• 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]

Welliam Wittier said:
This is interesting.

Would it be okay with you if I use it to start a new thread and poll question?
Click to expand...

Please feel free to start a thread a thread and poll but I ask that you also include a link to the four different scientific perspectives
of when human life begins.

Thanks ~
 
minnie616 said:
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins? .
Click to expand...

No.

A tree, a goldfish, and Agent J are all alive despite any significant brain activity.

Again the goalposts must always be moved, the definitions of well established words changed, in order to carry out a heinous crime to an innocent being.

If you want to end a babies life then that is your choice, under the law of the land, to do so. But by having to change the known meaning of words in order to justify your position strongly suggests that your argument lacks real force, as well as humanity.
 
minnie616 said:
If the state has a fetal homicide law they can charge the criminal with two , otherwise he/she would be charged with 1 murder and perhaps assult or whatever else under the law they could charge the criminal with.
Click to expand...

Ok then, why is it that your own pro abortion theory advocates that the entirety of the country should fall under the premise that the SCOTUS decision dictates to the whole of the country that killing of convenience of the baby determines for everyone that it is ok, a supposed "right" even when determined by one parent of the child growing inside that parent, but when it comes to a criminal action it is left to the states? I mean, shouldn't that determination in all cases be left to the states?

Also, it is not just "some states" as you describe....But rather a majority of states have these laws....

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

Fetal Homicide State Laws
Click to expand...

See, it is my contention that the Roe decision in the 70's went beyond the scope of the SCOTUS in making 'law' by fiat. If you want to contend that a mother has the "right" to abort her child in the scope of contraceptive, or convenience purposes, then the pro abortion advocates should amend the constitutions bill of rights. Until then all you have is an overstep of the court, and a mis application of what is and what is not a 'right' by a court that has overstepped its constitutional boundaries since Marbury.
 
minnie616 said:
Since we define death as the point at which there is no more brain activity, then shouldn't we also define life as when brain activity begins?
Click to expand...


No, and here is why....

“Forty years ago, being dead used to be very simple - it was the point at which your heart stopped beating,” said Professor Kellehear. “Now death itself has been complicated by the fact that we can keep alive people who are brain dead almost indefinitely. Brain death is the point at which doctors can switch off machines or begin harvesting organs, but, to relatives, being brain dead is not the same as being a corpse.

“Corpses are not warm, they are not pink, they do not move, they are not pregnant – but a person who is brain dead can be all of these things. To all appearances, there is little difference between a person who is brain dead and a person who is asleep. At the same time we ask people if it is OK to remove a beating heart or other living organ from their loved one.

When Does Death Really Occur?
Click to expand...

That a pregnancy can continue after brain death shows scientifically that the child growing in the womb is a separate human growing in there....Your thoughts?
 
minnie616 said:
Please feel free to start a thread a thread and poll but I ask that you also include a link to the four different scientific perspectives
of when human life begins.

Thanks ~
Click to expand...

Those will be the poll questions.

"Which one are you?"
 
j-mac said:
No, and here is why....



That a pregnancy can continue after brain death shows scientifically that the child growing in the womb is a separate human growing in there....Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you posted that.

I was trying to find a story along those lines too.
 
Grant said:
No.

A tree, a goldfish, and Agent J are all alive despite any significant brain activity.

Again the goalposts must always be moved, the definitions of well established words changed, in order to carry out a heinous crime to an innocent being.

If you want to end a babies life then that is your choice, under the law of the land, to do so. But by having to change the known meaning of words in order to justify your position strongly suggests that your argument lacks real force, as well as humanity.
Click to expand...

I disagree the
goal posts have not been moved.
You are confusing the word alive with the term human life.

The scientific perspectives I posted were when human life begins.


Cells are alive. A human egg is alive. A sperm is alive. A zygote is alive.
However there is scientific disagreement on whether an embryo or a pre viable fetus has its own life or if exists only as a part of the woman's life since it cannot survive if she dies, or if the placenta becomes detached from the woman.
 
j-mac said:
Ok then, why is it that your own pro abortion theory advocates that the entirety of the country should fall under the premise that the SCOTUS decision dictates to the whole of the country that killing of convenience of the baby determines for everyone that it is ok, a supposed "right" even when determined by one parent of the child growing inside that parent, but when it comes to a criminal action it is left to the states? ...
Click to expand...

The states have an interest in the " potential person" so if a person assaults or batters a woman and the fetus dies that person can be charged with murder.
That does not mean the " child in utero" is considered a " Constitutional person " .

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)

Second, feticide laws are not grounded in fetal rights; they are based on the interests of the state.

States can, and do, act to protect certain entities, even when those entities themselves have no rights.

Moreover, whereas abortion mediates between the opposing interests of the state and the woman, feticide laws pursue the same goals for both the woman and the state. In these scenarios, the state and the woman have similar interests, so the state can be more aggressive about pursuing its goals.
Finally, there is a clear difference between a pregnant woman consenting to an abortion and a nonconsensual attack on a woman that results in the loss of her pregnancy. The woman has a right to act; the attacker does not. Once we look below the surface, then, it becomes apparent that fetal legislation need not be viewed as a threat to women's rights.
Click to expand...


The myth of fetal personhood: reconciling Roe and fetal homicide laws. - Free Online Library
 
j-mac said:
No, and here is why....



That a pregnancy can continue after brain death shows scientifically that the child growing in the womb is a separate human growing in there....Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yeah, we have the sciece and machines to keep a brain dead persons body alive for years. Look at what the courts did to poor Terri Schiavo .
In the past these brain dead persons could have died peacefully.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
minnie616 said:
I disagree the
goal posts have not been moved.
You are confusing the word alive with the term human life.

The scientific perspectives I posted were when human life begins.


Cells are alive. A human egg is alive. A sperm is alive. A zygote is alive.
However there is scientific disagreement on whether an embryo or a pre viable fetus has its own life or if exists only as a part of the woman's life since it cannot survive if she dies, or if the placenta becomes detached from the woman.
Click to expand...

It seems we all agree then. It's alive.

Whether it can survive outside the mother's body or not is quite another matter.

Even the most basic of female animals understands when they have life in their bodies. Surely a female human being must understand the same thing, otherwise why would they abort it?
 
minnie616 said:
Yeah, we have the sciece and machines to keep a brain dead persons body alive for years. Look at what the courts did to poor Terri Schiavo .
In the past these brain dead persons could have died peacefully.

Terri Schiavo case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

How do you know she didn't die peacefully? Can you determine that question?

It seems that when people feel they have the right and the power to determine whether or not another person's life is worth living or not then we have entered a darker place and uglier place than we ever intended.
 
Grant said:
It seems we all agree then. It's alive.

Whether it can survive outside the mother's body or not is quite another matter.

Even the most basic of female animals understands when they have life in their bodies. Surely a female human being must understand the same thing, otherwise why would they abort it?
Click to expand...

A 3-year-old cant survive on their own should we kill 3-year-olds next? elderly people to boot? the mentally disabled/challenged?

Weather or not a fetus can survive on its own is moot.

Not to mention a fetus can survive outside of the womb (just not without help).
 
Mr.Nick said:
A 3-year-old cant survive on their own should we kill 3-year-olds next? elderly people to boot? the mentally disabled/challenged?

Weather or not a fetus can survive on its own is moot.

Not to mention a fetus can survive outside of the womb (just not without help).
Click to expand...

In fact that question is already being raised.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Once we get into the 'who should live and who should die' debate then we have crossed a line that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Look at the ridicule Sarah Palin and her family had to put up with as a result of their decision to keep their baby. They attacked her like jackals.
 
Grant said:
It seems we all agree then. It's alive.
...
Click to expand...

Yeah it is alive ( unless it is miscarried or died natually in utero and failed to be expelled).

Also the previable fetus has an EEG as flat as someone who is brain deadand it's fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug.

The tricky part comes when these definitions of life get applied at the beginning of life. The landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade replaced an old marker of life — the “quickening” or first movements of the fetus — with one based on fetal viability, which typically occurs at about the 23d week.

This was a tactical move meant to provide a firmer marker for legal purposes. Law seeks clarity. Which is where a consciousness meter could be quite tempting to the courts — and discouraging to anti-abortion conservatives:

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness
until about 26 weeks,] when it first seems to react to pain.

Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.

The consciometer may not put the abortion issue to rest—given the deeply held religious and moral views on all sides, it’s hard to imagine that anything could.

But by adding a definitive neurophysiological marker to the historical and secular precedents allowing abortion in the first two-thirds of pregnancy, it may greatly buttress the status quo or even slightly push back the 23-week boundary.
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/09/the-consciousness-meter-do-we-really-want-that/
 
Mr.Nick said:
A 3-year-old cant survive on their own should we kill 3-year-olds next? elderly people to boot? the mentally disabled/challenged?

Weather or not a fetus can survive on its own is moot.

Not to mention a fetus can survive outside of the womb (just not without help).
Click to expand...

Elderly Dutch people were fearful of entering Dutch hospitals because their doctors rationalized whether their lives had value or not. Often they figured that the lives of other people were not worth living. Euthanasia: Convenience... Not Compassion
 
Mr.Nick said:
A 3-year-old cant survive on their own should we kill 3-year-olds next? elderly people to boot? the mentally disabled/challenged?

Weather or not a fetus can survive on its own is moot.

Not to mention a fetus can survive outside of the womb (just not without help).
Click to expand...

A 3 year old , elderly people, mentally disabled/challenged
do not need their bio mother in order to survive.

A previable fetus can not survive if the pregnant woman dies of if the placenta detaches from the pregnant woman.

A viable fetus has a good chance of surviving if the woman dies and it is removed quicky and given neo natal care if needed.
A nurse, grandparent, adoptive parent or another care giver can feed and care for it's needs.
 
Grant said:
In fact that question is already being raised.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say - Telegraph

Once we get into the 'who should live and who should die' debate then we have crossed a line that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

Look at the ridicule Sarah Palin and her family had to put up with as a result of their decision to keep their baby. They attacked her like jackals.
Click to expand...

Agreed....

I feel bad for Palin - all the crap progressives give her is totally out of line.

God forbid someone values life - progressives can't have that.
 
Grant said:
Elderly Dutch people were fearful of entering Dutch hospitals because their doctors rationalized whether their lives had value or not. Often they figured that the lives of other people were not worth living. Euthanasia: Convenience... Not Compassion
Click to expand...

What do you think will happen via "Obamacare" or as progressives like to call it in their PC babble: "Affordable Care Act?"

Of course progressives won't call them "death panels" - no, they'll come up with some peachy PC word for killing people.
 
minnie616 said:
A 3 year old , elderly people, mentally disabled/challenged
do not need their bio mother in order to survive.

A previable fetus can not survive if the pregnant woman dies of if the placenta detaches from the pregnant woman.

A viable fetus has a good chance of surviving if the woman dies and it is removed quicky and given neo natal care if needed.
A nurse, grandparent, adoptive parent or another care giver can feed and care for it's needs.
Click to expand...

Define "previable?"

Plenty of preme babies survived outside the womb...

Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... I've already explained that "viable" people who have already been birthed would die without care - what makes them any different from a fetus that CAN, COULD and DO survive outside the womb?
 
Mr.Nick said:
What do you think will happen via "Obamacare" or as progressives like to call it in their PC babble: "Affordable Care Act?"

Of course progressives won't call them "death panels" - no, they'll come up with some peachy PC word for killing people.
Click to expand...

Pro Choice Panels?
 
Mr.Nick said:
....

Of course progressives won't call them "death panels" - ...
Click to expand...

And health insurance companies have been denying health coverage for years...
But they don't call them "death panels"
Houston Tracy, a 12-day-old boy, has already survived a rare birth defect, a feeding tube and open heart surgery. Now his family is waiting to see how the battle with an insurance company will fare.

Last week, Houston's parents found out that the term "pre-existing condition" can apply the moment someone is born.

"When he came out, he made one little cry and he didn't really cry much," said Houston's father, Doug Tracy, 39, of Crowley, Texas.

Tracy cut the umbilical cord and watched the hospital staff clean his son. But before his wife Kim Tracy, 36, could touch their son doctors got worried. "We could tell there was something wrong by the way they [the doctors] were acting," Doug Tracy said.
Click to expand...

Texas Newborn Baby Denied Health Insurance Coverage Days After Life-Saving Heart Surgery - ABC News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom