• 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]

Pilot said:
Huh? Which is it?
Click to expand...

Pilot. Sit down and remain calm. I have some shocking news for you. The US government has more than one department. The following is, apparently for you, a rather complex and confusing reality. I don't have the time to explain the differences between the two agencies and how they function. Get your mom and dad to help you with that.

US citizens living abroad are not counted by the US Census Bureau in taking the US Census. US citizens living abroad are counted as citizens by the IRS and must pay US taxes. Zefs are counted by neither.
 
Last edited:
tonydanza said:
The fetus doesn't have brain activity until twenty weeks. That is the only logical point involved here. You cannot force your moral beliefs down someone else's throat. And the European abortion laws are much more complicated than you make them out to be.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you consider "brain activity". At about 20 weeks, the thalamus is fully formed. "Brain waves" can be detected before that. The recognizable, individual human face does form somewhere between 11 and 14 weeks. Should count for something. Our current understanding of what a mind is and how it works should not be allowed to mutate into murderous self-assurance.

The European laws are complicated (laws always are). But the gestational limits are there. Abortion on demand, in the absence of any threat to the mother's health or other special circumstances, is not allowed in the jolly, godless Czech Republic or in even more jolly, equally "atheistic" Denmark. It is a fact. Say whatever you wish about Danes and Czechs, but they are among the last peoples on Earth who would allow some "beliefs" to be forced down their throats.

(Personally, I am limiting my pro-life postion to the thrid trimester; and I am storngly pro-choice for the first one. But if a given society reaches some potentially life-saving consensus for the torturous grey area in-between, I am glad, not frustrated).
 
Pilot said:
Then why is 20 weeks logical? What if my moral beliefs are that any point before birth is okay? You can just shove your morals down my throat and tell me 20 weeks?
Click to expand...

It's mostly 24 weeks rather than 20. At 20 weeks a mother can have an anomaly scan which can pick out problems in the fetus that were not apparent before. Also, there is that niggling question of viability that has very little to do with morals and more to do with facts.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
It's mostly 24 weeks rather than 20. At 20 weeks a mother can have an anomaly scan which can pick out problems in the fetus that were not apparent before. Also, there is that niggling question of viability that has very little to do with morals and more to do with facts.
Click to expand...

Just the reverse. Viability is a fact, yes, and then we move into morals.
 
Grant said:
In fact a baby becomes a potential person at the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

Not according to the SC they set viability as the time a fetus becomes a " potential person".
 
minnie616 said:
Not according to the SC they set viability as the time a fetus becomes a " potential person".
Click to expand...

Well sometimes we just have to overlook what lawyers, politicians and judges say and simply look at common sense.

I doubt many judges would claim that a 'potential person' is not there at the moment of conception. Would you?
 
Grant said:
Well sometimes we just have to overlook what lawyers, politicians and judges say and simply look at common sense.

I doubt many judges would claim that a 'potential person' is not there at the moment of conception. Would you?
Click to expand...

I agree with the SC and think they were very wise to set viability as the time when states can take a compelling interest.
Until a fetus reaches viaibilty it can not live apart from the woman. It depends on her body and only lives if she lives. If she dies it dies, therefore I do not feel it it a seperate eniity with its own potential life until viability...it is not a potential person until it can survive outside her womb. before viability it is still a part of her life and will not be a person until it is born. Once the fetus becomes viable it can survive outside the womb even if the woman dies. If the woman dies and the viable fetus is removed immediately it has a good chance of surviving with or without
Medical help and a care giver who can fed it , keep it warm etc.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Just the reverse. Viability is a fact, yes, and then we move into morals.
Click to expand...

Neither matter. It's legal, viability and morals are meaningless in this discussion. As long as it is legal it is right and just.
 
Grant said:
I doubt many judges would claim that a 'potential person' is not there at the moment of conception. Would you?
Click to expand...

Well when a "potential person" is given a ssn and granted citizenship you let us know ok? Until then it will be the mothers right to choose.
 
DaLiberal said:
Neither matter. It's legal, viability and morals are meaningless in this discussion. As long as it is legal it is right and just.
Click to expand...

Jim Crow laws were right and just before they were overturned? On what grounds could they have been overturned if they were "right and just"? Your logic seems to be a paradox.
 
Pilot said:
Jim Crow laws were right and just before they were overturned? On what grounds could they have been overturned if they were "right and just"? Your logic seems to be a paradox.
Click to expand...

Right and just are subjective terms and are deemed by whatever society dictates them to be. What was right and just then is not right and just now. Can abortion eventually be that way? Possibly but I don't see a full overturn of rights for women to determine what they want done with their body while pregnant.

The problem is the right wants to force the women through 9 months of physical and mental changes and use the government to do it. Conservatives will never be for small government as long as they keep wanting government to get involved with drugs, abortion, and SSM.
 
minnie616 said:
I agree with the SC and think they were very wise to set viability as the time when states can take a compelling interest.
Until a fetus reaches viaibilty it can not live apart from the woman. It depends on her body and only lives if she lives. If she dies it dies, therefore I do not feel it it a seperate eniity with its own potential life until viability...it is not a potential person until it can survive outside her womb. before viability it is still a part of her life and will not be a person until it is born. Once the fetus becomes viable it can survive outside the womb even if the woman dies. If the woman dies and the viable fetus is removed immediately it has a good chance of surviving with or without
Medical help and a care giver who can fed it , keep it warm etc.
Click to expand...

I think we've both made our positions clear, Minnie616, and though we may disagree I respect the way you've presented your arguments. A lot of this is based on feelings and thus it will probably never be resolved. Cheers.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well when a "potential person" is given a ssn and granted citizenship you let us know ok? Until then it will be the mothers right to choose.
Click to expand...

A 'potential' person cannot gain citizenship. You appear befuddled by the term.

Here ya go.

po·ten·tial (p-tnshl)
adj.
1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem.
2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
3. Grammar Of, relating to, or being a verbal construction with auxiliaries such as may or can; for example, it may snow.
n.
1. The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
2. Something possessing the capacity for growth or development.
3. Grammar A potential verb form.
4. Physics The work required to move a unit of positive charge, a magnetic pole, or an amount of mass from a reference point to a designated point in a static electric, magnetic, or gravitational field; potential energy.
 
DaLiberal said:
Neither matter. It's legal, viability and morals are meaningless in this discussion. As long as it is legal it is right and just.
Click to expand...

So laws against abortion were right and just? Slavery was just? Murdering Gays is just?

Why are Libs such sloppy thinkers? Or is that a requirement?
 
Grant said:
Just the reverse. Viability is a fact, yes, and then we move into morals.
Click to expand...

It is because viability is a fact that we cannot move into the moral argument over abortion. You either allow abortion or you don't - if you allow it then you have to set limits based on certain facts which aren't changing (for a long while yet) such as when the fetus is viable outside the womb because then you are harming someone who can survive unaided outside the womb. I have never had any qualms about calling the bunch of cells created by an egg and sperm a human being because the "personhood" or "human beingness" argument is simply a sideshow to whether that person can survive unaided and if so - whether that survival will harm them or not.

Studies show that for those born between 20 - 24 weeks, early preterms survival rate after birth is about 9 in 100 at best and even then there is a high chance of serious disability. The only anti abortion argument that can be made in reality is to abolish it altogether but then you simply go back to the old days of *back-room / back alley / back yard / back street abortion with coathangers and similar.

The reality as I see it is that anyone who is anti 24 weeks is simply trying to bring the limit down piecemeal (They realise a sudden drop to 0 weeks is unlikely to it has to be an incremental process over time.) to a wholesale ban because that is the ultimate end game for those who refuse to acknowledge the facts of viability.

*back-room / back alley / back yard / back street abortion - if arguing over the term is all anyone has then sorry for them.
 
Pilot said:
It all depends on when the fetus becomes a human. Most would argue that that does in fact happen before birth. Is the location the only thing that matters? Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?
Click to expand...

Yes. Its location inside someone else's body, where it takes resources, depletes her body, and poses a risk of severe harm or death, is the only thing that matters.

No born human would be permitted carte blanche to do such a thing. Even if they are somehow unable to understand their actions, or being coerced by a third party, it would still be impermissible, and warrant any action deemed necessary by the person being used against their will.

What makes a fetus different? If the argument is whether or not they're "people," then under what circumstances would any person be permitted to do something like that against someone's wishes?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes. Its location inside someone else's body, where it takes resources, depletes her body, and poses a risk of severe harm or death, is the only thing that matters.

No born human would be permitted carte blanche to do such a thing. Even if they are somehow unable to understand their actions, or being coerced by a third party, it would still be impermissible, and warrant any action deemed necessary by the person being used against their will.

What makes a fetus different? If the argument is whether or not they're "people," then under what circumstances would any person be permitted to do something like that against someone's wishes?
Click to expand...

I think you may have taken this out of context. I was replying to a post about when the government should have involvement. My point was that although there is disagreement over when, there is a time when the government should become involved.

How about answering the question you quoted: Should the government have no regulations on abortion at nine months?
 
Grant said:
A 'potential' person cannot gain citizenship. You appear befuddled by the term.

Here ya go.
Click to expand...

Well since a potential person cannot gain citizenship, then it is up to the mother to decide what to do with her body. Thank you for your admittal that a CITIZEN of the U.S. should be able to determine whether or not they should go through with a 9 month pregnancy which is biological, mental, and physical changes to her body without GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

Seems YOU are the one confused here like most pro-lifers.
 
minnie616 said:
Well, persons are not aborted.
I call fetuses fetuses because that is the proper term for that stage of development.

Actually the limit of viability is currently 24 weeks gestation. The limit of viability has not changed in the last 12 years.
In the Roe vs Wade decision they set viability about 24 to 28 weeks gestation.

Consciousness takes place about 24 weeks weeks gestation. So the time frame is the same and the goal posts have really not been moved.
Click to expand...

If "consciousness" is the benchmark, hell, there are some walking, talking adults that would qualify for abortion. :/
 
j-mac said:
If "consciousness" is the benchmark, hell, there are some walking, talking adults that would qualify for abortion. :/
Click to expand...

Don't quit your day job, comedy is not your forte ;)
 
TheNextEra said:
... it is up to the mother to decide what to do with her body.
Click to expand...

That decision was made the moment she decided to allow herself to commit the act that only can result in the creation of a human life. All of the dancing around terminology designed to dehumanize the baby is only a desperate attempt to console the conscience of those women killing their own babies in the womb.
 
j-mac said:
That decision was made the moment she decided to allow herself to commit the act that only can result in the creation of a human life. All of the dancing around terminology designed to dehumanize the baby is only a desperate attempt to console the conscience of those women killing their own babies in the womb.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, well that's not how it works in real life. See you like BIG GOVERNMENT to tell a women she should be FORCED to carry to term a baby and go through mental and physical changes while you apply NOTHING of the sort to the man involved during the same 9 months. Until you and others can do that, **** pro-lifers.
 
edited
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom