HAD a life, MY life would not be in charge of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom