• 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]

Infinite Chaos said:
I can only repeat your own words back to you.



What does "left" or "right" have to do with abortion?

In the UK, abortion is not a matter of left wing or right wing politics, I guess things may be different in the USA?
Click to expand...

Who the **** you think you are? if you cant come up with an answer then don't even try to talk to me.

I only wish this was a town hall debate....
 
Mr.Nick said:
Who the **** you think you are? if you cant come up with an answer then don't even try to talk to me.

I only wish this was a town hall debate....
Click to expand...

Sorry but you asked me some illogical questions which have no logical bearing on the subject. You didn't address the points I made about the children that would be in care if abortion were banned but instead asked a question I quickly pointed out as illogical.

If you wish to argue using emotion, this is not the thread for you.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I can only repeat your own words back to you.



What does "left" or "right" have to do with abortion?

In the UK, abortion is not a matter of left wing or right wing politics, I guess things may be different in the USA?
Click to expand...

becuase in america it is the left that proclaim that a woman has a right to her body, its their arugment for abortion.

if what they state is TRUE, then also my personal property is mind to do as i please, ...is that not correct.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Sorry but you asked me some illogical questions which have no logical bearing on the subject. You didn't address the points I made about the children that would be in care if abortion were banned but instead asked a question I quickly pointed out as illogical.

If you wish to argue using emotion, this is not the thread for you.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask any question. As far as your so called "children in need" that is nothing but a hypothetical conclusion. In short you assume.

You ever think for a second that there are many people in this world that cant have kids but would love one but cant get one if their life depended on it?

You think states like to give kids away?

All I have to say here is follow the money.

You actually think the states don't care about funding? all the while holding orphan kids basically hostage?
 
ernst barkmann said:
becuase in america it is the left that proclaim that a woman has a right to her body, its their arugment for abortion.

if what they state is TRUE, then also my personal property is mind to do as i please, ...is that not correct.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

The argument about rights is valid but there are qualifiers, you have rights up to certain points with personal property and your own body. You can't for example walk down many streets naked just as you can't go and kill others with your personal gun just because it is yours. Those limitations are cultural as well as negotiated against the rights of others.

Jerry said:
What do you need a post 12-week abortion for, anyway?
Click to expand...

Number 1 - it's usually the 20 week foetus check that shows up serious deformity and life threatening conditions.

Number 2 - survival rates for early birth show that only after 34 and 25 weeks does a baby have better chances of surviving outside the womb. 12 to 23 week old foetuses still have very low survival rates.

Number 3 - it's the woman's choice and right.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You didn't ask any question. As far as your so called "children in need" that is nothing but a hypothetical conclusion. In short you assume.

You ever think for a second that there are many people in this world that cant have kids but would love one but cant get one if their life depended on it?

You think states like to give kids away?

All I have to say here is follow the money.

You actually think the states don't care about funding? all the while holding orphan kids basically hostage?
Click to expand...

I did in previous posts.

Of course there are people who would love to adopt but they are not as many as there are children waiting to be adopted. Most kids in care are not soft gooey babies but angry 8 and above year olds on the other side of the system.

Follow the money is correct, people will argue about the pro-choice argument until they have to pay for other people's bad choices.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Thank you.

The argument about rights is valid but there are qualifiers, you have rights up to certain points with personal property and your own body. You can't for example walk down many streets naked just as you can't go and kill others with your personal gun just because it is yours. Those limitations are cultural as well as negotiated against the rights of others.
Click to expand...

sorry i should have added something to my statement, is not my personal property mind to do as i please ,---->as long as i do not infringe on the rights of other people.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I did in previous posts.

Of course there are people who would love to adopt but they are not as many as there are children waiting to be adopted. Most kids in care are not soft gooey babies but angry 8 and above year olds on the other side of the system.

Follow the money is correct, people will argue about the pro-choice argument until they have to pay for other people's bad choices.
Click to expand...

And they're angry 8-year-olds because the system is ****ed..

The simple fact there are a bunch of pissed 8-year-olds only proves my point that it is impossible to adopt a child.

If it was easy to adopt a child they would have a family instead of being used as a pawn by the state.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Number 1 - it's usually the 20 week foetus check that shows up serious deformity and life threatening conditions.

Number 2 - survival rates for early birth show that only after 34 and 25 weeks does a baby have better chances of surviving outside the womb. 12 to 23 week old foetuses still have very low survival rates.

Number 3 - it's the woman's choice and right.
Click to expand...
Wrong answer.

As soon as you answer that question, you loose, because the question is a trap. As soon as you answer it, you confirm that a need is in fact required, and then you try to demonstrate that need.

The correct response to "why do you need that" is "do I have to need something to have it?". Abortion's just an elective, right? Do you have to demonstrate a 'need' for any other therapeutic procedure in order to have it? Breast augmentation? Liposuction? Scar removal? Face lift? As long as no one's being harmed, and pro-choice argues that no one is...shouldn't you be able to have pretty much whatever you have the money for? I had my wisdom teeth removed..I didn't need them removed, I just wanted them out because I thought it would make the rest of my teeth straighten out a bit...and they did. Purely cosmetic elective therapeutic procedure. You're saying I should have to have a need to remove my wisdom teeth.

If it's just a clump of cells, and it's just a therapeutic procedure, then there's no moral quandary to be had. That you try to fulfill a 'need' means there is more than a clump of cells and an elective procedure in play. You betray yourself.
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
This simply means lots of women travelling to the next state for an abortion or worse still - back room abortions if they are not allowed to travel.
Click to expand...
Just as a point...aren't all medical procedures performed in a "back room"? I mean, have you ever seen any non-emergency procedure carried out in the lobby?
 
minnie616 said:
And I feel it is pro lifers and the religious right that has demonized abortion and elevated single women who give birth and thus made single moms into heros.
Click to expand...

There was an article last year posted on the Slate website titled Did the pro life movement lead to more single moms?
One of the things that was pointed out was that red states had a higher rate of single moms.
It also pointed out that when many pro lifers learned that Sarah Palins daughter was single and expecting that pro lifers pointed to her as a good example for the pro life movement since she chose to give birth. The pro life movement was ok with the fact that
Bristol was not going to marry the father of child and even praised her for not getting married to him.
 
Pilot said:
Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation - chicagotribune.com


I don't know the exact wording, but wasn't Roe v. Wade vague in the age of the fetus? I think this is borderline in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling and will probably end up going to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

My preferred cutoff is 20 weeks, but 12 is the very lower range of acceptable for me. It gives the majority of women the time to find out they're pregnant, decide what to do, and get the abortion if they want one. And they leave in all the same exceptions that I would after 12 weeks. So I don't have any real problem with it.

It should be interesting to see what will happen when it's challenged in court, since it does technically restrict abortion in the 1st trimester which goes against Roe vs. Wade.
 
Grant said:
Seeing as sex education doesn't work, as it was once supposed it would, what do you suggest be done to prevent women from becoming pregnant?

There is education, all sorts of contraception devices, the social legacy that the majority of single mothers leave behind, the expense to the State for supporting these people, and the known struggle single mothers...
Click to expand...

The best answer for lowering unwanted pregnancies at the present time is making long term birth control more affordable to all women and men especially the poor.
There was a study done last year in St. Louis where over 9,000 high risk women ( many of them Poor ) were offered Free birth control ( the study was privately funded) of their choice. Long term " goof proof" BC such as the The IUD or implant usually has an up front of $800 to $900 but when given the choice many of the women choose the long the term ones. The birth rates of these teens were cut drastically . It was IIRC less than 10 ( i think it was about 6 point something) compared to a national average of 32.
Abortions were cut down to about one forth of what the national average was.

There is also a long term BC for men which is currently available in Europe and shows a lot of promise.
It is an injection IIRC that causes the sperm to be caught in a gel like substance and renders the male infertile for up to about 10 years. when the male decides he would to have a child he gets a reversal shot and within 3 months he has reached his festival capabilities again. These studies have been conducted over 20 years and were found safe in both animals and humans with no side effects.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i have asked this question over and over, .....but i get no real answer from the left.

if a woman has a right to her body, to do as she please, becuase it is her body.

then does not a person have the right to do with their personal property, as they chose, since it is also their property?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you did't get an answer because you are asking the wrong question. It really iis not so much about doing with her body as she pleases as it is really about the right to privacy in regards to reproductivity.
The right to privacy became a precedent when a case was brought before the Supreme Court in the mid 1960's that required That couples got counseling before they could use BC. The Supreme Court ruled those couples had a " right to privacy " and they could decide how many children they wanted, how many years they chose to space their children apart etc.
 
minnie616 said:
There was an article last year posted on the Slate website titled Did the pro life movement lead to more single moms?
One of the things that was pointed out was that red states had a higher rate of single moms.
It also pointed out that when many pro lifers learned that Sarah Palins daughter was single and expecting that pro lifers pointed to her as a good example for the pro life movement since she chose to give birth. The pro life movement was ok with the fact that
Bristol was not going to marry the father of child and even praised her for not getting married to him.

Every child deserves to be wanted and loved.

There have been over 150 million live births in the USA since Roe vs. Wade.
Click to expand...

So the other side of this coin would be that there are more innocent unborn children killed in the blue states. I'll have to side with those who would preserve and protect the innocent unborn. There is no shame in not killing your unborn child.

Your signature seems pretty sick to me. Would this be the correct interpretation?:
"Every Child deserves to be wanted and loved, or get rid of it." There was a time in this country when killing unborn children was frowned on. The culture crisis is alarming. Red freakin' alert people.
 
Last edited:
Cable said:
So the other side of this coin would be that there are more innocent unborn children killed in the blue states. I'll have to side with those who would preserve and protect the innocent unborn. There is no shame in not killing your unborn child.

Your signature seems pretty sick to me.....
Click to expand...

A fetus is not a child.

As I mentioned before I am a mother to 4 grown children.
I had 6 pregnancies, 4 children and two miscarriages.
My 2 miscarriages were between my second and third children.
One was an early miscarriage at about 5 to 6 weeks gestation.
I was about 20 weeks gestation when I had my second miscarriage.
I went to the ER when I had early labor pains hoping they could stop the labor and that the pregnancy would continue and I would give birth to a healthy baby. The nurse took a pregnancy test and told me that I was no longer pregnant.
My OB was out of town and the OB who was covering for him did not want to in that day so they shot me full of meds hoping to stop the labor. They took to a room with other women who had given birth to healthy babies. When I was transferring from the gurney to my bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw how deformed it was. My doctor told me that the fetus would never have been viable even if I had carried it longer.
That fetus was never a child or a person.
It never would have been a child.
It was a miscarriage in making from the day I conceived.

I love children and I wish that every child had a loving home.
I am concerned about the children who are caught in child protective services and long for a loving home.
That is what my signature means....i wish all those Children would be adopted into loving homes...
Every child deserves to be wanted and loved.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Perhaps you did't get an answer because you are asking the wrong question. It really iis not so much about doing with her body as she pleases as it is really about the right to privacy in regards to reproductivity.
The right to privacy became a precedent when a case was brought before the Supreme Court in the mid 1960's that required That couples got counseling before they could use BC. The Supreme Court ruled those couples had a " right to privacy " and they could decide how many children they wanted, how many years they chose to space their children apart etc.
Click to expand...

well i have neard many times, about what a woman can do with her body, but again, is a person's property theirs to do as they please if it does not violate the RIGHTS of another person?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well i have neard many times, about what a woman can do with her body, but again, is a person's property theirs to do as they please if it does not violate the RIGHTS of another person?
Click to expand...

Of course it is, but another human being is NOT property. That's why someone whom say kills a pregnant woman of 12 weeks can be prosecuted for not 1, but 2 murders....The mother, and the unborn child.
 
j-mac said:
Of course it is, but another human being is NOT property. That's why someone whom say kills a pregnant woman of 12 weeks can be prosecuted for not 1, but 2 murders....The mother, and the unborn child.
Click to expand...

i am asking a simple question, does one's personal property, belong to them to do anything with it, as long as the rights of another person are not violated?
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am asking a simple question, does one's personal property, belong to them to do anything with it, as long as the rights of another person are not violated?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that a human being can be another's, "personal property"?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well i have neard many times, about what a woman can do with her body, but again, is a person's property theirs to do as they please if it does not violate the RIGHTS of another person?
Click to expand...

Maybe you have heard that many times, but that is not what the law about right to privacy is all about.it is only what some people say.

As far as your question I will need to research the laws more before I give you an answer.
All rights have limits and I do not know what property you talking about.
Are you referring to your money ? Real estate you own? Your home? Your computer? Perhaps a gun you own? Perhaps a business you own?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom