• 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]

The constitution does not define "free", "speech" or the term "free speech".

Really?

The simple fact I'm not in jail or you're not in jail for talking **** proves otherwise.

If I was wrong then most likely you wouldn't be sitting where you're at right now talking **** - you'd be in a North Korean style prison camp.
 
More like the Surpreme Courts opinion.

Unborn victims of violence refers to feticide which is an act against a fetus not an act against a person.

Yes, it's quite right that it was the opinion of the Supreme Court. As we know these opinions can change substantially over time, which is quite likely why the pro-abortionists don't want to revisit the issue.

Why is there a law against feticide at all if it's nothing but a group of cells?
 
On a related note, this (the Arkansas law) is how the pro-life movement should have been concentrating from the get-go. By enacting legislation in the majority of states limiting abortion in the allowed to legislate after viability stage they would establish the will of the people against abortion. This would have gone a long way towards convincing the court and the federal legislature to check their ****.
 
Again, untrue. States may regulate abortion (as in ban) after viability (again a definition the court spun out of wholecloth). Your statement is debunked by the states that have laws banning late term abortion (and have been upheld).

Wrong. States may not ban abortion. They can regulate it, but they can't ban it

The laws concerning late term abortions allow late term abortions when the mothers life or health is in danger. Those laws are not bans
 
Really?

The simple fact I'm not in jail or you're not in jail for talking **** proves otherwise.

If I was wrong then most likely you wouldn't be sitting where you're at right now talking **** - you'd be in a North Korean style prison camp.

No, we're not in jail because SCOTUS has made many decisions defining how the 1st amend can be applied
 
Yes, it's quite right that it was the opinion of the Supreme Court. As we know these opinions can change substantially over time, which is quite likely why the pro-abortionists don't want to revisit the issue.

Why is there a law against feticide at all if it's nothing but a group of cells?

Until SCOTUS decides otherwise, the unborn are not persons and have no right to life
 
Wrong. States may not ban abortion. They can regulate it, but they can't ban it

The laws concerning late term abortions allow late term abortions when the mothers life or health is in danger. Those laws are not bans

Typical wiggle when you are proven wrong. All bans in law have exceptions.
 
But with the rapid increases in medical knowledge, if viability is the issue, then the State may have the right, with professional input, to put a time limit on when an abortion might take place.

Only if approved by the Supreme Court. The anti-life persons take away the human factor in the case of an abortion, the female, and pretend she doesn't exist. That will be the final decision on abortion. The human rights of women.
 
But with the rapid increases in medical knowledge, if viability is the issue, then the State may have the right, with professional input, to put a time limit on when an abortion might take place.

Unfortunately studies show that while survivability for babies born netween 24 and 25 weeks have improved, there has not been an improvement in the rate of survival for babies born less than 23 weeks into pregnancy. 9 out of 100 born less than 23 weeks old surviving and even then with severe disability is not a good reason to lower the abortion limit.
 
I'm glad to see that Arkansas is trying to make progress on advancing human rights and correcting our time's worst atrocity.
 
An example would be?

Choose any law. Murder for instance, the exception would be in self defense or the defense of others. Drugs, certain drugs are banned at the state and federal level, but there are exceptions for religious ceremony and medical experimentation.
 
No, we're not in jail because SCOTUS has made many decisions defining how the 1st amend can be applied

Guess what? the SCOTUS didn't write the Bill of Rights.

Also, if we need 9 Goddamn individuals to interpret something as simple as a Dr. Seuss book then this nation is doomed.

"Ice is cold" do we need a panel to interpret that?
 
Choose any law. Murder for instance, the exception would be in self defense or the defense of others. Drugs, certain drugs are banned at the state and federal level, but there are exceptions for religious ceremony and medical experimentation.

Wrong. Self defense is not an exception

If you kill someone in self-defense, then it's not murder.

Drugs are not banned. Illegal possession is banned. Possessing those drugs for certain purposes are not "illegal possession"
 
Choose any law. Murder for instance, the exception would be in self defense or the defense of others. Drugs, certain drugs are banned at the state and federal level, but there are exceptions for religious ceremony and medical experimentation.

I'm asking you a specific example of your statement that ANY laws have exceptions.
 
That still doesn't change that she could make the decision herself to do with her own body.

Well yes, everyone can do what they want with their bodies if you choose to make that stretch. We can make our bodies rob, rape, murder and so on, but the law still can respond to what we do with our bodies, such as incarcerate them indefinitely.
That's the idealised picture, but what is the reality? Can you enumerate the chance of a happy family home?

My theory, unlike yours, is the pro-abortionists came from unhappy homes and the idea of happy homes sounds rather foreign to them. Would you agree?

They do once they pass 24 weeks within the womb.

Actually that is not so. In many areas they have late term abortions that go well beyond 24 weeks.

You claimed abortion was immoral, can you explain why?

Because it is the taking of a life. It's about personal responsibility and how we value ourselves.

"We" don't abort babies, women do for a variety of reasons.

'Women' don't abort babies, abortionists do.

Very few could be called "immoral."

According to you, yes.

The point remains that making women carry through to full term the 50 million babies would have an impact on society through large numbers of babies ending up in care homes.

Actually demographics say otherwise. Women in the democracies are not having enough babies, which is why many countries are importing people from less well off areas of the world in order to pay the taxes on the social programs. We can see the social turmoil that this often creates.
If there were no children in care homes because they were being found safe good homes very quickly, you might have a point but you don't. Facts on the ground don't support you.

In fact there are many families hoping to adopt, with many having to go overseas to find a child.

You are presupposing. Firstly those children have to be cared for in care homes, then the expense of finding, vetting and transferring to family homes if they exist in the numbers that equal the number of children who would be born.

There are many who would volunteer to find good homes for babies rather than having them aborted or abused.. The government need not be involved.
 
Wrong. Self defense is not an exception

If you kill someone in self-defense, then it's not murder.

Drugs are not banned. Illegal possession is banned. Possessing those drugs for certain purposes are not "illegal possession"

And just a wiggly way of saying the same thing. You're obvious - when you start debating semantics we all know it's simply because you know your arguments have been proven wrong.
 
I'm asking you a specific example of your statement that ANY laws have exceptions.

I gave you two. Can you think of any that don't? Even jaywalking laws have exceptions.
 
And just a wiggly way of saying the same thing. You're obvious - when you start debating semantics we all know it's simply because you know your arguments have been proven wrong.

When someone wants to ignore what their words actually mean, then they cry "semantics" because they don't want to stand up for their own claims
 
Wrong. Self defense is not an exception

If you kill someone in self-defense, then it's not murder.

Drugs are not banned. Illegal possession is banned. Possessing those drugs for certain purposes are not "illegal possession"

Example:

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

CA has three exceptions to murder.
 
Unfortunately studies show that while survivability for babies born netween 24 and 25 weeks have improved, there has not been an improvement in the rate of survival for babies born less than 23 weeks into pregnancy. 9 out of 100 born less than 23 weeks old surviving and even then with severe disability is not a good reason to lower the abortion limit.

Yes, that is true for the moment but medical knowledge continues to expand and there is no apparent reason why babies might be viable in less that 24, 20 or 16 weeks. Laws in these areas cannot be written in stone.
 
Example:

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

CA has three exceptions to murder.

Those are not exceptions to murder. They describe circumstances under which the killing of a human is not murder
 
Back
Top Bottom