• 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!

Judge stalls Texas efforts to defund Planned Parenthood

Scrabaholic said:
Not until the 3rd trimester:



Fetal Pain | JAMA | The JAMA Network
Click to expand...

I will even point out that this is after what is considered viability. And, honestly, unless there is an over riding medical condition, I feel uncomfortable about abortion after 24 weeks. I strongly doubt that there are cases that there aren't medical reasons at that point anyway.
 
Scrabaholic said:
People on medicaid have a right to use the provider of their choice.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the taxpayer should fund the choice.

I say not
 
LittleNipper said:
Coral Ridge Ministries.
Click to expand...

Surprise, surprise. Well, you do know that while you can choose to refer to such sources, it won't move your argument forward in the Abortion Forum. Now it will be well received in the religious forum.
 
RAMOSS said:
I will even point out that this is after what is considered viability. And, honestly, unless there is an over riding medical condition, I feel uncomfortable about abortion after 24 weeks. I strongly doubt that there are cases that there aren't medical reasons at that point anyway.
Click to expand...

You are correct. In fact A Fox News article from 2013 says there are about 100 abortions per year in all of the US that take after 24 weeks gestation.

From the article:

June 17, 2003
...
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation),
Click to expand...


Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News

The stats since then have changed.
By 2012 the numbers of abortion were less than 1.2 million.
In 2014 the CDC reported less than I million.

Fewer than I.3 percent of legal abortions took place between 21 weeks gestation and 24 weeks gestation.

Some for maternal health , more for fetal health since fetal abnormalies usually do not show up until the 18-20 gestational week ultrasound. That only gives the parents with input from the doctor and tests to decide if they want to terminate the pregnancy since viabily usually occurs between 22 and 24 weeks.

In 2003 only about 100 abortions occur after 24 weeks gestation.
 
jimbo said:
Sure they do. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the taxpayer should fund the choice.

I say not
Click to expand...

I say all abortions are funded by government. The savings to society would be profound.
 
jimbo said:
Sure they do. That's not the question. The question is whether or not the taxpayer should fund the choice. I say not
Click to expand...
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY TAXPAYER WITH AN OPINION; plenty of taxpayers are pro-choice and likely would support govt-funded abortions (partly because knowing less expensive than Welfare and increased crime rate). SO HERE IS A LITTLE THING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER: If you approve of govt. spending for SOME particular thing (infrastructure?), then consider YOUR personal taxes compared to total govt. spending on that one thing. It is a drop in the bucket! Which means you are fully free to think that none of your personal taxes goes to anything you disapprove of, such as abortion funding.
 
JayDubya said:
I say any government that tried something that vile warrants revolution.
Click to expand...
AS USUAL, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. You have yet to prove abortion qualifies as "vile", for example --all you've ever done is LIE about the Facts, regarding harm caused by unborn human animal assailants acting worse than parasites. Tsk, tsk! I also explained to you a second fundamental error you consistently blather, regarding comparing an unborn human to a bullet (commits no actions of its own). The Fact Is, an unborn human animal assailant is more like a robot that pokes you with a pin. You can accuse the builders of the robot all you want, but if the robot keeps poking you with a pin, again and again and again, what are you going to do about that???

Plus there is a third LIE you frequently spout, calling unborn humans "beings" without the slightest bit of evidence that they qualify as beings (such as how dolphins and intelligent extraterrestrials could qualify as "beings"). You make the positive claim, YOU have to prove it!!!
 
Last edited:
FutureIncoming said:
You have yet to prove abortion qualifies as "vile"
Click to expand...

Forcing the taxpayer at gunpoint to pay for someone else to have their kid killed is "vile," or nothing is and the word has no meaning.

unborn human animal assailants acting worse than parasites
Click to expand...

Yup, this is still uselessly, delusionally stupid.
 
JayDubya said:
Forcing the taxpayer at gunpoint
Click to expand...
NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE USA. Remember the Constitution? It starts off with "We the People", and includes granting Congress the power to create taxes. That means the People knows that taxes are necessary, no "gunpoint" needed (except perhaps for those who have been misinformed about what the Constitution actually says).

JayDubya said:
to pay for someone else to have their kid
Click to expand...
ANOTHER STANDARD STUPID LIE FROM YOU. A "kid" and an unborn human are **provably** two very different things! Why do you keep LYING, equating them when the Facts are against you?
Furthermore, since an unborn human is a mere-animal entity, it qualifies as property, and can be disposed-of much like any other property.

JayDubya said:
killed is "vile,"
Click to expand...
IT IS NOT VILE TO KILL ANIMAL ASSAILANTS, LIKE PARASITES. So why should it be vile to kill animals that act worse than parasites, eh?

JayDubya said:
or nothing is and the word has no meaning.
Click to expand...
GARBAGE IN LEADS TO GARBAGE OUT. If you fixed your ignorance with actual education, you would better-understand how things are (seldom as you want them to be!).

JayDubya said:
Yup, this is still uselessly, delusionally stupid.
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS, NEVER DELUSIONAL, NO MATTER HOW STUPID YOU THINK THEY ARE. Go ahead, you make the claim that unborn humans are "innocent" of causing harm --PROVE IT! But you cannot, because the Actual Facts are against you!
 
Removable Mind said:
Surprise, surprise. Well, you do know that while you can choose to refer to such sources, it won't move your argument forward in the Abortion Forum. Now it will be well received in the religious forum.
Click to expand...
Well, you know that you shouldn't rely on pro abortion sources as they religiously feel that abortion is a human right for which there exists no historical nor scientific evidence. It would be wise to only use sources that are entirely indifferent to values, opinions, and rhetoric -------------- or is that unfair to your way of thinking.
 
Scrabaholic said:
A church?? Seriously????? I presented a medical source showing pain is not felt until the third trimester.
Click to expand...

Platt, 2011: [T]he literature on fetal behaviour, perception, organisation, movement and responses focuses largely on fetuses above 28 weeks of gestation, with a relative lack of studies on the fetus between 20 and 24 weeks. This results in too much reliance on neuroscience, too much reference to animal work, too much extrapolation from both of these and too little real-world human investigation on which to base a realistic view. No one would deny that there are important issues to be confronted, but a sensible debate needs a solid base of rigorous empirical enquiry.
 
FutureIncoming said:
YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY TAXPAYER WITH AN OPINION; plenty of taxpayers are pro-choice and likely would support govt-funded abortions (partly because knowing less expensive than Welfare and increased crime rate). SO HERE IS A LITTLE THING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER: If you approve of govt. spending for SOME particular thing (infrastructure?), then consider YOUR personal taxes compared to total govt. spending on that one thing. It is a drop in the bucket! Which means you are fully free to think that none of your personal taxes goes to anything you disapprove of, such as abortion funding.
Click to expand...

The government should not promote or fund abortion. How would you feel if the government funded abstinence training and pre-marital sex re-educating? It certainly seems to work with regard to smoking. There are far fewer smokers than there once were. Let's put the money towards correcting bad behavior patterns and not towards expunging mistakes.
 
LittleNipper said:
Well, you know that you shouldn't rely on pro abortion sources as they religiously feel that abortion is a human right for which there exists no historical nor scientific evidence. It would be wise to only use sources that are entirely indifferent to values, opinions, and rhetoric -------------- or is that unfair to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, the easiest way to reply is: I completely disagree with you. Minnie616 is the expert on the various religions who support women's right to abort.

Pro-fetus might ought to create a new Religious sub-forum about abortion where the exchange about women having abortions are in violation of god's plan as they understand it. Or NOT in violation

There's a lot of religions that teach different tenets about abortion. That must be confusing since the word "abortion" isn't found in the bible. Now terminating a pregnancy is described in various ways.

There are a variety of religions who don't subscribe to ensoulment until quickening. Therefore aborting such stages of development isn't violating a spiritual instrument that was meant to carry out part of god's plan or undermined by evil women. The developmental stages in which abortions begin is 12 weeks and 60% of those are 10 weeks and under.

Then there are a number of religions who subscribe to ensoulment at conception, which conception itself is believed to be a sacrosanct event, that god itself, himself, herself via its plan for humanity, intervenes in human reproduction, sort of like when people say that god inspired man to write the bible.

Some religions don't believe ensoulment takes place until after birth.

All of my life I've heard that god gave humans free will. So women who have abortions are on their own, but will pay for their sin for doing such an act.

I don't know how free will could be true.

It could be said that some women are possibly inspired by god to have an abortion, which there is absolutely no way to know that god doesn't inspire women to have an abortion. Then that alone would blow the theory of "free will".

Many, many people claim that god does miracles that impacts human lives. That's intervening in human events, which in my opinion is nothing less than a form of violating free will. Many people say god answers prayers. That's intervening in human events, which again is a violation of the theory of free will.

So I'm saying that it's quite possible that abortions are women doing god's will, doing part of the plan. Maybe not all conceptions are meant to be carried out to full term, that there was a lesson being taught by the conception alone.

In essence, the notion that god has some role in the conception, ensoulment, etc, and even a god's views about abortion...is anybody's guess. So I suggest people be a living example of their beliefs....and not condemn others for their beliefs or how they act on them - or even betray them.
 
LittleNipper said:
Platt, 2011: [T]he literature on fetal behaviour, perception, organisation, movement and responses focuses largely on fetuses above 28 weeks of gestation, with a relative lack of studies on the fetus between 20 and 24 weeks. This results in too much reliance on neuroscience, too much reference to animal work, too much extrapolation from both of these and too little real-world human investigation on which to base a realistic view. No one would deny that there are important issues to be confronted, but a sensible debate needs a solid base of rigorous empirical enquiry.
Click to expand...

Evidently, you didn't read my link, which was from a medical source. I see you did not provide a link for whatever that is that you posted.
 
LittleNipper said:
The government should not promote or fund abortion.
Click to expand...
THERE ARE IDIOTS WHO THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT REGULATE ANYTHING --and the result of that is polluted air, polluted water, sawdust added to food, toxic substances getting advertised as cure-alls, and worse.
WE FOUND OUT THE HARD WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT IT TO DO. And therefore we have much cleaner air and water, and food and medicines that are reasonably safe to consume. If the People want to promote or fund abortion, then the Govt. is a useful tool for doing that thing.

LittleNipper said:
How would you feel if the government funded abstinence training and pre-marital sex re-educating?
Click to expand...
IF THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT, FINE. However, seeking sex is a Natural Biological Drive, not hugely unlike seeking food. There are limits to how much a Natural Biological Drive can be reined-in (how long can you hold your bladder before peeing your pants, eh?) As a result of that FACT, there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Period. And I still don't see you offering any evidence at all that abortion is a Bad Thing.

LittleNipper said:
It certainly seems to work with regard to smoking.
Click to expand...
THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE GOT FED UP WITH BREATHING POLLUTED AIR PRODUCED BY SMOKERS. Smokers never consisted of more than about 1/3 of the population, which made them a political minority compared to those they were offending with their acrid fumes. Also, while there exist biological pathways that allow addictive substances to affect us, there is no significant Natural Biological Drive to become addicted. That makes for a big difference than what was described above.

LittleNipper said:
There are far fewer smokers than there once were.
Click to expand...
FEWER, YES; "far fewer"; I want to see the data before agreeing with that description.

LittleNipper said:
Let's put the money towards correcting bad behavior patterns
Click to expand...
WHO DECIDES? Consider eating fatty foods as a "bad behavior pattern" ...

LittleNipper said:
and not towards expunging mistakes.
Click to expand...
NOW consider getting a heart transplant in order to expunge the mistake. There are so many already-existing combinations of "bad behavior" and "expunge mistake" that you can't single out abortion. Not to mention, you still haven't presented any data showing that abortion is a Bad Thing! Nor can you show that sex is "bad behavior"!

THE THING YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS BOTH NATURAL AND HEALTHY. On the other hand "Too Much Of Any Good Thing Is Always A Bad Thing" --and so promiscuity is a bad thing because it makes disease-spreading easy.
FOR HUMANS, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SEX IS PAIR-BONDING. Having offspring is just a Natural side-effect of a bonded pair having lots of sex --but for any particular human couple, having offspring is not an essential consequence of having lots of sex. (Proof: about 1/7 of all couples are Naturally infertile, yet the species survives.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom