• 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]

j-mac said:
No, the studies are different...They are not apples to apples. ....
Click to expand...

I know those studies are different they count any women who died years after an abortion as dying because she an abortion years before. Go figure!
 
minnie616 said:
I know those studies are different they count any women who died years after an abortion as dying because she an abortion years before. Go figure!
Click to expand...

No, no....Not years....A year. Why are you trying to misrepresent the study? Oh, I know, you must to justify your argument....
 
Contrary to the belief that abortion is as simple as removing a wart, it is actually a very serious procedure that can have very serious results. The clinic personnel will lead you to believe that complications rarely arise, but that is not the case. Many women have been damaged for life as a result of their legal abortion.
Your cervical muscle may be damaged in an abortion because the cervix is forcefully dilated. This means that your future pregnancies have a greater chance of resulting in miscarriage or premature delivery. Damage to the uterine wall is another concern. Perforation (puncturing) of the uterus, infection, hemorrhage, and blood clots are only a few of the complications that you could end up with. I you do have a :successful" abortion, scar tissue may still form which can cause sterilization, miscarriages and tubal pregnancies.¹ approximately two out of 10 women who abort their first pregnancy will never be able to have children again. Do you want to take that kind of risk?

What They Won't Tell You at the ABORTION CLINIC
 
j-mac said:
No, no....Not years....A year. Why are you trying to misrepresent the study? Oh, I know, you must to justify your argument....
Click to expand...

Sorry I mis remembered. I read it about a year ago.

I stand corrected...A year later.

Why did they count women who died up to a year later and blame the death on the abortion?
 
minnie616 said:
Sorry I mis remembered. I read it about a year ago.

I stand corrected...A year later.

Why did they count women who died up to a year later and blame the death on the abortion?
Click to expand...

Complications are not always immediate....Many times things happen during procedures that are traced back to the original procedure....
 
If some one knowes they are pregnaunt they should have a abortion before the second trimester unless compications arise or / if that child will defective . a baby at 12 weeks is about 2.5 inches so i dont beleive a abortionis will have to hack the baby to peices and vacum it out
 
Un biased said:
If some one knowes they are pregnaunt they should have a abortion before the first trimester unless compications arise or / if that child will defective . a baby at 12 weeks is about 2.5 inches so i dont beleive a abortionis will have to hack the baby to peices and vacum it out
Click to expand...

However, that is the most common method.
 
j-mac said:
However, that is the most common method.
Click to expand...
I know thats why i said it but 2.5 inches isent that big so i dont think the abortinist will have to hack and vacum it out ( at any age that kind of death is cruel and a fetus can still feel such a thing besides and we dont alough death row crimnals to have to die in that matter )
 
j-mac said:
Complications are not always immediate....Many times things happen during procedures that are traced back to the original procedure....
Click to expand...

They counted sucide deaths up to a later and blamed the sucides on the abortion.
Here is a view from the UK:


Why anti-choice campaigners won't let science get in their way

Research claiming a link between abortion and mental illness in women always gets debunked, but do these ideologues care?

Amanda Marcotte

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 March 2012 15.05 EST

]If you visit any anti-choice website or facility, within moments of your arrival, you'll be hit with the assertion that abortion causes mental health problems for women who get them.
The problem with this, besides the whiff of bullying, is there isn't any evidence for the claim.

Turns out that Coleman juiced up her results by counting mental health disorders that occurred prior to women's abortions.

It's a little like arguing that the stomach-ache I had a week ago is caused by the meal I ate tonight. While fully acknowledging that errors are a common problem in research attempting to establish causal links between any two events, it does seem that, at a bare minimum,

researchers should realize that an event such as an abortion cannot actually cause events that happened before it.
Coleman's response acknowledged that they used lifetime mental health diagnoses (rather than 12-month or 30-day diagnoses, as previously stated) because she and her colleagues had wanted to "capture as many cases of mental health problems as possible".

<SNIP>
Abortion doesn't make women sick, in the head or in the body.

For many women, it feels like a relief, because control of your body and life is returned to you.
While getting an abortion is never fun, it's a legitimate failsafe for women who find themselves pregnant when they don't want to be
Click to expand...

Why anti-choice campaigners won't let science get in their way | Amanda Marcotte | World news | guardian.co.uk

Edited to add another link:

Representing the APA at the hearing, Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, testified that "severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." While acknowledging that there were flaws in much of the research, she testified nonetheless that the weight of the evidence persuasively showed that "abortion is usually psychologically benign." Echoing Koop's point about the public health implications, Adler said that given the millions of women who had had abortions, "if severe reaction were common, there would be an epidemic of women seeking treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic."
Click to expand...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
However, that is the most common method.
Click to expand...

medical / chemical abortion ...using medication at home is becoming more and more common for early abortions.
 
j-mac said:
1.)No, the studies are different...They are not apples to apples.
2.)Plus, I agree it is about force, liberals forcing their values on the rest of society through judicial fiat.

3.)Like I said before, and maintain, pro abortion is all about easing their own conscience by renaming what it is they are killing. It is deplorable.

4.)Why do liberals hate children?
Click to expand...

1.)yes the studies are different in a different country and including all abortions
the LEGAL abortions are what matters and again it doesnt matter because its about force
2.) as soon as you say liberals you fail because many non liberals are pro-choice LOL, its shows your biased. the laws allowing pro-choice doesnt force anything on anybody this is a flat out lie, if you dont want to have an abortion nobody forces you to have one LMAO talking about being dishonest

but if abortion was banned there would be force in forcing the woman to give birth

3.) you are free to that opinion you simply dont get to force it on others

4.) more nonsensical biased hyperbole LMAO be nice if you could come up with a logical or factual argument

i know i know liberals are the devil, when i see some ill let them know LMAO
 
Have they created a counter for how many unwanted babies are born to poor unwed mothers and teenagers in Arkansas and how much that will cost taxpayers in other states?

Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism has never been more in conflict.

Every high school counselor and nurse should have the authority to dispense Plan B to students.

Any female living near or below the poverty line should be able to get a free state-sponsored abortion.
 
mr4anarchy said:
Have they created a counter for how many unwanted babies are born to poor unwed mothers and teenagers in Arkansas and how much that will cost taxpayers in other states?

Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism has never been more in conflict.

Every high school counselor and nurse should have the authority to dispense Plan B to students.

Any female living near or below the poverty line should be able to get a free state-sponsored abortion.
Click to expand...

Why the **** would a high school consoler have the authority to given minor students medications?
 
North Dakota has upped the ante.

North Dakota Senate approves "heartbeat" abortion ban

(Reuters) - The North Dakota Senate approved what would be the most restrictive abortion law in the United States on Friday, a measure banning the procedure in most cases once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks.

Senators also approved a second bill on Friday that bans abortions based solely on genetic abnormalities, the first state ban of its kind if signed into law. The bill would also ban abortions based on the gender of the fetus, which would make North Dakota the fourth state to ban sex-selection based abortions.

The bills, which passed the state House of Representatives last month, now head to Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple, who has not indicated whether he would sign them into law. He is expected to receive the bills on Monday.

The "heartbeat" bill provides exceptions if an abortion would prevent the death or irreversible impairment of a pregnant woman but no exceptions for rape. It sets up a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in 1973.

Several states ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Arkansas lawmakers earlier in March approved a ban on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy that could take effect in August if it survives expected legal challenges.

Full Story: North Dakota Senate approves heartbeat abortion ban | Reuters
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
That should encourage young woman to be extra cautious when having sex, and realize the serious consequences that might result.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be consequences. Why should they have to worry? That's what is so great about abortion; it eliminates an unnecessary consequence.
 
DaLiberal said:
There shouldn't be consequences. Why should they have to worry? That's what is so great about abortion; it eliminates an unnecessary consequence.
Click to expand...

Children are an unnecessary consequence of sex? I've never head that argument before.
 
Grant said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

You're right to a point, moral standards are agreed and negotiated by wider society however wider society has also agreed that morals are not part of the reasoning behind whether we have / allow abortion or not.

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're shifting the goalposts - viability is whether a child can survive outside the womb, if you wish to argue it's about feeding and providing for itself then most of us never are, we rely on others until our death.

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I said, I have never had worries about calling it a baby / human / person etc.

Grant said:
-- 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.
Click to expand...

This is where the discussion becomes US only, that information is widely available in other countries and abortions still go ahead. It's like the discussion about how abortion fits into the US constitution - which implies abortion only happens in the US and for specific reasons.

Grant said:
-- 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.
Click to expand...

Of course a human life stops, but I go right back my beginning post on page 1. If you deny women abortion or limit their choices through legislation then their only recourse is illegal abortion. Either you somehow control all women's movements and and choices so that you can ensure the birth of every fetus or you don't. If you don't then you have to accept that women have certain choices and freedoms which are negotiable until the fetus is 24 weeks old and an abortion would kill a child who would otherwise survive outside the womb - also known as "viability."
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is up to the individual to determine his own moral standards. We have agreed in the country to freedom of conscience, and the only limitation is when that freedom impacts another person.

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.
Click to expand...

Freedom of conscience again. Morality alone is not sufficient reason for law.


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.
Click to expand...

You're confusing the definition of "viable" with self-sufficiency. "Viable" means able to survive outside the womb.



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.
Click to expand...

Aren't you wanting to control the language by DEMANDING the zef be called a "baby", "a person", or "a human"?




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.

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.
Click to expand...

Women are preventing "a human life." Women can give life, or they can refuse to give that gift.
Click to expand...
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You're shifting the goalposts - viability is whether a child can survive outside the womb, if you wish to argue it's about feeding and providing for itself then most of us never are, we rely on others until our death.
Click to expand...
No, i'm ignoring the arbitrary goal posts that were established strictly as a compromise timeline. What make a baby less 'viable' one day or week to the next? They still need constant care and would not survive long without outside help. These goalposts can be moved at the whim of any group with the legal power to move them so may as well be in sand. My interest is more in the immorality of abortion, the seriousness of taking another human life, and looking at the euphemisms we use to disguise what we are really doing to these babies.

As I said, I have never had worries about calling it a baby / human / person etc.
Click to expand...
That's a good thing, I believe, but many do.
This is where the discussion becomes US only, that information is widely available in other countries and abortions still go ahead. It's like the discussion about how abortion fits into the US constitution - which implies abortion only happens in the US and for specific reasons.
Click to expand...

Quite right, but many outsiders are drawn to what happens in the US because it is the political and cultural center of the world and what happens there may happen to us one day or we may know programs what to avoid.
Of course a human life stops, but I go right back my beginning post on page 1. If you deny women abortion or limit their choices through legislation then their only recourse is illegal abortion. Either you somehow control all women's movements and and choices so that you can ensure the birth of every fetus or you don't. If you don't then you have to accept that women have certain choices and freedoms which are negotiable until the fetus is 24 weeks old and an abortion would kill a child who would otherwise survive outside the womb - also known as "viability."
Click to expand...

I agree that abortion must be legal but would never argue in favor it. I also see the breakup of families but there is little I can do about that either. And with all the talk of 'women having certain certain choices and freedoms' there is not equal time given to women's responsibilities. In fact even bringing up the question seems to be a social taboo. But we have seen men's attitudes change towards women over the last generation and in a direction that no one recognized would happened when all of this began.

Women in charge of their own bodies? It seems so.

“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
 
OKgrannie said:
It is up to the individual to determine his own moral standards. We have agreed in the country to freedom of conscience, and the only limitation is when that freedom impacts another person.
Click to expand...

If that is the case do you want the individual to be responsible for those standards, without having any impact on others?
Freedom of conscience again. Morality alone is not sufficient reason for law.
Click to expand...

Then lets allow whatever behavior an individual may want but let them alone be responsible for the consequences of that behavior. Agreed?
You're confusing the definition of "viable" with self-sufficiency. "Viable" means able to survive outside the womb.
Click to expand...

I understand the meaning of both terms. What I'm saying is that the difference is not important.

Aren't you wanting to control the language by DEMANDING the zef be called a "baby", "a person", or "a human"?
Click to expand...

I'm not "demanding" anything. I just won't have the the leftists control the language.
Women are preventing "a human life." Women can give life, or they can refuse to give that gift.
Click to expand...

Right. It seems that many of them are not ready for that responsibility. Their appearance is more important, or their social life.
 
Grant said:
If that is the case do you want the individual to be responsible for those standards, without having any impact on others?
Click to expand...

The individual IS responsible for his own moral standards, which are only limited when they impact others in a detrimental way.


Then lets allow whatever behavior an individual may want but let them alone be responsible for the consequences of that behavior. Agreed?
Click to expand...

The behavior of an individual must be limited when the consequences of that behavior affects another person in a detrimental way. It's better when possible to prevent an action than to force "consequences", meaning punishment, upon a person.


I understand the meaning of both terms. What I'm saying is that the difference is not important.
Click to expand...

But it is. Self-sufficiency is never total. We all depend upon others for some things.

I'm not "demanding" anything. I just won't have the the leftists control the language.
Click to expand...

If you "won't have" the leftists controlling the language, you are pretty much DEMANDING that rightists control it. Communication will totally break down if we have both leftist and rightist languages.


Right. It seems that many of them are not ready for that responsibility. Their appearance is more important, or their social life.
Click to expand...

Women who are not ready for that responsibility should not be forced to assume it, it guarantees they will do a shabby job of it. You are revealing your distrust of women when you suggest that women will have abortions for trivial unimportant reasons.
 
OKgrannie said:
The individual IS responsible for his own moral standards, which are only limited when they impact others in a detrimental way.
Click to expand...

Yes, you said that. If you behave in an immoral fashion it may impact others financially, right?
The behavior of an individual must be limited when the consequences of that behavior affects another person in a detrimental way. It's better when possible to prevent an action than to force "consequences", meaning punishment, upon a person.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Just so long as everyone is responsible for their own deliberate actions and their is no financial impact on others, unless voluntary, then we are in agreement.

But it is. Self-sufficiency is never total. We all depend upon others for some things.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And, again, as long as it is voluntary, I think it works well.

If you "won't have" the leftists controlling the language, you are pretty much DEMANDING that rightists control it. Communication will totally break down if we have both leftist and rightist languages.
Click to expand...

This seems 'pretty much' like a big deal to you so go with whatever meaning you want. I've already explained my position but if you prefer i take another in this area it doesn't bother me all that much.
Women who are not ready for that responsibility should not be forced to assume it, it guarantees they will do a shabby job of it.
Click to expand...

But aren't they free to make those decisions? If they are then they should make responsible ones. But please don't ask others to pay for their decisions. You can't have it both ways.

You are revealing your distrust of women when you suggest that women will have abortions for trivial unimportant reasons.
Click to expand...

Actually I was considering your previous posts.
 
Grant said:
No, i'm ignoring the arbitrary goal posts that were established strictly as a compromise timeline. What make a baby less 'viable' one day or week to the next? They still need constant care and would not survive long without outside help.
Click to expand...

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.

Medically, viability is clearly defined and this is why there is a 24 week limit on abortion in many countries.

Grant said:
-- These goalposts can be moved at the whim of any group with the legal power to move them so may as well be in sand. My interest is more in the immorality of abortion, the seriousness of taking another human life, and looking at the euphemisms we use to disguise what we are really doing to these babies --
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
?....


Right. It seems that many of them are not ready for that responsibility. Their appearance is more important, or their social life.
Click to expand...



If a pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted then most would not be ready for the responsibility of motherhood ....
That is a given.

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.

I believe almost all women know that being a good mother is very important responsibly that one should be prepared for.
They understand it not only takes hard work,but a lot of time and a stable relationship to be a responsible parent.

There are a lot of factors that come into play before a person is ready to become a good parent.

Just as there are a lot of factors that come into play before a young adult is ready to decide they have met the right person that would like to spend the rest of their life with.

We encourage our teens and young Adults to take their time and choose their lifelong parter very carefully.

We should not force girls or young women into continuing pregnancies and becoming moms when they totally unprepared, do not have a loving parter , and not ready to be moms. We are setting these teens and young adults up for failures as mothers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom