• 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'm not a baby killer either - and there are a bunch of messages all over the forum calling me a rightwing Tea Partier too. Actually I'm now a yellow dog feminist Democrat - specifically because of this issue of Republicans passing laws to force little girls to have their rapists babies and insuring all would-be rapists they'll do that for them.

I didn't use the word "all."
I know you are not a baby killer.
You have done your best to protect women who choose to continue pregnancies when family members want them to have abortions.
No one should ever call you or any other person a baby killer who fights for a woman's choice.

I know you did not use the word all .
But Welliam did use the word all which is why I called him on it.
 
I'm not a baby killer either - and there are a bunch of messages all over the forum calling me a rightwing Tea Partier too. Actually I'm now a yellow dog feminist Democrat - specifically because of this issue of Republicans passing laws to force little girls to have their rapists babies and insuring all would-be rapists they'll do that for them.

I didn't use the word "all."

As far as I know the commonly accepted compromise between the two sides of the debate all include exceptions for the Health of the mother, rape, incest, etc....

Using terminology like force, and control, and rights, is a highly dishonest tactic for the pro abortion side to take.
 
I know you are not a baby killer.
You have done your best to protect women who choose to continue pregnancies when family members want them to have abortions.
No one should ever call you or any other person a baby killer who fights for a woman's choice.

I know you did not use the word all .
But Welliam did use the word all which is why I called him on it.

Do you believe it fair for people on your side of the argument to say that those on my side want to "force" women to carry babies? I don't see any qualifiers in that? So, you get offended when someone lumps 'all' pro abortion people together, but it is fine when you, or anyone else on the pro abortion side does it back?

Come on....
 
Do you believe it fair for people on your side of the argument to say that those on my side want to "force" women to carry babies? I don't see any qualifiers in that? So, you get offended when someone lumps 'all' pro abortion people together, but it is fine when you, or anyone else on the pro abortion side does it back?

Come on....

I do not say all people on side your side want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
I always make it very clear that I could never support a law or a country that would force a woman a woman to continue her pregnancy and I also make it very clear that I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.

I qualify it by saying a law or a country , I sometimes say some pro life people but I never say conservatives or republicans or include all on one side as a group when I present an argument. I know many people on all sides have their own ideas , their own
Experiences and their own morals which help form their opinions. No two of us are the same , we are all ( and yes this is one of the few times I will use the word all on a debate thread) individuals.
 
I do not say all people on side your side want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy.
I always make it very clear that I could never support a law or a country that would force a woman a woman to continue her pregnancy and I also make it very clear that I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion.

I qualify it by saying a law or a country , I sometimes say some pro life people but I never say conservatives or republicans or include all on one side as a group when I present an argument. I know many people on all sides have their own ideas , their own
Experiences and their own morals which help form their opinions. No two of us are the same , we are all ( and yes this is one of the few times I will use the word all on a debate thread) individuals.

Ok, with that in mind then, why shouldn't it be left to the states to decide law in this arena? Didn't the SCOTUS overstep their powers when deciding Roe? If not, why not?
 
Ok, with that in mind then, why shouldn't it be left to the states to decide law in this arena? Didn't the SCOTUS overstep their powers when deciding Roe? If not, why not?

Depends on how you look at things. If you think voting on someone's rights should be left to the states than yes they overstepped their bounds. However, if you believe that states shouldn't be able to vote on someone else's rights, then no they didn't overstep.

I don't think the states should be able to vote on someone else's rights.
 
As far as I know the commonly accepted compromise between the two sides of the debate all include exceptions for the Health of the mother, rape, incest, etc....

Using terminology like force, and control, and rights, is a highly dishonest tactic for the pro abortion side to take.

The new North Dakota law limits abortions to six weeks gestation which would be 4 weeks from her last period. That means she needs to arrange an abortion at the one abortion clinic in state , make travel arrangement as she may have to travel hundreds of miles, find someone to watch the children if she has children and have the abortion before she is even aware she has missed her period.

Oh and by the way ...North Dakota has no exception for rape victims.
 
As far as I know the commonly accepted compromise between the two sides of the debate all include exceptions for the Health of the mother, rape, incest, etc....

Using terminology like force, and control, and rights, is a highly dishonest tactic for the pro abortion side to take.

Like pro-abortion is NOT a dishonest term?

As far as I know the ONLY side to be on is letting the woman decide HER life. IT makes her human.
 
Ok, with that in mind then, why shouldn't it be left to the states to decide law in this arena? Didn't the SCOTUS overstep their powers when deciding Roe? If not, why not?

Because of states like North Dakota stopping a woman's rights in federal law. The state has NO right dictating to a woman WHEN she is pregnant, how many times she gets pregnant and by whom when they are not giving her a $250,000 salary, FREE 15 room mansion, CARS, gas, groceries, nannies, butlers, maids, free health care for her and her brood, the MAN she desires to marry with a job making $5 billion and free lawn care.
 
As far as I know the commonly accepted compromise between the two sides of the debate all include exceptions for the Health of the mother, rape, incest, etc....

Using terminology like force, and control, and rights, is a highly dishonest tactic for the pro abortion side to take.

So you are abandoning using the word "rights" in relation to ZEFs/unborn children? Or are you claiming the words "rights" should only be disallowed to women?
 
Ok, with that in mind then, why shouldn't it be left to the states to decide law in this arena? Didn't the SCOTUS overstep their powers when deciding Roe? If not, why not?

SCOTUS ruled that women and couples had a " right to privacy" regarding reproductivity.
SCOTUS did give the states the right to limit abortions in the last trimester as they allowed the states to have a compelling interest in the "potential person" after viability.
 
Depends on how you look at things. If you think voting on someone's rights should be left to the states than yes they overstepped their bounds. However, if you believe that states shouldn't be able to vote on someone else's rights, then no they didn't overstep.

I don't think the states should be able to vote on someone else's rights.

We don't agree that voluntary abortions are a 'right' or that they should be considered to be a right by the courts.

Children have a right to the protections of our laws too - same as their mothers do.
 
We don't agree that voluntary abortions are a 'right' or that they should be considered to be a right by the courts.

Children have a right to the protections of our laws too - same as their mothers do.

Women and/or couples have a "right to privacy".
The precedent for that right was made in 1965 when the Supreme Court ruled that couples have a right regarding reproductivity.
( They have a right to choose when to have a child, how many to have , and how far apart they wish to space them.)

In 1973 when Roe vs Wade was decided the Supreme Court ruled that under the "right to privacy" women could choose a legal abortion.

States could take a compelling interest after viability.

So it is not possible for the unborn to havethe same type of rights that women and/ or couples have.
 
Last edited:
So it is not possible for the unborn to rights women and/ or couples have.

Well, when you word it like that - what can say anything against it?

Other than "is that even Engrish?"
 
Well, when you word it like that - what can say anything against it?

Other than "is that even Engrish?"

Clearly this portion of her message:

Women and/or couples have a "right to privacy".
The precedent for that right was made in 1965 when the Supreme Court ruled that couples have a right regarding reproductivity.
( They have a right to choose when to have a child, how many to have , and how far apart they wish to space them.)

In 1973 when Roe vs Wade was decided the Supreme Court ruled that under the "right to privacy" women could choose a legal abortion.

States could take a compelling interest after viability.


was also beyond your ability to read too. You have stated before on this forum that you have limited reading skills. That's ok, just do the best you can. I have no formal education myself. Having a high school degree or even being particularly literate isn't a forum requirement. The only expectation is trying to comprehend others messages.

Don't get discouraged. People with reading skills limitations commonly have great difficulty understanding a written statement if it contains minor grammar or typographical errors because the person is already struggling with the words.

It's spelled "English," not "Engrish." That's no big deal. We're not grammar and spelling Nazis on this forum. If that was not a typo by you, I suggest trying to use spell and grammar check by writing out your messages first on a word program. I often do so myself. It could help you out a lot.
 
Last edited:
Well, when you word it like that - what can say anything against it?

Other than "is that even Engrish?"
No it's not "even Engrish".

I have dyslexia and I edited my post to say" it is not possible for the unborn to have type of rights women and/ or couples have."
 
Don't get discouraged. People with reading skills limitations commonly have great difficulty understanding a written statement if it contains minor grammar or typographical errors because the person is already struggling with the words.

It's spelled "English," not "Engrish." That's no big deal. We're not grammar and spelling Nazis on this forum. If that was not a typo by you, I suggest trying to use spell and grammar check by writing out your messages first on a word program. I often do so myself. It could help you out a lot.

Thanks for this.

I needed a good laugh today.
 
No it's not "even Engrish".

I have dyslexia and I edited my post to say" it is not possible for the unborn to have type of rights women and/ or couples have."

Okay, well I happen to disagree with you on your conclusions and on the courts conclusions too.

I have loved ones with dyslexia and I am not insensitive to that.

You apparently have a much less severe case than those I am familiar with.
 
What the North Dakota and Arkansas laws banning abortion if a heartbeat is present show is that: 1) the scientific reality that a ZEF is a living human is being more widely embraced, 2) that ethics and morality against unjustified killing of humans is still alive and well, 3) that, therefore, there will always be challenges to abortion on demand until the only abortions allowed will be to prevent the death/grave health of the mother, and ..

.. 4) that the best thing for pro-choice ideologues to do now is to jump on the bandwagon of getting the new state-of-the-art conception-prevention "pills" pharmaceuticals, those that are non-hormonal, are 100% safe and effective, are available for both men (lops of the tails of sperm) and women (hardens released egg "shells" to prevent penetration) thru FDA testing and to a globally-affordable market.

Acceptance is really for the best .. and a word to the wise should be sufficient.

Pro-choicers are fighting a losing battle, as science is against them.

Best is to utilize state-of-the-art science to reduce the need for unjustified-homicide abortions.

Then everyone wins, pre- and post- natal alike.

That's the centrist approach to solving the abortion conflict.
 
I think the government shouldn't be involved in abortion. I don't think bureaucrats should be able to legislate on something that can be complex. It is something between the patient and doctor....politicians should be out of this.
Disagree. It's a human life we're talking about, not the choice to marry someone or smoke weed. I agree with libertarian philosophy 9 out 10 times but this issue is the one time I don't and the exact reason I don't claim libertarian as my lean. This isn't a choice that simply effects the decision maker (the mother). Another person is directly effected as well. And that person is at the mercy of the decision maker. A baby has no choice in who is carrying her therefore the carrier has the responsibility to carry until birth. Obviously, there are exceptions such as imminent death of the mother, imminent death of the baby.
 
We don't agree that voluntary abortions are a 'right' or that they should be considered to be a right by the courts.

Children have a right to the protections of our laws too - same as their mothers do.

Fetuses, zygote and embryos are not children...they live INSIDE the WOMB and are dependent on the woman for sustenance through the umbilical cord ATTACHED to the woman. Children don't have those same qualities.
 
Disagree. It's a human life we're talking about, not the choice to marry someone or smoke weed. I agree with libertarian philosophy 9 out 10 times but this issue is the one time I don't and the exact reason I don't claim libertarian as my lean. This isn't a choice that simply effects the decision maker (the mother). Another person is directly effected as well. And that person is at the mercy of the decision maker. A baby has no choice in who is carrying her therefore the carrier has the responsibility to carry until birth. Obviously, there are exceptions such as imminent death of the mother, imminent death of the baby.

It's not a baby. And the ONLY one affected by this pregnancy IS the woman and HER life. NO one else. YOU certainly are not. The STATE certainly is not. The state isn't giving the woman a house, car, great paying job with paid vacations and health care and a good neighborhood and good schools and college for the woman and her offspring. ERGO, the state and YOU have no rights in this decision.
 
Like pro-abortion is NOT a dishonest term?

No. For example, you are vehemently pro-abortion.

"Pro-choice" is a dishonest, misleading term, both for how it misrepresents those who claim it, and for how it misrepresents those who do not support the legality of abortion.

Pro-abortion, however, accurately describes your political advocacy.


Disagree. It's a human life we're talking about, not the choice to marry someone or smoke weed. I agree with libertarian philosophy 9 out 10 times but this issue is the one time I don't and the exact reason I don't claim libertarian as my lean. This isn't a choice that simply effects the decision maker (the mother). Another person is directly effected as well. And that person is at the mercy of the decision maker. A baby has no choice in who is carrying her therefore the carrier has the responsibility to carry until birth. Obviously, there are exceptions such as imminent death of the mother, imminent death of the baby.

In all honesty, standing up for human rights IS the libertarian philosophy on this one.

Being pro-abortion and claiming to be a "libertarian" is no different than being pro-slavery and claiming to be a "libertarian." It's directly at odds with what the philosophy is about, especially the principle of non-aggression and equal human rights.
 
Fetuses, zygote and embryos are not children...they live INSIDE the WOMB and are dependent on the woman for sustenance through the umbilical cord ATTACHED to the woman. Children don't have those same qualities.

Here in the U.S. we have laws that say they ARE children.

We are not going to ignore those laws.
 
No. For example, you are vehemently pro-abortion.

"Pro-choice" is a dishonest, misleading term, both for how it misrepresents those who claim it, and for how it misrepresents those who do not support the legality of abortion.

Pro-abortion, however, accurately describes your political advocacy.




In all honesty, standing up for human rights IS the libertarian philosophy on this one.

Being pro-abortion and claiming to be a "libertarian" is no different than being pro-slavery and claiming to be a "libertarian." It's directly at odds with what the philosophy is about, especially the principle of non-aggression and equal human rights.

I would like to know why anyone who fights that hard for abortion would have a problem with that too.

Here lately, they have even promoted abortion as a solution to financial problems and other social problems.

Why are they so put off by the idea of calling themselves 'pro-abortion?'

:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom