• 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]

So:

1. You consider us to be more logical an rational than our ancestors.
2. Abortion is far more regulated and restrictive now.
3. So, you seem to be saying that laws and restrictions are more logical and rational.

I'm saying that a woman who 'chooses' to have an abortion...can be very rational and logical. And any law created that protects a woman's right to choose and helps prevent any unnecessary harm to her...is logical and rational.
 
Here is the short answer.

At the time Roe was decided, the court said that there were no laws that treated a human fetus as a 'person.'

The Federal 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act' and many of the State laws against fetal homicide since - have changed that.

Unlike the times prior to Roe, we now make it a crime of murder to unjustly kill a child in utero and at any stage of their development.

You believe that that would be the primary argument used in overturning Roe v. Wade?

I believe that if that's your premise...I would disagree. Women who are pregnant...and are victims of a physical crime resulting in the death of either her...or the fetus...or both...I argue that a victim of such a crime happened to a woman who "CHOSE" to be pregnant and wanted to give birth "in most cases".

The federal law regarding the death of child utero...doesn't define that fetus as a legal person. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
 
You believe that that would be the primary argument used in overturning Roe v. Wade?

I believe that if that's your premise...I would disagree. Women who are pregnant...and are victims of a physical crime resulting in the death of either her...or the fetus...or both...I argue that a victim of such a crime happened to a woman who "CHOSE" to be pregnant and wanted to give birth "in most cases".

The federal law regarding the death of child utero...doesn't define that fetus as a legal person. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

By making it a crime of murder, they have defined the victim as a legal 'person.'
 
[B said:
Welliam Wittier;1061564500]By making it a crime of murder, they have defined the victim as a legal 'person.[/B]'

I disagree.

On April 1, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as "Laci and Conner's Law." The new law states that any "child in utero" is considered to be a legal victim if injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. The bills definition of "child in utero" is "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

You do not see the word "person" explicitly made or implied. The S.C. is going to have a hard time molding the given definition into "person".
 
It's not just hard, it's impossible. A woman's body is damaged permanently from pregnancy/childbirth. Every woman may not get ALL of this list of permanent effects, but every woman will get some.

THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)

yeah every woman might get some of the insignificant ones listed and not bother with cosmetic surgery because it's insignificant. Every woman WILL NOT get the scary stuff listed if she gets proper prenatal care. Get over your own scare tactics, pregnancy is not a disease.
 
I disagree. You do not see the word "person" explicitly made or implied. The S.C. is going to have a hard time molding the given definition into "person".

It does say child though. Can it be argued that a child is not a person?
 
yeah every woman might get some of the insignificant ones listed and not bother with cosmetic surgery because it's insignificant. Every woman WILL NOT get the scary stuff listed if she gets proper prenatal care. Get over your own scare tactics, pregnancy is not a disease.

It also strongly suggests that women are to be judged by their bodies rather than for other factors.
 
It does say child though. Can it be argued that a child is not a person?

In this case...yes. The law only passed because lawmakers didn't want to be misleading in the intent of creating the Unborn Victims Act.

And please note that the term "child utero" is given a very specific definition in that law.

Unborn Victims Act Definition: "Child in Utero": "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Also, written in the Unborn Victims Act - it clearly states that this law was not created for or intended to be a legal instrument used to prosecute woman who have abortions.
 
In this case...yes. The law only passed because lawmakers didn't want to be misleading in the intent of creating the Unborn Victims Act.

And please note that the term "child utero" is given a very specific definition in that law.

Unborn Victims Act Definition: "Child in Utero": "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Also, written in the Unborn Victims Act - it clearly states that this law was not created for or intended to be a legal instrument used to prosecute woman who have abortions.

Whatever the lawmakers intended is not as important as what the words say, and they clearly say "child in utero" and "at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

Thus a child could be in the womb 20 weeks, for example, and legally be considered a child, a person, or a human being.
 
Whatever the lawmakers intended is not as important as what the words say, and they clearly say "child in utero" and "at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

Thus a child could be in the womb 20 weeks, for example, and legally be considered a child, a person, or a human being.

Hey, what can I say? I gave you the facts.

You don't have to agree with the definition included in the Unborn Victims Act. But the Unborn Victims Act very clearly defined the intent for creating that law. And within that law it clearly states that it was NOT CREATED FOR OR INTENDED to be a legal instrument used to prosecute women who have abortions.

A fetus "at any stage of development"...in the Unborn Victims Act...is simply referred to as "VICTIM"...not a person. The legal definition of "Victim" within the Unborn Victims Act can also be referred to as "Child in Utero"...which is not legally making a fetus a "person". And that point is clearly defined in the Act.

You don't have to agree with Roe v. Wade. But it does ambiguously stipulates a "Viability Clause"...which in no way states or makes claim that a fetus at any stage of development is considered to be a person.

So if the language is problematic for you...hey, take it up with the sponsors of that Law.
 
You don't have to agree with the definition included in the Unborn Victims Act. But the Unborn Victims Act very clearly defined the intent for creating that law. And within that law it clearly states that it was NOT CREATED FOR OR INTENDED to be a legal instrument used to prosecute women who have abortions.

The woman need not be prosecuted, but it does establish that a baby in the womb is a child, at any stage of development. Those are very important words.

A fetus "at any stage of development"...in the Unborn Victims Act...is simply referred to as "VICTIM"...not a person. The legal definition of "Victim" within the Unborn Victims Act can also be referred to as "Child in Utero"...which is not legally making a fetus a "person". And that point is clearly defined in the Act.

In fact lawyers can argue quite the opposite, once those words have been included in the law.

You don't have to agree with Roe v. Wade. But it does ambiguously stipulates a "Viability Clause"...which in no way states or makes claim that a fetus at any stage of development is considered to be a person.

It doesn't have to. It's already considered to be a child.

So if the language is problematic for you...hey, take it up with the sponsors of that Law.

It's not a problem for me, but it might be a problem for those who are enthusiastically pro abortion.
 
Originally Posted by OKgrannie
It's not just hard, it's impossible. A woman's body is damaged permanently from pregnancy/childbirth. Every woman may not get ALL of this list of permanent effects, but every woman will get some.

THE LIZ LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)
yeah every woman might get some of the insignificant ones listed and not bother with cosmetic surgery because it's insignificant. Every woman WILL NOT get the scary stuff listed if she gets proper prenatal care. Get over your own scare tactics, pregnancy is not a disease.

There is not one thing prenatal care can do to prevent those effects from occurring. If there were such preventions, the effects would not be labeled Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy

Possible exception: it is possible that prenatal vitamins taken regularly throughout the pregnancy may LESSEN the loss of dental and bone calcium.
 
It's innocence could not be more complete.
Yeah, it's equally as innocent as a rock.


That seems to be the next east step and follow up argument for the pro-abortionists. Deciding when and whose life is more valuable to 'society' is just around the corner. It seems you've inherited the philosophies of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood ( among others) on Eugenics in seeking to create a better society. Who lives and who dies may become a real issue in the coming years given that public debt is in the tens of trillions, the population is aging, there is not enough young people to pay the taxes necessary for the older members of society, or those who are otherwise not contributing their 'fair share'.

That will not a problem resulting from abortion so long as the decision is left in the hands of the individuals affected. When government steps in to apply force, that force can take any direction. Pregnancy/childbirth is not a matter for government to legislate upon.



It is her body, her decision, and her choice to behave irresponsibly. Men no longer play the role they once did and are now largely irresponsible. And why not? We cannot change the role of one gender and not have this reflected in the other. That is the world we've created and which the next generation, though 55 million short, will inherit.

Why do you say men are more irresponsible than previously? Many of us older folks remember a time before DNA when all a man had to do was deny paternity and make himself scarce. It happened frequently.
 
The woman need not be prosecuted, but it does establish that a baby in the womb is a child, at any stage of development. Those are very important words.



In fact lawyers can argue quite the opposite, once those words have been included in the law.



It doesn't have to. It's already considered to be a child.



It's not a problem for me, but it might be a problem for those who are enthusiastically pro abortion.

Hey, I didn't make the laws...just telling you what that particular law stated. Before it was enacted...there were some really touchy problems getting it passed because lawmakers didn't want to create a constitutional problem for it getting passed and at the same time...they didn't want anti-abortion advocated to believe that was a doorway to "personhood".

So again, you might say I'm just the messenger. You don't have to agree with anything I've posted...not even a tiny little bit. Yep, I'm a pro-choice...not pro-abortion. Pro-Abortion is a great little nut-cutting term ...that doesn't define Pro-Choice.

I'm not trying to clash with you over your beliefs regarding abortion, personhood, etc. I'm simply telling you that the Unborn Victims Act is not the legal doorway to personhood for a fetus - regardless of its stage of development.
 
Yeah, it's equally as innocent as a rock.

Yes, that is quite true.

That will not a problem resulting from abortion so long as the decision is left in the hands of the individuals affected. When government steps in to apply force, that force can take any direction. Pregnancy/childbirth is not a matter for government to legislate upon.

In fact the government is sl involved in people's live now that it will not be removed until there is a revolution. But at this point it's clear that the majority of people do want more government in their lives. The last election cycle demonstrates that.
Why do you say men are more irresponsible than previously?

it seems like a clear enough statement. which part of it do you not understand?

Many of us older folks remember a time before DNA when all a man had to do was deny paternity and make himself scarce. It happened frequently.

That's still possible. But what is clear that their are more children being raised without fathers than ever before.

Statistics on Father Absence : National Fatherhood Initaitive

When fathers are excluded from the decision making process the consequences are quite predictable.
 
Hey, I didn't make the laws...just telling you what that particular law stated. Before it was enacted.
..

Yes, I know.

there were some really touchy problems getting it passed because lawmakers didn't want to create a constitutional problem for it getting passed and at the same time...they didn't want anti-abortion advocated to believe that was a doorway to "personhood".

But it seems thats what happened.

So again, you might say I'm just the messenger. You don't have to agree with anything I've posted...not even a tiny little bit. Yep, I'm a pro-choice...not pro-abortion. Pro-Abortion is a great little nut-cutting term ...that doesn't define Pro-Choice.

We both got the message.

I'm not trying to clash with you over your beliefs regarding abortion, personhood, etc. I'm simply telling you that the Unborn Victims Act is not the legal doorway to personhood for a fetus - regardless of its stage of development.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that just reading the law opens up a whole other dimension.
 
There is not one thing prenatal care can do to prevent those effects from occurring. If there were such preventions, the effects would not be labeled Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy

Possible exception: it is possible that prenatal vitamins taken regularly throughout the pregnancy may LESSEN the loss of dental and bone calcium.

ha ha no. scare tactics are never labelled as scare tactics by the person posting them, and just because lack of prenatal care is the norm, doesn't mean that prenatal care is impossible. educate yourself instead of posting scare tactics that are of course not labelled as scare tactics.
 
By making it a crime of murder, they have defined the victim as a legal 'person.'

I disagree.

You do not see the word "person" explicitly made or implied. The S.C. is going to have a hard time molding the given definition into "person".

It does say child though. Can it be argued that a child is not a person?

It also strongly suggests that women are to be judged by their bodies rather than for other factors.

What Reverse is also ignoring is the fact that a person is charged with murder for unjustly killing an unborn child and how the legal definition of murder adds to the support of our claims.

You can't be charged with murder for killing anything other than another human being / person.

He knows this because It's been pointed out before but he wants to act like he never read it at all.
 
..

Yes, I know.

But it seems thats what happened.

We both got the message.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that just reading the law opens up a whole other dimension.

I would probably have the same opinion as you if it were not so clearly spelled out that the intent was not to be construed as a legal doorway to personhood. Soooooo... :confused:

As the saying goes, "We'll see said the blind man to his deaf brother".
 
ha ha no. scare tactics are never labelled as scare tactics by the person posting them, and just because lack of prenatal care is the norm, doesn't mean that prenatal care is impossible. educate yourself instead of posting scare tactics that are of course not labelled as scare tactics.

I am all for making prenatal care available to all pregnant women. But prenatal care doesn't prevent stretch marks, hemorrhoids, pelvic floor disease, or saggy boobs. Just get over it, all women will have some permanent damage to their bodies from pregnancy/childbirth.
 
What Reverse is also ignoring is the fact that a person is charged with murder for unjustly killing an unborn child and how the legal definition of murder adds to the support of our claims.

You can't be charged with murder for killing anything other than another human being / person.

He knows this because It's been pointed out before but he wants to act like he never read it at all.

Alrighty then...whatever churns your butter. I can't argue with the facts that's been stated inside the Act...which it clearly defines the legal definition of VICTIM, aka "child in utero". And the lawmakers were clear about its intent...which it states that in its own words...that that law is not to be taken as a doorway to personhood for a fetus...regardless of what stage of development its in. The lawmakers didn't want a constitutional intervention...so they made their intent known...and a clear definition as to who "victims" were...

So please....please...I'm not the one to be arguing with regarding the Unborn Victims Act. I think the sponsors of that law...might be the place to take up your argument with.

I mean...it says what it says. I didn't write it.
 
I am all for making prenatal care available to all pregnant women.

Prenatal care has always been available to pregnant women.
But prenatal care doesn't prevent stretch marks, hemorrhoids, pelvic floor disease, or saggy boobs.
It was never expected to.

Just get over it, all women will have some permanent damage to their bodies from pregnancy/childbirth.

That has never been in doubt, though some women certainly deal with it better than others.
 
Alrighty then...whatever churns your butter. I can't argue with the facts that's been stated inside the Act...which it clearly defines the legal definition of VICTIM, aka "child in utero". And the lawmakers were clear about its intent...which it states that in its own words...that that law is not to be taken as a doorway to personhood for a fetus...regardless of what stage of development its in. The lawmakers didn't want a constitutional intervention...so they made their intent known...and a clear definition as to who "victims" were...

So please....please...I'm not the one to be arguing with regarding the Unborn Victims Act. I think the sponsors of that law...might be the place to take up your argument with.

I mean...it says what it says. I didn't write it.

Whether the lawmakers intended to do it or not. By making the killing a crime of MURDER, they have legally recognized the personhood of the child killed.

Murder has a specific legal definition.

Also, it's worth noting the many State's Fetal Homicide laws which have expanded on the legal precedents set by the UVOVA.
 
Last edited:
Whether the lawmakers intended to or not. By making the killing a crime of MURDER, they have legally recognized the personhood of the child killed.

Murder has a specific legal definition.

Also, it's worth noting the many State's Fetal Homicide laws which have expanded on the legal precedents set by the UVOVA.

your OPINION and INTERPRETATION of what you think and what has factually been done are not the same.
 
I am all for making prenatal care available to all pregnant women. But prenatal care doesn't prevent stretch marks, hemorrhoids, pelvic floor disease, or saggy boobs. Just get over it, all women will have some permanent damage to their bodies from pregnancy/childbirth.

the only actual harm you listed, pelvic floor disease, as well as the only definite nuisance, hemorrhoids, have been proven to be preventable by prenatal care, the rest are just natural signs of aging, people who do more living tend to do more aging, that's not a disease. what is a disease, is narcissistic hedonism, characterized by by the obsession with the idea that the physical appearance of barely nubile youth is the epitome of beauty, and that the lack of the physical appearance of barely nubile youth, is a disease.
 
Back
Top Bottom