Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
I'm a liberal about as much as you are a fascist

EDIT: Self edited remark as it was uncalled for.

j-mac · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Ah yes, well that's not how it works in real life.

Roe is tenuous at best, new challenges are constantly making their way up the ladder. Only a matter of time before the rights of a defenseless child is recognized over that of the selfish, immoral justification that exists now.

See you like BIG GOVERNMENT to tell a women

Nonsense, that is your side of the argument, forcing your immorality, and disregard for life on the rest of society.

to tell a women she should be FORCED to carry to term a baby

And you probably think that all acts of sex are rape too don't you?

and go through mental and physical changes

And women don't know that their bodies go through these changes during pregnancy? This is all new to them until they find out they are pregnant?

while you apply NOTHING of the sort to the man involved during the same 9 months.

I am all for the fathers of these unborn children stepping up to support the mother during the pregnancy. Many would, except for the woman shutting them out completely.

Until you and others can do that

I do what I can, for example, right now I am talking to you.

**** pro-lifers.

A tad bit emotional there eh? I don't hold such contempt for those that support your position, I just am saddened that they can so devalue life that they are willing to discard it like trash. Congratulations, You have effectively laid out the worst parts of the pro abortion crowd.

OKgrannie · Mar 12, 2013

Pilot said:
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?

Why should the government be involved? Canada has no regulation on abortion and it works well for them.

Grant · Mar 12, 2013

Infinite Chaos said:
Infinite Chaos said:

It is because viability is a fact that we cannot move into the moral argument over abortion.

Click to expand...

Certainly we can. It is not up to any individual, including you, what moral standards are. The fact is that life is involved, and the taking of life. Of course morals must be involved.

You either allow abortion or you don't -

Click to expand...

I think it should be allowed but also believe it to be immoral. There is no conflict there at all. It's the same with prostitution. Some feel it should be legal even while finding it immoral. There are many such laws.

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.

Click to expand...

The the direct opposite of the "A woman should have control over her own body' argument. Suddenly, after a required number of months, she no longer has control over her body and it now belongs to the State.. This 'viability' thing just doesn't stand because a baby, even after its born, is not completely 'viable' until many years later. We are still dealing with human life whether it is 'viable' or not.

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.

Click to expand...

Much like the unwillingness to call it a baby, a person, or a potential human being. Those who want to control the language feel they control the debate.

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.

Click to expand...

It is not black and white. Women should be made completely aware that they are taking a human life and that there is help available if they decide to give it up after the baby is born. But many pro abortionists are against even this counseling.

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.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're getting much argument on this 'viability' thing. Whether it is 'viable' or not it is still the taking of a human life.

Grant · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
TheNextEra said:

Well since a potential person cannot gain citizenship, then it is up to the mother to decide what to do with her body

Click to expand...

.

Are you arguing that this is a 'citizenship' issue?

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.

Click to expand...

Actually the government does already 'interfere'.

Seems YOU are the one confused here like most pro-lifers.

Click to expand...

Yeah. It's all about citizenship. Stick with that unconfused position.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

j-mac said:
Roe is tenuous at best, new challenges are constantly making their way up the ladder. Only a matter of time before the rights of a defenseless child is recognized over that of the selfish, immoral justification that exists now.

Keep dreaming, we are beyond the dark ages where men had control over women's body parts. I know YOU want to return to that era, I don't. As for a fetus rights, are you saying they should all be granted SSN and citizen rights too, and if not, why? You claime they have rights? How can they when they aren't born?

j-mac said:
Nonsense, that is your side of the argument, forcing your immorality, and disregard for life on the rest of society.

LOL is that why you and other pro-lifers are trying to get BIG GOVERNMENT involved in forcing women through their pregnancies? As for forcing immorality on the rest of society how? Am I forcing YOUR wife or someone to have an abortion? Therefore, I am forcing NOTHING on society. That is YOU and other conservatives that hate freedom.

j-mac said:
And you probably think that all acts of sex are rape too don't you?

Where did you pull that out of your ass from?

j-mac said:
And women don't know that their bodies go through these changes during pregnancy? This is all new to them until they find out they are pregnant?

Are you saying a woman loses ALL CHOICE because she has sex? That's ludicrous.

j-mac said:
I am all for the fathers of these unborn children stepping up to support the mother during the pregnancy. Many would, except for the woman shutting them out completely.

Funny, don't see any conservative laws stepping up to support your claim. I only see the right trying to make laws to control a woman's body and nothing about the man.

j-mac said:
I do what I can, for example, right now I am talking to you.

Oh yeah, talking on an internet message board annonymously. Oh you activisty you. :roll:

j-mac said:
A tad bit emotional there eh? I don't hold such contempt for those that support your position, I just am saddened that they can so devalue life that they are willing to discard it like trash. Congratulations, You have effectively laid out the worst parts of the pro abortion crowd.

Not emotional at all. You and other pro-lifers show your contempt for women and want big government to force them to carry for 9 months. Your contempt deserves contemp. You have laid out the true ignorance of the pro-life argument.

Grant · Mar 12, 2013

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

And a lot of potentially brilliant people lost while the 'conscious' walk among us.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
Are you arguing that this is a 'citizenship' issue?

I'm claiming as a women in the U.S. as a CITIZEN, she has rights to her body.

Grant said:
[
Actually the government does already 'interfere'.

And you along with other conservatives support BIG GOVERNMENT doing that.

Grant said:
[
Yeah. It's all about citizenship. Stick with that unconfused position.

Since we are talking about U.S. citizens, there is no confusion when one is a citizen and the other is not.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
And a lot of potentially brilliant people lost while the 'conscious' walk among us.

Right, because all those aborted would have never resorted to crime or done anything bad right? What an emotional response from you.

Grant · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Ah yes, well that's not how it works in real life.

Yes, that is how it works in real life. Do all these women still not yet get it, despite all the money spent on sex education?

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.

The man responsible was not mentioned. And it is illegal to carry out an abortion after the baby is 'viable' or BIG GOVERNMENT will step in and she will be FORCED to carry the baby to term..

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
Yes, that is how it works in real life. Do all these women still not yet get it, despite all the money spent on sex education?

Yes, because birth control is 100% effective right? Do YOU get it yet, that a person has a right to their body and what happens to it? No, you much prefer that BIG GOVERNMENT decides for you and others.

The man responsible was not mentioned. And it is illegal to carry out an abortion after the baby is 'viable' or BIG GOVERNMENT will step in and she will be FORCED to carry the baby to term..

Yes, BIG GOVENRMENT does, much to your liking. You like BIG GOVERNMENT. Don't ever say you don't.

Grant · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
TheNextEra said:

Yes, because birth control is 100% effective right?

Click to expand...

Is it? According to whom?

Do YOU get it yet, that a person has a right to their body and what happens to it?

Click to expand...

That is not true. Even the pro abortionists understand that is not true.

No, you much prefer that BIG GOVERNMENT decides for you and others.

Click to expand...

Please use quotes rather than just guessing, okay?

Yes, BIG GOVENRMENT does, much to your liking. You like BIG GOVERNMENT. Don't ever say you don't.

Click to expand...

You're quite fortunate that those babies who were 'viable' weren't somehow subject to IQ tests as part of their 'viability'. You would never have seen the light of day.

j-mac · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Keep dreaming, we are beyond the dark ages where men had control over women's body parts. I know YOU want to return to that era, I don't. As for a fetus rights, are you saying they should all be granted SSN and citizen rights too, and if not, why? You claime they have rights? How can they when they aren't born?

LOL is that why you and other pro-lifers are trying to get BIG GOVERNMENT involved in forcing women through their pregnancies? As for forcing immorality on the rest of society how? Am I forcing YOUR wife or someone to have an abortion? Therefore, I am forcing NOTHING on society. That is YOU and other conservatives that hate freedom.

Where did you pull that out of your ass from?

Are you saying a woman loses ALL CHOICE because she has sex? That's ludicrous.

Funny, don't see any conservative laws stepping up to support your claim. I only see the right trying to make laws to control a woman's body and nothing about the man.

Oh yeah, talking on an internet message board annonymously. Oh you activisty you. :roll:

Not emotional at all. You and other pro-lifers show your contempt for women and want big government to force them to carry for 9 months. Your contempt deserves contemp. You have laid out the true ignorance of the pro-life argument.

Contempt? Hardly....I love women, most of them are more logical than many men I know. But that aside, I know that your bluster is devolving into personal attack only because you ultimately lose this argument every time.

Look, Your obvious disdain for children, and willing renaming what they are to ease your own conscience for knowingly killing them...It won't help you in the end friend.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
You're quite fortunate that those babies who were 'viable' weren't somehow subject to IQ tests as part of their 'viability'. You would never have seen the light of day.

LOL that's the best you can do? Really?

Oh well, you have a losing argument and the fact you like BIG GOVERNMENT is telling more about you than me.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

j-mac said:
Contempt? Hardly....I love women, most of them are more logical than many men I know. But that aside, I know that your bluster is devolving into personal attack only because you ultimately lose this argument every time.

I've lost nothing. Abortion is still legal.

Look, Your obvious disdain for children, and willing renaming what they are to ease your own conscience for knowingly killing them...It won't help you in the end friend.

I have no disdain for children and in practice for MY life I am pro-life. However, I don't agree with using BIG GOVERNMENT to force that decision on everyone else, YOU do.

Oh well, you have proven you not only do NOT know me, your comments are quite clueless as well.

j-mac · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
I've lost nothing. Abortion is still legal.

I have no disdain for children and in practice for MY life I am pro-life. However, I don't agree with using BIG GOVERNMENT to force that decision on everyone else, YOU do.

Oh well, you have proven you not only do NOT know me, your comments are quite clueless as well.

I don't need to know you personally to recognize the dishonest arguments that are steeped in cliche....

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

j-mac said:
I don't need to know you personally to recognize the dishonest arguments that are steeped in cliche....

Nothing dishoenst in what I've posted. However, what has been shown is that conservatives are really for BIG GOVERNMENT.

Muddy Creek · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
Is it? According to whom?

That is not true. Even the pro abortionists understand that is not true.

Please use quotes rather than just guessing, okay?

You're quite fortunate that those babies who were 'viable' weren't somehow subject to IQ tests as part of their 'viability'. You would never have seen the light of day.

Click to expand...

You responded to absolutely NOTHING of what he said.

Who are you to decide what EVERY woman in the US can and can't do with their bodies? Who are YOU to decide women are no more than breeder cows? Please show me in the Bible where God or Christ say women are breeder cows.

Muddy Creek · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Nothing dishoenst in what I've posted. However, what has been shown is that conservatives are really for BIG GOVERNMENT.

Absolutely. AND invasion into a person's life and control over their body.

Muddy Creek · Mar 12, 2013

j-mac said:
Contempt? Hardly....I love women, most of them are more logical than many men I know. But that aside, I know that your bluster is devolving into personal attack only because you ultimately lose this argument every time.

Look, Your obvious disdain for children, and willing renaming what they are to ease your own conscience for knowingly killing them...It won't help you in the end friend.

Medical science names the stages of the gestation, not anyone else. Not even the churches who want this banned because they don't believe a woman has a right to decide her future on her own. Nor to decide who will be the father of her children.

You don't respect women. You consider them nothing more than breeder cows. Show me where Christ considers Mary Magdalene, a prostitute, to be nothing more than a breeder cow.

j-mac · Mar 12, 2013

Muddy Creek said:
Medical science names the stages of the gestation, not anyone else. Not even the churches who want this banned because they don't believe a woman has a right to decide her future on her own. Nor to decide who will be the father of her children.

As I said before the decision is made when the act of procreation is undertaken.

You don't respect women. You consider them nothing more than breeder cows. Show me where Christ considers Mary Magdalene, a prostitute, to be nothing more than a breeder cow.

No, that is you trying to come up with the most contemptible label you can imagine to pin on me, either for shock purposes, or to inflame the argument. The fact that the pro abortion side of the argument continually ties themselves in knots in an ever changing and growing terminology all to justify the undeniable fact that they are killing unborn human children, all for the sake of being able to shirk the responsibility of the act that they want to commit without responsibility, and have constructed this elaborate maze of terminology so that they don't have to face the fact that they are killing life, for a selfish act that results in the creation of that life shows their level of denial.

j-mac · Mar 12, 2013

TheNextEra said:
Nothing dishoenst in what I've posted. However, what has been shown is that conservatives are really for BIG GOVERNMENT.

How ironic, that statement in itself, is dishonest.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2013

j-mac said:
How ironic, that statement in itself, is dishonest.

Nope, it's factual. Sorry you hate the truth. Most conservatives do.

minnie616 · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
...
This 'viability' thing just doesn't stand because a baby, even after its born, is not completely 'viable' until many years later....

The Court defined viability as a stage where the fetus's life "may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''.

minnie616 · Mar 12, 2013

Grant said:
....And it is illegal to carry out an abortion after the baby is 'viable' or BIG GOVERNMENT will step in and she will be FORCED to carry the baby to term..

No it not illegal to carry out an abortion after the fetus is viable.

Abortions after the limit of viability are very rare.
Only .08 percent of all abortions in this country take place after 24 weeks gestation ( which is the limit of viability).

They are the extreme cases. The cases where the woman's life is at risk or where irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue, where the fetus died a natural death in the womb and it was not expelled ( yes, the removal of dead fetus and the fetal material is called an abortion and would be counted in .08 percent if it was removed after the 24 week gestation mark) the cases where the fetus would be stillborn or is so malformed it will only live a few minutes or hours.

There were 323 legal abortions in Kansas in 2008 that took place after 22 weeks gestation.
191 of those of fetuses were not viaible. They had died in the womb, would be stillborn or were so deformed they would only live a few hours or minutes.
131 of those abortions were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function would take place if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. Those cases were extreme cases.