• 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]

Removable Mind said:
Didn't bring up any other state than Arkansas. I'm sure it won't be the end of it. But in the end...I don't think you'll get your wish on the outcome even if it goes to the S.C.
Click to expand...

Welliam Wittier said:
Again, there is only one way to find that out for sure.

You're confident about your side and I'm confident about ours.

So, let's do this!
Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:
Go teams, gooooo!
Click to expand...

"Rita Sklar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for Arkansas, said the ACLU would file suit "as soon as possible"


I guess I should hook up with some legal minds in Arkansas and see if I can be of any assistance.

The ACLJ maybe.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
fine then i should be allowed to kill you because i have the right not to be forced to endure ugliness. your argument isn't a disease but i think it's ugly so i must kill someone to prevent it. it's my right as a woman to kill someone to prevent a minor nuisance because i think it's ugly, fair enough?
Click to expand...

You're losing it! Killing me won't make you prettier or prevent you from getting uglier. Some effects from pregnancy/childbirth are not "a minor nuisance", and anyway what is a minor nuisance to you may be a major problem for someone else. But things like pelvic floor damage are not minor. Certainly if you think the pregnancy/childbirth is making you ugly, you have the right to end it.
 
OKgrannie said:
You're losing it! Killing me won't make you prettier or prevent you from getting uglier. Some effects from pregnancy/childbirth are not "a minor nuisance", and anyway what is a minor nuisance to you may be a major problem for someone else. But things like pelvic floor damage are not minor. Certainly if you think the pregnancy/childbirth is making you ugly, you have the right to end it.
Click to expand...

Pelvic Floor Disease is preventable with prenatal care. Killing a baby because it's cheaper than medical costs isn't a human right. Neither is Killing a baby to avoid looking older afterward. NOT. A. HUMAN. RIGHT. PERIOD. Now, if the mother's life were in danger and prenatal care couldn't prevent it from being in danger, then abortion would be a human right. but that doesn't happen so IT'S. nOT. A. HUMAN . RIGHT. TO . KILL. ANOTHER . HUMAN. JUST . BECAUSE . YOU . FEEL . LIKE. IT. PERIOD.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
Pelvic Floor Disease is preventable with prenatal care. Killing a baby because it's cheaper than medical costs isn't a human right. Neither is Killing a baby to avoid looking older afterward. NOT. A. HUMAN. RIGHT. PERIOD. Now, if the mother's life were in danger and prenatal care couldn't prevent it from being in danger, then abortion would be a human right. but that doesn't happen so IT'S. nOT. A. HUMAN . RIGHT. TO . KILL. ANOTHER . HUMAN. JUST . BECAUSE . YOU . FEEL . LIKE. IT. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

good thing thats not what abortion is huh?

but hey feel free to make other stuff up

also news flash, as for the underlined part

during pregnancy the mothers life is factually always at risk :shrug: so i guess you think abortion is a human right then
 
Objective-J said:
good thing thats not what abortion is huh?

but hey feel free to make other stuff up

also news flash, as for the underlined part

during pregnancy the mothers life is factually always at risk :shrug: so i guess you think abortion is a human right then
Click to expand...

during driving the drivers and passengers lives are always at risk. WAAAAAYYYYY more risk than pregnancy causes. so i guess you think blowing up the roads is a human right, huh.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
I've already explained to you that Pelvic Floor Disease and Hemorrhoids are totally preventable by prenatal care, so now you're claiming that saggy tits, which happens only to women who choose to breastfeed, and stretchmarks, which by the way is preventable by prenatal care, are deadly diseases? If you are asserting that the women will be so depressed about these details that they will kill themselves if they get them, you're nuts. Laser surgery to correct them costs about the same as an abortion to prevent them. Also, they'd have to be nuts. your disgusting hedonism makes you not worth them killing themselves over your opinion of them., they can just wear clothes around people like you, and go nude around people who don't find stretch marks and saggy tits to be a horror story. Any woman with complete prenatal care , out of all the list of "horrors" you cited. will only face sagging tits, noting else on the list, and not even those if she bottle feeds. by the way every time i take my clothes off in my swinger lifestyle, both the men and the bisexual in the room say that i'm beautiful and that my tits are beautiful, and i gave birth twice and breastfed two babies, and forget the test of whether i can hold a pencil under my tit, i can hold a whole pack of pencils under my tits. my tits sag and so one who has seen them has ever called them ugly. i've also never died as a result of them sagging. .
Click to expand...

And I have explained to you that prenatal care does NOT prevent that damage. And women have sagging breasts as a result from pregnancy even if they do not breast feed. How important the damage from pregnancy/childbirth is will depend upon the woman. Some will be devastated by the damage, of course some will have worse damage than others, while some, like you, will find it unimportant. The point is that it is the woman's choice. Simply saying to women that they're crazy if they don't like what has happened to their bodies will have little benefit.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
during driving the drivers and passengers lives are always at risk. WAAAAAYYYYY more risk than pregnancy causes. so i guess you think blowing up the roads is a human right, huh.
Click to expand...

this analogy makes ZERO sense because there is no force involved LMAO
how old are you? im starting to think you are late teens at best.

the amount of risk doesnt matter, you have no right to force somebody to risk their life against their will, do you not understand this?
 
Objective-J said:
this analogy makes ZERO sense because there is no force involved LMAO
how old are you? im starting to think you are late teens at best.

the amount of risk doesnt matter, you have no right to force somebody to risk their life against their will, do you not understand this?
Click to expand...

Yeah sure *eyeroll like a teenager* just because being pregnant isn't any more dangerous than living an ordinary life while not pregnant, don't give me the right to say that a woman can't have an abortion to prevent the risk of death by pregnancy, and then having an abortion and having NOT reducing her risk of death by doing so! <---Sarcasm like a teenager
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
Yeah sure *eyeroll like a teenager* just because being pregnant isn't any more dangerous than living an ordinary life while not pregnant, don't give me the right to say that a woman can't have an abortion to prevent the risk of death by pregnancy, and then having an abortion and having NOT reducing her risk of death by doing so! <---Sarcasm like a teenager
Click to expand...

1.) your post doesnt make any logical sense
2.) again you are missing the FORCE part

its all about force

you can focus on RISK all you want but you cant FORCE risk on somebody

for example

me and you are on a plane, you have 100 hours logged at sky diving, you have two chutes, perfectly packed, you an expert by now

BUT for whatever reason you decide you do not want to jump out the plane today

so I push you out the plane against your will since i know theres less than a 1% risk you will die

did i commit a crime?
could i be charged with a crime?
maybe a crime as high as reckless endangerment or attempted murder?

better yet what if that less than 1% is today and you do die, both your chutes dont open in a freak accident

do you think ill be charged with a type of murder?


or, because the risk was less than 1% i did nothing wrong and it was absolutely ok for me to force you against your will to risk you life since you know, the risk is so low



like i said, theres factually risk and you have no right to force that on anybody against their will.

this is not a hard concept, even IF you are a teenager. .
 
Objective-J said:
1.) your post doesnt make any logical sense
2.) again you are missing the FORCE part

its all about force

you can focus on RISK all you want but you cant FORCE risk on somebody

for example

me and you are on a plane, you have 100 hours logged at sky diving, you have two chutes, perfectly packed, you an expert by now

BUT for whatever reason you decide you do not want to jump out the plane today

so I push you out the plane against your will since i know theres less than a 1% risk you will die

did i commit a crime?
could i be charged with a crime?
maybe a crime as high as reckless endangerment or attempted murder?

better yet what if that less than 1% is today and you do die, both your chutes dont open in a freak accident

do you think ill be charged with a type of murder?


or, because the risk was less than 1% i did nothing wrong and it was absolutely ok for me to force you against your will to risk you life since you know, the risk is so low



like i said, theres factually risk and you have no right to force that on anybody against their will.

this is not a hard concept, even IF you are a teenager. .
Click to expand...

Risk of jumping out of a small plane with a parachute vs. staying in plane: 19% higher ( I accept as your premise) Risk of staying in plane vs. staying on ground: let's say 19% higher just for laughs. and if it's your body your choice (meaning you're not pregnant and forcing an unborn baby to take that risk with you) then you chose the 19% higher risk. whether or not you chose to get out of the plane has no comparison to abortion. you either chose the increased risk of getting in the plane to begin with, or you didn't. If that's your mother wearing a parachute and you weren't born yet, you didn't choose it, and it's your life at risk and it's not her choice, because it's your body and your life. pregnancy without prenatal care has 19% more risk of death than no pregnancy. i didn't copy your number, that's the actual number. pregnancy with proper prenatal care has no more risk of death than no pregnancy. even a teenager can understand that. giving a woman proper prenatal care eliminates the risk of death caused by pregnancy. Even a teenager can understand that. Would forcing a woman to get proper prenatal care be wrong? Yes, but no woman would ever choose not to get proper prenatal care, EVER, so that's a total lie of a point you're making about "FORCE" in capital letters. Is proper prenatal care available to every pregnant woman? No. Would it be if the tax funds spent on abortion, were spent on prenatal care? Yes. Did taxpayers CHOOSE for those funds to be spent on Family Planning? Yes. Were taxpayers told when they were voting, that Family Planning would use 99% of it on proper prenatal care? Yes. Were taxpayers told when they were voting, that 97% of the funds would be spent on abortions? NO. Taxpayers CHOSE to spend the funds on proper prenatal care but were FORCED to spend them on abortion. Women who need proper prenatal care and can't afford it, CAN NOT CHOOSE to get proper prenatal care through Family Planning. that CHOICE has been TAKEN FROM THEM because Family Planning says they would love to help but don't have to funds to do so. They end up being FORCED to take a 19% risk of death and then being FORCED to ["CHOOSE" <--- sarcasm] between their own death and the baby's death. FORCING a woman to make that ["CHOICE" <---sarcasm] is FASCIST, ANTI-CHOICE and wrong. Even a teenager can understand that.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
Risk of jumping out of a small plane with a parachute vs. staying in plane: 19% higher ( I accept as your premise) Risk of staying in plane vs. staying on ground: let's say 19% higher just for laughs. and if it's your body your choice (meaning you're not pregnant and forcing an unborn baby to take that risk with you) then you chose the 19% higher risk. whether or not you chose to get out of the plane has no comparison to abortion. you either chose the increased risk of getting in the plane to begin with, or you didn't. If that's your mother wearing a parachute and you weren't born yet, you didn't choose it, and it's your life at risk and it's not her choice, because it's your body and your life. pregnancy without prenatal care has 19% more risk of death than no pregnancy. i didn't copy your number, that's the actual number. pregnancy with proper prenatal care has no more risk of death than no pregnancy. even a teenager can understand that. giving a woman proper prenatal care eliminates the risk of death caused by pregnancy. Even a teenager can understand that. Would forcing a woman to get proper prenatal care be wrong? Yes, but no woman would ever choose not to get proper prenatal care, EVER, so that's a total lie of a point you're making about "FORCE" in capital letters. Is proper prenatal care available to every pregnant woman? No. Would it be if the tax funds spent on abortion, were spent on prenatal care? Yes. Did taxpayers CHOOSE for those funds to be spent on Family Planning? Yes. Were taxpayers told when they were voting, that Family Planning would use 99% of it on proper prenatal care? Yes. Were taxpayers told when they were voting, that 97% of the funds would be spent on abortions? NO. Taxpayers CHOSE to spend the funds on proper prenatal care but were FORCED to spend them on abortion. Women who need proper prenatal care and can't afford it, CAN NOT CHOOSE to get proper prenatal care through Family Planning. that CHOICE has been TAKEN FROM THEM because Family Planning says they would love to help but don't have to funds to do so. They end up being FORCED to take a 19% risk of death and then being FORCED to ["CHOOSE" <--- sarcasm] between their own death and the baby's death. FORCING a woman to make that ["CHOICE" <---sarcasm] is FASCIST, ANTI-CHOICE and wrong. Even a teenager can understand that.
Click to expand...

wow you simply dont get it, your post changes absolutley nothing and is a meanignless rant, its not even on topic LMAO

you are still focusing on the risk, the risk doesnt matter

you cant FORCE somebody to risk their life against their will, sorry this wont change based on your OPINIONS

I also noticed you didnt answer any of my questions, i wonder why?????
are you going to dodge questions again?

i definitley think you are young because i have no clue how you think your post pretains to anything being discussed.

ill ask my questions AGAIN, lets see if you dodge them

did i commit a crime?
could i be charged with a crime?
maybe a crime as high as reckless endangerment or attempted murder?

better yet what if that less than 1% is today and you do die, both your chutes dont open in a freak accident

do you think ill be charged with a type of murder?

or, because the risk was less than 1% i did nothing wrong and it was absolutely ok for me to force you against your will to risk you life since you know, the risk is so low ?

and ill add this one, its a yes or no question.
DO i have the right to force you to risk your life against your will?

also stop posting the lie about prenatal care, it factually does not eliminate all risk of death LMAO
 
Last edited:
AmericanWoman76 said:
Risk of jumping out of a small plane with a parachute vs. staying in plane: 19% higher ( I accept as your premise) Risk of staying in plane vs. staying on ground: let's say 19% higher just for laughs. and if it's your body your choice (meaning you're not pregnant and forcing an unborn baby to take that risk with you) then you chose the 19% higher risk. whether or not you chose to get out of the plane has no comparison to abortion. you either chose the increased risk of getting in the plane to begin with, or you didn't. If that's your mother wearing a parachute and you weren't born yet, you didn't choose it, and it's your life at risk and it's not her choice, because it's your body and your life. pregnancy without prenatal care has 19% more risk of death than no pregnancy. i didn't copy your number, that's the actual number. pregnancy with proper prenatal care has no more risk of death than no pregnancy. even a teenager can understand that. giving a woman proper prenatal care eliminates the risk of death caused by pregnancy. Even a teenager can understand that. Would forcing a woman to get proper prenatal care be wrong? Yes, but no woman would ever choose not to get proper prenatal care, EVER, so that's a total lie of a point you're making about "FORCE" in capital letters. Is proper prenatal care available to every pregnant woman? No. Would it be if the tax funds spent on abortion, were spent on prenatal care? Yes. Did taxpayers CHOOSE for those funds to be spent on Family Planning? Yes. Were taxpayers told when they were voting, that Family Planning would use 99% of it on proper prenatal care? Yes. Were taxpayers told when they were voting, that 97% of the funds would be spent on abortions? NO. Taxpayers CHOSE to spend the funds on proper prenatal care but were FORCED to spend them on abortion. Women who need proper prenatal care and can't afford it, CAN NOT CHOOSE to get proper prenatal care through Family Planning. that CHOICE has been TAKEN FROM THEM because Family Planning says they would love to help but don't have to funds to do so. They end up being FORCED to take a 19% risk of death and then being FORCED to ["CHOOSE" <--- sarcasm] between their own death and the baby's death. FORCING a woman to make that ["CHOICE" <---sarcasm] is FASCIST, ANTI-CHOICE and wrong. Even a teenager can understand that.
Click to expand...

You still aren't providing links to support your assertions. Only a teeny tiny amount of tax money is spent on abortion. Only those medicaid qualified women who are victims of rape, incest, or life threat can have abortions paid for. Therefore....if the tax money spent on those limited abortions were to be made available for prenatal care, it wouldn't make much difference.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree not every woman will get the " scary stuff" but some will even if they have proper prenatal care.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
Pelvic Floor Disease is preventable with prenatal care. Killing a baby because it's cheaper than medical costs isn't a human right. Neither is Killing a baby to avoid looking older afterward. NOT. A. HUMAN. RIGHT. PERIOD. Now, if the mother's life were in danger and prenatal care couldn't prevent it from being in danger, then abortion would be a human right. but that doesn't happen so IT'S. nOT. A. HUMAN . RIGHT. TO . KILL. ANOTHER . HUMAN. JUST . BECAUSE . YOU . FEEL . LIKE. IT. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Following is a description of prenatal care. With a LINK. Please tell us what part of prenatal care prevents pelvic floor disorder. I can't believe I'm seeing
"if the mother's life were in danger and prenatal care couldn't prevent it from being in danger, then abortion would be a human right. but that doesn't happen"
Click to expand...
, would you mind confirming that you just said that a pregnant woman's life is never in danger.

Prenatal care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prenatal Examinations

Main articles: Prenatal diagnosis and prenatal screening
Prenatal diagnosis or prenatal screening (note that "Prenatal Diagnosis" and "Prenatal Screening" refer to two different types of tests) is testing for diseases or conditions in a fetus or embryo before it is born. Obstetricians and midwives have the ability to monitor mother's health and prenatal development during pregnancy through series of regular check-ups.[4]
Physical examinations generally consist of:
Collection of (mother's) medical history
Checking (mother's) blood pressure
(Mother's) height and weight
Pelvic exam
Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring
(Mother's) blood and urine tests
Discussion with caregiver

Ultrasound Obstetric ultrasounds are most commonly performed during the second trimester at approximately week 20. Ultrasounds are considered relatively safe and have been used for over 35 years for monitoring pregnancy. Among other things, ultrasounds are used to:
Diagnose pregnancy (uncommon)
Check for multiple fetuses
Assess possible risks to the mother (e.g., miscarriage, blighted ovum, ectopic pregnancy, or a molar pregnancy condition)
Check for fetal malformation (e.g., club foot, spina bifida, cleft palate, clenched fists)
Determine if an intrauterine growth retardation condition exists
Note the development of fetal body parts (e.g., heart, brain, liver, stomach, skull, other bones)
Check the amniotic fluid and umbilical cord for possible problems
Determine due date (based on measurements and relative developmental progress)
Generally an ultrasound is ordered whenever an abnormality is suspected or along a schedule similar to the following:
7 weeks — confirm pregnancy, ensure that it's neither molar or ectopic, determine due date
13–14 weeks (some areas) — evaluate the possibility of Down Syndrome
18–20 weeks — see the expanded list above
34 weeks (some areas) — evaluate size, verify placental position
[edit]
 
Grant said:
It does say child though. Can it be argued that a child is not a person?
Click to expand...

In the case of feticid laws the "child in utero" do not confer constitutional personhood.

Despite the seeming conflict, there are a number of reasons why fetal murder laws do not threaten abortion rights.
First, even though fetal murder laws use the word "person," they do not confer constitutional personhood.


They confer only an artificial type of personhood, one that is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that does not carry with it a "right to life." (90)
Click to expand...

The myth of fetal personhood: reconciling Roe and fetal homicide laws. - Free Online Library
 
OKgrannie said:
Following is a description of prenatal care. With a LINK. Please tell us what part of prenatal care prevents pelvic floor disorder. I can't believe I'm seeing , would you mind confirming that you just said that a pregnant woman's life is never in danger.

Prenatal care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prenatal Examinations

Main articles: Prenatal diagnosis and prenatal screening
Prenatal diagnosis or prenatal screening (note that "Prenatal Diagnosis" and "Prenatal Screening" refer to two different types of tests) is testing for diseases or conditions in a fetus or embryo before it is born. Obstetricians and midwives have the ability to monitor mother's health and prenatal development during pregnancy through series of regular check-ups.[4]
Physical examinations generally consist of:
Collection of (mother's) medical history
Checking (mother's) blood pressure
(Mother's) height and weight
Pelvic exam
Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring
(Mother's) blood and urine tests
Discussion with caregiver

Ultrasound Obstetric ultrasounds are most commonly performed during the second trimester at approximately week 20. Ultrasounds are considered relatively safe and have been used for over 35 years for monitoring pregnancy. Among other things, ultrasounds are used to:
Diagnose pregnancy (uncommon)
Check for multiple fetuses
Assess possible risks to the mother (e.g., miscarriage, blighted ovum, ectopic pregnancy, or a molar pregnancy condition)
Check for fetal malformation (e.g., club foot, spina bifida, cleft palate, clenched fists)
Determine if an intrauterine growth retardation condition exists
Note the development of fetal body parts (e.g., heart, brain, liver, stomach, skull, other bones)
Check the amniotic fluid and umbilical cord for possible problems
Determine due date (based on measurements and relative developmental progress)
Generally an ultrasound is ordered whenever an abnormality is suspected or along a schedule similar to the following:
7 weeks — confirm pregnancy, ensure that it's neither molar or ectopic, determine due date
13–14 weeks (some areas) — evaluate the possibility of Down Syndrome
18–20 weeks — see the expanded list above
34 weeks (some areas) — evaluate size, verify placental position
[edit]
Click to expand...

I do mind you putting false words into my mouth. a woman has a 19% risk of death with 3rd world medical care and closer to 0% than 1% risk of death and other scary stuff with proper prenatal care.
 
Originally Posted by AmericanWoman76
fine then i should be allowed to kill you because i have the right not to be forced to endure ugliness. your argument isn't a disease but i think it's ugly so i must kill someone to prevent it. it's my right as a woman to kill someone to prevent a minor nuisance because i think it's ugly, fair enough?
Click to expand...

Objective-J said:
ive never read such a failed nonsensical analogy in my life

your example has NOTHING to do with what was actually said.

the point is you have no right to force somebody to risk their life against their will
Click to expand...

I agree. No person should ever force another person to risk their life against their will.
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
"some" being closer to 0% than to 1%
Click to expand...

Here are just two of the life threatening "scary ones" which added together are beween 6% and 10.5%.

How common is an ectopic pregnancy? From 1 to 2.5 percent of all pregnancies are ectopic.
Click to expand...

Ectopic Pregnancy Symptoms

Preeclampsia Maternal Deaths Continue Todayby Eleni Tsigas, Christine Morton Jan 28, 2013 4:45 AM EST

According to the Preeclampsia Foundation, toxemia, which has been renamed preeclampsia, affects between 5 and 8 percent of all pregnancies.
Click to expand...


Pregnant Woman's Diet & Toxemia | eHow.com
 
minnie616 said:
Here are just two of the life threatening "scary ones" whoch added together are beween 6% and 10.5%.



Ectopic Pregnancy Symptoms




Pregnant Woman's Diet & Toxemia | eHow.com
Click to expand...

your own links prove me right, thanks. they say that these problems occur in 6 to 10 1/2 percent of all pregnancies, which, combined with the fact that prenatal care prevents them, of course means they occur in the vast majority of pregnancies without proper prenatal care. thank you for validating the fact that the rate of severe medical problems in pregnancies with proper prenatal care, is between 0% and 1%
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
I do mind you putting false words into my mouth. a woman has a 19% risk of death with 3rd world medical care and closer to 0% than 1% risk of death and other scary stuff with proper prenatal care.
Click to expand...

she didnt put words in your mouth at all
and why do you keep focusing on your opinion of the percentages, its the force that matters

if percentages is all that matters to you abortion is SAFER than giving birth and WAY less than .1% of sex leads to abortion so i guess you shouldn't worry about in then since the percentage is low, right?

thinik you can be honest for a second and tell us why you think its ok to force people against their will to risk their lives?

while you are at it, feel free to answer the questions you keep dodging too. Why are you scared to answer them?
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
your own links prove me right, thanks. they say that these problems occur in 6 to 10 1/2 percent of all pregnancies, which, combined with the fact that prenatal care prevents them, of course means they occur in the vast majority of pregnancies without proper prenatal care. thank you for validating the fact that the rate of severe medical problems in pregnancies with proper prenatal care, is between 0% and 1%
Click to expand...

and yet you ignore the FORCE part? LMAO
i wonder why

why do you thin k percentage matters when there is force?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom