• 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]

TheNextEra said:
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.
Click to expand...

Abortion is not a "right".... If those whom are on the side of pro abortion want that to be, then they should go through the proper channels and pass an amendment....What they do have at the moment is what I would term a "faux right", that is to say that abortion advocates now have a tenuous ruling made by man, granted by a panel of 9 un-elected officials that can be reversed, or taken away at any time which that body feels that the original decision was made in error.

The problem we have when we let the SCOTUS make law is that in time that law can be overturned. The founding of this country never envisioned the court having the power to make law, that was supposed to be the power of the congress, and the President. The point in which started using precedent to make law was a bastardization of the intent of the Constitution, and I think purposely done to weaken it....
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And it should be up to the people in North Dakota. If that is what they want, and their legislature pass the law, and the Governor signs it, then it should stand. I am not for some over arching central authority telling the states what to do. I don't think that is what this country was founded upon.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Like pro-abortion is NOT a dishonest term?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't because that is exactly what abortion advocates are...What is dishonest is trying to deny the terminology because it is accurately descriptive. If you are for something, you are "pro" that position no?

As far as I know the ONLY side to be on is letting the woman decide HER life. IT makes her human.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the point of the decision is after the act of creating a human baby is done. Both people have the choice to create life, and that happens at the point that both persons clothing ends up on the floor in the bedroom. ;)
 
MarineTpartier said:
I understand that most libertarians are "pro-life". However, they way in which most of them deal with it ie let the states handle it, goes against what I believe is the correct way to handle it. Killing a baby is killing a baby. No matter what level of gov't handles it. And I do not believe our country should allow ANY level of gov't to dictate that killing a baby is okay. There are VERY few things I will advocate for Federal gov't to be involved in. This is one of those VERY few things.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you mean, I may agree with you. I want this human rights abuse banned everywhere on the planet, but the only way the federal government is going to have the authority to ban the practice is if we pass a constitutional amendment, like was done with the 13th Amendment. I do want such an amendment to pass.

However, for the government to pretend that the word abortion exists within the framework of our current constitution - as it does so right now in order to pretend that killing your offspring is a constituional right - is wrong, and undermines any pretense that we live under a nation of laws.
 
j-mac said:
No, it isn't because that is exactly what abortion advocates are...What is dishonest is trying to deny the terminology because it is accurately descriptive. If you are for something, you are "pro" that position no?



I don't think that the point of the decision is after the act of creating a human baby is done. Both people have the choice to create life, and that happens at the point that both persons clothing ends up on the floor in the bedroom. ;)
Click to expand...

Pro-life is a dishonest term. It is Pro Rapist Procreation Rights. Pro-life is really also Pro-Womens-Deaths too. Pro-life is a totally dishonest term.
 
Muddy Creek said:
There goes that great and wonderful strawmen you guys use.

I believe in Roe v Wade. PLEASE show me in Roe V Wade where an abortion may occur "minutes before birth". What a twist and contorted statement that is.

Then you go on after misrepresenting what I said, to make that old and tired and worn out that a pregnancy is something the "woman has to deal with the consequences of her actions". BS. Birth control does not always work. Sex is a good thing. Sex is enjoyable. There is not evil and "consequences" even from your GOD about having sex. It's was created to be enjoyed. If you haven't had the pleasure yet, I'm sorry for you.

The fetus is connected to the woman via an umbilical cord. And the fetus is INSIDE the woman. It's not living outside the woman. It is not a baby, that can be put in a crib and dad can feed it when it's hungry. It's inside the the human female, attached and taking food from the woman via a cord connected to them both.

Up to the end of the first trimester, the woman has a right to decide if SHE wants to be pregnant NOW, how many TIMES she wants to be pregnant and by WHOM. THAT is her responsibility. To have pregnancies she wants, WHEN she wants them, and how MANY she wants. It's not YOUR choice for her and her life, it's HERS.
Click to expand...
I never said sex was evil. I'm merely pointing out the FACT that with sex come possibilities of a child, an STD, etc. Everything enjoyable thing has a risk. The problem with people such as yourself is you look for every way imaginable to mitigate the natural risks that come with sex. Sex is not meant to be some hobby like fishing or collecting comics. It also has a very serious and important function as well. To treat it as if it is just something everyone should enjoy is irresponsible and frankly stupid IMO.
As far as a woman having a choice, she does have a choice. She has the choice of "Should I have unprotected sex with this man knowing I may become pregnant?" If the answer to that is yes, she should be prepared to deal with the possible ramifications of that decision. Once a life has budded inside of her, she loses the choice. She now has a human being inside of her that is depending upon her to take car or it.
Your umbilical cord argument is ridiculous. If anything the umbilical cord represents the betrayal that is abortion. Babies are depending upon the person on the other end of that cord to fulfill their part of the deal. The baby has no control over the irresponsible decision of the mother to have unprotected sex. It shouldn't have to pay for it with it's life.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Why is it you on the right call a fetus an "innocent life" and children of the poor who are facing cutbacks as "abusing the system"?
Click to expand...
Please point to the post where I said that.
Muddy Creek said:
I just don't understand why the right pretends that abortion is anything more than an anti-women's rights issue.
Click to expand...
Please point to where I've said I'm anti-women
I love all of the assumptions you make about me simply because of my username and what you THINK you know about me. Typical profiling.
 
joko104 said:
YOUR VIEW OF A "CIVILIZED NATION": Male dominated legistors forcing a 12 year old girl raped by her father to carry brain-stem only triplets to full term and birth. That is "civilized" to you. I say is is total sadism and purely evil amorality. Your view of a civilized society towards women is the Taliban.
Click to expand...
As with Muddy Creek, I would like for you to point out where I said I would do that. People such as yourself love to use emotionally charged arguments and point out the .01% that happens in this nation as if it is the norm.
joko104 said:
And, of course, you also believe you can ge a woman pregnant and disappear without repercussions because you believe you should be in total control over women - bizarrely claiming you getting a womn pregnant and then disappearing you being "civilized" - and lots of fun for you. What you actually make is a case for legally requiring men such as you portray in your message to be forcibly castrated by law to protect society and, obviously, all women.
Click to expand...
What, a man can't do that? Sorry if reality isn't nice and tidy for you. That's the way it is. I did not create the human race brother. Women, whether you think it's fair or not, are left to carry the child if they become pregnant. And the man can, if he wants, run away without ever having to contribute to the baby's life. That's the harsh reality of it. It has nothing to do with "Control over women" lol. Just another straw man in this argument. Pro abortion people have no good reason to be pro abortion other than it contributes to their convenience in life.
As for your assumptions that I somehow like to dominate women, that is laughable at best. A ridiculous jump to a conclusion that you are once again using to make an emotionally charged argument that has no real substance. Please, now respond with the "well, you must believe that way if......". I know that's next.
joko104 said:
Human development does not begin at conception. It begins with the formation of sperm and egg. The LIE that it begins at conception is another convenience false reasoning created for the convenience of irresponsible, amoral men.
Click to expand...
No sense in debating this point. Your mind's made up and so is mine. I simply believe you're wrong.
 
joko104 said:
Pro-life is a dishonest term. It is Pro Rapist Procreation Rights. Pro-life is really also Pro-Womens-Deaths too. Pro-life is a totally dishonest term.
Click to expand...
I didn't read this post until after I responded to your other post. This effectively ends my debate with you. Any person that would frame this ridiculous argument isn't worth debating. Your entire train of thought is illogical and absurd.
 
j-mac said:
No, it isn't because that is exactly what abortion advocates are...What is dishonest is trying to deny the terminology because it is accurately descriptive. If you are for something, you are "
Click to expand...

People who are pro choice feel the choice of continuing a pregnancy should be up to the pregnant woman.
We feel strongly that no woman should ever be forced by the government to have abortion or to continue a pregnancy.
We feel the woman knows her own body, her health history, her feelings the best and that she along with her doctor and her
Husband,boyfriend,lover ( if she is in a good relationship she will include him ) should be allowed to make the decision if she should continue her pregnancy or not.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
I never said sex was evil. I'm merely pointing out the FACT that with sex come possibilities of a child, an STD, etc. Everything enjoyable thing has a risk. The problem with people such as yourself is you look for every way imaginable to mitigate the natural risks that come with sex. Sex is not meant to be some hobby like fishing or collecting comics. It also has a very serious and important function as well. To treat it as if it is just something everyone should enjoy is irresponsible and frankly stupid IMO.
As far as a woman having a choice, she does have a choice. She has the choice of "Should I have unprotected sex with this man knowing I may become pregnant?" If the answer to that is yes, she should be prepared to deal with the possible ramifications of that decision. Once a life has budded inside of her, she loses the choice. She now has a human being inside of her that is depending upon her to take car or it.
Your umbilical cord argument is ridiculous. If anything the umbilical cord represents the betrayal that is abortion. Babies are depending upon the person on the other end of that cord to fulfill their part of the deal. The baby has no control over the irresponsible decision of the mother to have unprotected sex. It shouldn't have to pay for it with it's life.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that no one with STDs should receive treatment because they took the risk - and treatment of course violates then science and reality - plus allows people to avoid responsibility. You would not be the first member on this forum tkaing that position.

Nor should anyone injured in any accident be treated. Nor any athlete. Nor anyone allowed any medical treatment that took any risks whatsoever.

I have NO DOUBT you do NOT apply your "responsibility" standard to yourself, but then you have already explained that in pregnancy men/you have no responsibility at all anyway. Your messages are just bizarre male power tripping.
 
Muddy Creek said:
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.
Click to expand...


What the?....Are you kidding here? We all make choices in life that are either good, or bad....It is NOT the governments place to ensure that you are making the right decision. Also, the question you raise is one of federalism. Is it the federal government, or the state government that is supposed to have the greatest power in a persons everyday life? I would say the smaller circle of government legislation, and control is the way it was intended.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Neither, false choice. ;)
 
minnie616 said:
People who are pro choice feel the choice of continuing a pregnancy should be up to the pregnant woman.
We feel strongly that no woman should ever be forced by the government to have abortion or to continue a pregnancy.
We feel the woman knows her own body, her health history, her feelings the best and that she along with her doctor and her
Husband,boyfriend,lover ( if she is good relationship she will include him ) should be allowed to make the decision if she should continue her pregnancy or not.
Click to expand...

J-Mac often posts absurd and false statements - the only you were responding to in particular probably hundreds of times - just to try to bait people. He knows his statement is false and he knows what the response is.
 
j-mac said:
Neither, false choice. ;)
Click to expand...


Ok, just more total contradictions by you when you don't like where you own words lead to. Nothing new.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS are not kings. They were neither set up to, nor should they be making law through stare decisis.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That "right to privacy" ends the moment you privately choose to engage in an act that you know can, and will result in the creation of a human child, then expect me to subsidize the murder of it when you don't want it.
 
minnie616 said:
Exactly.
Like the new North Dakota law which only allows for abortions until 6 weeks gestation.
North Dakota only has 1 abortion clinic so the woman has to arrange for an abortion, plan her trip to the clinic which might be hundreds of miles away , arrange for someone to take care of her children,if she has children all before she has even missed her period.

Oh, and by the way North Dakota does not make exceptions for rape, incest, Health of the woman, or fetal deformities even if the fetus dies before labor.

If a fetus dies a natural death before labor and is not expelled a doctor will usually perform an abortion ( yes, removing a dead fetus is called an abortion) to remove the fetus and fetal material before it becomes septic which could be fatal to the woman.
Click to expand...

This thread is supposed to be about the Arkansas law, not North Dakota...I understand the the conversation will broaden, however, I feel that the attempt to bring in ND to the conversation is an attempt to shift the goal posts.
 
j-mac said:
SCOTUS are not kings. They were neither set up to, nor should they be making law through stare decisis.
Click to expand...

The " right to privacy" was decided in 1965 a full 8 years before Roe vs Wade.
 
j-mac said:
Abortion is not a "right".... If those whom are on the side of pro abortion want that to be, then they should go through the proper channels and pass an amendment....What they do have at the moment is what I would term a "faux right", that is to say that abortion advocates now have a tenuous ruling made by man, granted by a panel of 9 un-elected officials that can be reversed, or taken away at any time which that body feels that the original decision was made in error.

The problem we have when we let the SCOTUS make law is that in time that law can be overturned. The founding of this country never envisioned the court having the power to make law, that was supposed to be the power of the congress, and the President. The point in which started using precedent to make law was a bastardization of the intent of the Constitution, and I think purposely done to weaken it....
Click to expand...


You can spout off all you want, but it is a right as defined. So go pound sand and try to sell your **** to someone who cares. I am for the liberty and freedom of women. You are not.
 
joko104 said:
Pro-life is a dishonest term. It is Pro Rapist Procreation Rights. Pro-life is really also Pro-Womens-Deaths too. Pro-life is a totally dishonest term.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I am pro-life. This means that I believe in the sanctity of all human life, and this is not limited to the abortion issue. I also oppose the death penalty and, in many circumstances, euthanasia. I am a woman, and I have been raped. To suggest that I am "pro-rapist-anything" is very insulting and also obviously and stupidly just not true. I have sisters and a daughter, and I am definitely "pro-woman."

You know, it's fine with me if others don't share my views. Just don't insult me by trying to characterize me as someone I am not.
 
j-mac said:
That "right to privacy" ends the moment you privately choose to engage in an act that you know can, and will result in the creation of a human child, then expect me to subsidize the murder of it when you don't want it.
Click to expand...

No one said anything about subsidizing an abortion ( an abortion is not murder under the law no matter how you feel about it)

No the right to privacy does not end when a woman has sex. The right to privacy is about reproduction.
A woman along with husband/ lover/ boyfriend has the right to choose when they are ready to have children, how many children they want , and how far apart to space them.

Take the case of the happily married faithful wife who shares the marriage bed with husband.
They have a baby whom they love dearly but the pregnancy did cause health problems for the woman which she is still struggling with.

The woman loves her husband and faithfully takes her birth control because they want to share the marriage bed and their love for each other.

What if the birth control fails?

According to you she made her choice because she was a loving, and faithful wife. You think
She needs to continue the pregnancy even though she will not be healthy enough to take of baby she already has.
On the other hand if she had an early legal abortion and was able to wait another year or so until she is healthier she could continue to be a good mother who can take good care of her baby and be loving and caring wife to her husband.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
This thread is supposed to be about the Arkansas law, not North Dakota...I understand the the conversation will broaden, however, I feel that the attempt to bring in ND to the conversation is an attempt to shift the goal posts.
Click to expand...

I understand that Arkansas was the original intent, but since then...North Dakota has trumped their abortion laws in severity. The goal in conversations like these are simple...Pro-Life and Pro-Choice making their case with the attempt to prove the other wrong.

As these conversations grow....the inevitability is for it to broaden and eventually lead back to Roe V Wade against State Rights.
 
joko104 said:
Pro-life is a dishonest term. It is Pro Rapist Procreation Rights. Pro-life is really also Pro-Womens-Deaths too. Pro-life is a totally dishonest term.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Yet more flamebait nonsense from you.
 
JayDubya said:
:roll:

Yet more flamebait nonsense from you.
Click to expand...


No more flamebaiting than calling Pro-Choice people pro-abortion. I am not for abortion personally, but I'm not going to force my views on other women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom