• 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]

I appreciate your thoughtful response Minnie.
I have to disagree with your thoughts on an unborn child. While I understand there are times when an unborn child is not going to make it due to deformities or similar circumstances, these circumstances do not have anything to do with the decision of a mother to end the life of her unborn child. Your experience that you've provided does not say anything meaningful about an unborn child's personhood. There are documented instances of an "aborted" child being born alive and surviving. I had a friend who was born at 6 months, and he survived and seems to be doing fine. Other children in this country are aborted at that age in the womb. This fact is more than tragic in my mind. The simple fact is that we don't know at what point a fetus becomes a person. Many will make arbitrary decisions about it, but the simple fact is we don't know the instant. In my mind, because we are dealing with a human life, we must err on the side of caution in this regard.
I have a firm belief in a Creator, my God. I believe that our lives are created at conception, our life, our spirit, our soul. This is why I believe that abortion at any point is just dead wrong, forgive the pun.
I can understand that those who do not believe in God, see no wrong here. Honestly, in that world there really isn't anything ever wrong to do, just illegal or unpopular. Right or wrong is no longer the question.

Regarding your signature, I'll stand somewhat corrected. By itself it is a wonderful statement. Coupled with a pro-abortion stance, it just seems horrific to me. It's interesting what context will do to a simple statement.
 
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...

Is this a rhetorical question? I ask because our laws clearly show that property is subject to the controls placed on it by our local, state, and federal governments.
 
minnie616 said:
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?
Click to expand...

any of my personal property, home, land ,business, materal goods.
 
Cable said:
Is this a rhetorical question? I ask because our laws clearly show that property is subject to the controls placed on it by our local, state, and federal governments.
Click to expand...


constutional law states according to madison, states..... my property rights are as strong as my right to free speech.

can (federal law) take away my natural right to free speech, and can federal law take away my natural right to my property.
 
ernst barkmann said:
constutional law states according to madison, states..... my property rights are as strong as my right to free speech.

can (federal law) take away my natural right to free speech, and can federal law take away my natural right to my property.
Click to expand...

But we are not talking about your land, or your machinery, or any other non biological entity here. We are talking about an unborn child, in the womb. The most defenseless among us. When do natural rights occur?
 
Cable said:
I appreciate your thoughtful response Minnie.
I have to disagree with your thoughts on an unborn child. While I understand there are times when an unborn child is not going to make it due to deformities or similar circumstances, these circumstances do not have anything to do with the decision of a mother to end the life of her unborn child. Your experience that you've provided does not say anything meaningful about an unborn child's personhood. There are documented instances of an "aborted" child being born alive and surviving. I had a friend who was born at 6 months, and he survived and seems to be doing fine. Other children in this country are aborted at that age in the womb. This fact is more than tragic in my mind. The simple fact is that we don't know at what point a fetus becomes a person. Many will make arbitrary decisions about it, but the simple fact is we don't know the instant. In my mind, because we are dealing with a human life, we must err on the side of caution in this regard.
I have a firm belief in a Creator, my God. I believe that our lives are created at conception, our life, our spirit, our soul. This is why I believe that abortion at any point is just dead wrong, forgive the pun.
I can understand that those who do not believe in God, see no wrong here. Honestly, in that world there really isn't anything ever wrong to do, just illegal or unpopular. Right or wrong is no longer the question.

Regarding your signature, I'll stand somewhat corrected. By itself it is a wonderful statement. Coupled with a pro-abortion stance, it just seems horrific to me. It's interesting what context will do to a simple statement.
Click to expand...

As I have stated before I agree with Roe vs Wade that once viability is reached ( the limit of viability is 24 weeks and has remained unchanged for the last 12 years) abortions should only take place in the extreme cases. In fact less than .08 of all legal abortions that take place in USA occur at or after 24 weeks gestation. They are the extreme cases. The cases where the woman's life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function will occur if the pregnancy were allowed to continue , where the fetus died a natural death in womb and was not expelled ( yes , removing a dead fetus from a womb is also called abortion and is counted as part that .08 percent if it occurs after 24 weeks gestation ) where it will be stillborn or is so deformed it will only live a few minutes or hours.

Since partial birth was banned back when President G W Bush was President no legal abortion will result in a live birth.
We can all be thankful for that.

I also am a firm believer in God. I am a Christian and the church I belong to and I do not believe that life or ensoulment begins at conception. We believe it happens later in the pregnancy. We support the right for a woman to choose to have an early abortion.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I understand and respect your your opinion we just disagree on when ensoulment and personhood begins.
 
ernst barkmann said:
constutional law states according to madison, states..... my property rights are as strong as my right to free speech.

can (federal law) take away my natural right to free speech, and can federal law take away my natural right to my property.
Click to expand...

Currently, yes.
 
minnie616 said:
As I have stated before I agree with Roe vs Wade that once viability is reached....
Click to expand...

The question of "viability" is a common excuse of those supporting elective abortion of convenience. Now, I am not saying that you are one, nor am I suggesting that this response is proposed in any sort of slight in your direction, but, if we are to accept 'scientific theory' as fact, then life begins at the cellular level, therefore, the moment that cell divides, and attaches to the uterine wall then it is life, and since it won't gestate into a dog, cat, cow, or any other life other than a human being, then the protection of the constitution should apply to it from the start, IMHO.
 
j-mac said:
But we are not talking about your land, or your machinery, or any other non biological entity here. We are talking about an unborn child, in the womb. The most defenseless among us. When do natural rights occur?
Click to expand...

i am using my question as a precurser to the question of rights of a person.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is not what i am asking, is my property, land, business, home,car, mine to do as i please, if i do not violate the rights of any other person?
Click to expand...

Then I would suggest that you are in the wrong thread. This one is about the AR law stopping abortion at 12 weeks. Further, even though your question as defined by you here is off topic, I will say that Yes, your property is YOURS. Or at least by theory is your to do with as you please...However, we both know that progressive policy in this country has chipped away at that for a century.
 
minnie616 said:
I also am a firm believer in God. I am a Christian and the church I belong to and I do not believe that life or ensoulment begins at conception. We believe it happens later in the pregnancy. We support the right for a woman to choose to have an early abortion.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I understand and respect your your opinion we just disagree on when ensoulment and personhood begins.
Click to expand...

Thanks Minnie. Do you have some biblical or even scientific basis for forming your opinion as to when a fetus is a person?
 
j-mac said:
Then I would suggest that you are in the wrong thread. This one is about the AR law stopping abortion at 12 weeks. Further, even though your question as defined by you here is off topic, I will say that Yes, your property is YOURS. Or at least by theory is your to do with as you please...However, we both know that progressive policy in this country has chipped away at that for a century.
Click to expand...

what iam asking it really a doubled edge sword, and no one will answer.

it has been stated you have a (right to privacy) according to a 1960 USSC decison...which means-----------> being secure in your person, your body.

if you have a right to be secure in you person, which is your property, becuase ...you own you.

do you have a right to YOUR property, what ever that property may be.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how can federal law override constitutional law?
Click to expand...

If we can figure that out we might get back the heart, soul, and spirit of the country as it was intended.
These Progressives are a devious lot. They have figured out how to play the middle against both ends.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am using my question as a precurser to the question of rights of a person.
Click to expand...

However, your question is a poor analogy. This is why I asked you if you thought that another human could be personal property. Answer that, and I am willing to entertain the road you are going down....
 
ernst barkmann said:
constutional law states according to madison, states..... my property rights are as strong as my right to free speech.

can (federal law) take away my natural right to free speech, and can federal law take away my natural right to my property.
Click to expand...

All laws can have restrictions. You have a right to free speech but you cannot yell " fire" in a crowed building if there is no fire.
You have a right to your property but cities can pass zoning laws that forbid certain things such as no fences. Of course if there is a state law that says pools have to surrounded by a fence and you have a pool in your yard the state law takes precedence and you have to have a fence.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:
constutional law states according to madison, states..... my property rights are as strong as my right to free speech.

can (federal law) take away my natural right to free speech, and can federal law take away my natural right to my property.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this line of argument falls down as soon as you leave the borders of the United States. For me the discussion of abortion as a right or otherwise is not limited by borders or local constitutions. Women everywhere have babies, women everywhere have abortions and that's the discussion line I'm taking. I'll leave your question to Americans to answer as it has no relevance beyond your borders whereas the question of abortion and the human foetus is an international question.

Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...

It should be hard to adopt a kid, you can't just have anyone walk up and adopt a child for whatever purpose. Of course the same scrutiny doesn't apply to people having their own kids but when wards of the state the state has an obligation to care for the children. Anyhow, just a quick peruse of your nations adopt a kid website shows that many kids of different ages (not just young) are awaiting adoption. Interesting that there are a high proportion of families of children which means children taken away or removed from parents in some way.

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

You what? How on earth does that respond to my answers? All that's betrayed is your agenda.

Jerry said:
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?
Click to expand...

Very funny point I am very sure. This seems to follow on the last post's line of reasoning.

I'll respond when you can deal with my argument a little more coherently thank you.
 
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...

Do you have a link to a US example of this law please? I know an MP tried to bring in a private member's bill in 2008 here following cases of the murder of pregnant girlfriends in Canada but it didn't become law and even then the MP wanted his bill to apply only to wanted fetuses, not the unwanted.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
If a woman rents her body out it is still her choice to make, she has rights over her own body so I don't see how your point addresses what I said?
Click to expand...

She will be arrested as a prostitute. She can use that explanation with the judge but she might still go to jail.
The fallacy many pro-life people make is that all these children would have happy caring homes to go to. In the last set of US statistics, 400,000 children were in care. Not adopted and not living idyllic rosy happy lives.
Click to expand...

I certainly never said ALL these children but if they were allowed to be born at least they would have a chance to live in a happy caring home. If they find they are not happy then perhaps they can later self abort, but that decision should not be made for them. It's also highly unlikely they would make that decision as they probably appreciate the value and opportunity of life moreso than the abortionist or the potential mother who doesn't want to be inconvenienced. Perhaps these children should also should have some rights over their bodies.
Please explain?
Click to expand...

Explain what? It seems I was quite clear.

Yeah, add another 50 million humans to the equation, if a large proportion of those unwanted kids had gone on to be born - what percentage would be adopted / in foster care / in children's homes?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but should we abort babies because you don't know which home they might go to? I'm sure there are people who have an understanding of where children are wanted and have homes available for these babies.

Would pro-lifers be happy to foot the bill for all those extra millions?
Click to expand...

It seems clear they would. Those babies who were aborted are also those who would grow up to be taxpayers to support the social programs initiated by the same people who expect these social programs. Who is to pay for these programs if we are killing millions of the next generation?
 
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...

If this person has the right to privacy then they should not expect someone else to pay for it. That is an invasion of another persons privacy, and their pocketbook. They can't expect to want their privacy and then go public with their demands when it suits them.
 
Grant said:
If this person has the right to privacy then they should not expect someone else to pay for it. That is an invasion of another persons privacy, and their pocketbook. They can't expect to want their privacy and then go public with their demands when it suits them.
Click to expand...

No taxpayer monies are used for abortions as the Hyde amendment forbids using taxpayer monies for abortions.
I don't understand what you are trying to say in your last sentence.

Right to privacy means reproductive rights.
The right to privacy means they get to plan their families, they get to plan the number of children they want, how far apart they want their children etc.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what iam asking it really a doubled edge sword, and no one will answer.

it has been stated you have a (right to privacy) according to a 1960 USSC decison...which means-----------> being secure in your person, your body.

if you have a right to be secure in you person, which is your property, becuase ...you own you.

do you have a right to YOUR property, what ever that property may be.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are going with this, however, one argument may well be that although you have a right to be secure in your person from unreasonable search, and or seizure, the moment you are talking about a separate life, as in the child growing inside you, that person has the same right to be secure.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You what? How on earth does that respond to my answers? All that's betrayed is your agenda.



Very funny point I am very sure. This seems to follow on the last post's line of reasoning.

I'll respond when you can deal with my argument a little more coherently thank you.
Click to expand...
No need to cry just because I called you out on your hyperbole.

Even when abortion was illegal, most abortions were performed by doctors in their office. What you meant to say was "back ally", not "back room", meaning the doctor would let the patient into the office through an ally exit so as not to be seen. It doesn't mean the abortion was performed in an ally.

Back-ally abortion;

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/2157/26/5 Myths About “Back Alley” Abortions

Myth #1. Illegal abortions were performed by unlicensed, unskilled hacks.

Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians. Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training.

The term “back alley” referred not to where abortions were performed, but to how women were instructed to enter the doctor’s office after hours, through the back alley, to avoid arousing neighbors’ suspicions.
Click to expand...

An illegal abortion may be called a "back-alley", "backstreet", or "back-yard" abortion.

The wire coat hanger method was a popularly known illegal abortion procedure, although they were not the norm. In fact, Mary Calderone, former medical director of Planned Parenthood, said, in a 1960 printing of the American Journal of Public Health:

"Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind, second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians."


Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
No taxpayer monies are used for abortions as the Hyde amendment forbids using taxpayer monies for abortions.
Click to expand...

No way to prove that though. PP can say all they want that they don't use taxpayer funds in their abortion side, but the funds are not segregated, and therefore, since money is fungible, I'd be more than willing to bet that it is indeed the case that taxpayer money goes for abortion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom