• 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]

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.

Calling someone who is pro-abortion (in favor of the legality of abortion) "pro-abortion" is accurate.

Calling someone who is anti-abortion (opposed to the legality of abortion) "pro-rape" is ****ing retarded flamebait bull****tery.
 
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.

Sorry Joko, this part of your post just bothers me immensely. The premise that protecting life at its conception is somehow irresponsible, or amoral to you seems exactly opposite of reality in the situation.
 
Calling someone who is pro-abortion (in favor of the legality of abortion) "pro-abortion" is accurate.

Calling someone who is anti-abortion (opposed to the legality of abortion) "pro-rape" is ****ing retarded flamebait bull****tery.

Like I said, I am not PRO-abortion, I am just not for making it illegal for someone else. Is it accurate to say you are pro-drunk driving since you don't want alcohol illegal for everyone? No, it isn't. so your lable IS inaccurate.
 
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.

Nonsense. The terminology you are proscribing here is emotion based to inflame only.
 
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.

I fully understand what the pro side is of those in favor of abortion on demand. However, that choice is made before the act that results in a pregnancy to begin with. On this I don't think we will see eye to eye.
 
Nonsense. The terminology you are proscribing here is emotion based to inflame only.


And you don't think the term Pro-Abortion isn't emotion based to inflame?
 
Like I said, I am not PRO-abortion, I am just not for making it illegal for someone else.

This sentence does not parse, as it directly self-contradicts.

If the latter half of the sentence is true, the first half of the sentence is false.

Is it accurate to say you are pro-drunk driving since you don't want alcohol illegal for everyone? No, it isn't. so your lable IS inaccurate.

Non-sequitur. It would be accurate to say that I favor keeping the sale of alcohol legal, I would be pro-alcohol or anti-prohibition.

Your pro-drunk driving label is like his pro-rape label, several steps removed from the item specifically talked about.
 
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.

No, that is false, and further I don't understand why you must personally attack me in speaking to another poster here. I am trying my hardest to keep my conversation civil in this thread, and if any "baiting" is being done, it is by you with posting like this.

If you feel I am breaking any rules in this regard, then my suggestion is that you report it.
 
This sentence does not parse, as it directly self-contradicts.

If the latter half of the sentence is true, the first half of the sentence is false.

Religious people are against irresponsible drinking yes? However, if they are not willing to make alcohol illegal then they are not pro-irresponsible drinking. Calling people Pro-Choice is an ACCURATE term, calling them pro-abortion is nothing more than to inflame and is innacuate.

Non-sequitur. It would be accurate to say that I favor keeping the sale of alcohol legal, I would be pro-alcohol or anti-prohibition.

Your pro-drunk driving label is like his pro-rape label, several steps removed from the item specifically talked about.

Calling someone pro-abortion when they wouldn't approve one themselves is not accurate. If I am not willing to ok an abortion myself, that doesn't make me pro-abortion.
 
I fully understand what the pro side is of those in favor of abortion on demand. However, that choice is made before the act that results in a pregnancy to begin with. On this I don't think we will see eye to eye.

I agree to respectfully disagree. I do not feel a happily married couple should have to give up the marriage bed when they want to space their children so the woman is healthy enough to care for her little ones.
We do not have a 100 percent effective goof proof birth control product with no side effects yet.

Therefore an oops pregnancy can happen.
In fact over 60 percent of all women who have early abortions have at least 1 child. They are mothers.
 
Religious people are against irresponsible drinking yes? However, if they are not willing to make alcohol illegal then they are not pro-irresponsible drinking. Calling people Pro-Choice is an ACCURATE term, calling them pro-abortion is nothing more than to inflame and is innacuate.

No, "pro-choice" is a blatantly RIDICULOUS term implying something false about both those who claim it and those who do not support abortion.

In broad terms, virtually everyone likes freedom of choice. Not everyone is keen on "freedom of choice" including the choice to commit the homicide of an innocent without legal consequence.

To simplify, people who want freedom of choice, like myself, usually want laws to ban violence.

Calling someone pro-abortion when they wouldn't approve one themselves is not accurate. If I am not willing to ok an abortion myself, that doesn't make me pro-abortion.

If you favor the legality of abortion, you are pro-abortion. At most, your semantics is worth a pro-(legal) abortion, but the parenthetical goes without saying.
 
No one said anything about subsidizing an abortion ( an abortion is not murder under the law no matter how you feel about it)

Can you assure me with fact and figures that tax money given to PP for example, is absolutely fire walled from subsidizing abortion? The answer is honestly NO. Money is fungible, and PP routinely either hides, or blocks access to their accounting.

No the right to privacy does not end when a woman has sex. The right to privacy is about reproduction.

Human life, is human life. A baby at 23 weeks should have the right to live. Like I said no one is taking away your right to reproduce.

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.

Absolutely. And there are an abundance of contraceptive choices out there that have well into the high 90% range of effectiveness, even higher when two are used in concert with each other. So the risk of pregnancy is extremely low if the proper choice is made. This argument that because people are irresponsible in their action, so we need to provide that the result of that act that creates life should be an exception to killing it is regretful.

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.

I advocate no such thing. And as such have repeated many times in this thread alone that exceptions for rape, incest, and health reasons to the mother should be considered. You are making the wrong assertion here that it is either all or nothing. That is a false choice that is not on the table as far as I am concerned.

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.

And that is a decision that is between her, her husband, and their OBGYN. The purpose of an example like this is not the norm in elective abortion today. In fact, by your own figures it is about 10%. That leaves 90% that are pure killing for convenience.
 
And you don't think the term Pro-Abortion isn't emotion based to inflame?

No, I think it is an accurate description....False terminology like "pro choice" is meant to mask what it is that side of the argument is for...I mean, can not "pro choice" also mean the choice to keep the baby?
 
I agree to respectfully disagree.

That's fair. And I do want to thank you for a largely respectful debate thus far. I do not agree with many of your views on the subject, but I think we are doing pretty good discussing it so far considering the volatility of the subject.

I do not feel a happily married couple should have to give up the marriage bed when they want to space their children so the woman is healthy enough to care for her little ones.

Nor would I...But it doesn't have to be an all or nothing divide.

We do not have a 100 percent effective goof proof birth control product with no side effects yet.

True, but I would say we are about as close as anything in life...Care should be taken in many things we do hap hazardly....

Therefore an oops pregnancy can happen.

Yep, that's true...Still doesn't grant the right to snuff out that life though.

In fact over 60 percent of all women who have early abortions have at least 1 child. They are mothers.

Then they more than single women should know the result of unprotected sex.
 
?..

Nor would I...But it doesn't have to be an all or nothing divide.

Yes, it does have to be an all or nothing divide.
True, but I would say we are about as close as anything in life...Care should be taken in many things we do hap hazardly....
Even with used correctly birth control pills fail 1 to 3 percent of the time and many women can not take the pill.
Even when condoms are used correctly they can fail 1 to 5 percent of time.

Therefore if a happily married couple needs to space their children due to her having high risk pregnancies ...yes they would have to give up the marriage bed and live celebrate lives until she is healthy enough to have another pregnancy.
 
No, I think it is an accurate description....False terminology like "pro choice" is meant to mask what it is that side of the argument is for...I mean, can not "pro choice" also mean the choice to keep the baby?

It isn't false terminology. Pro-choice is giving the woman the right to CHOOSE whether to have the baby or not. Hence PRO-CHOICE. Your side doesn't want the woman to be able to choose.
 
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.

Sliding "subsidize" in that statement is, again, you trying to divert to change the topic - as you typically do.
 
It isn't false terminology. Pro-choice is giving the woman the right to CHOOSE whether to have the baby or not. Hence PRO-CHOICE. Your side doesn't want the woman to be able to choose.

He wants more than that. He wants men singularly to make the choice.
 
It isn't false terminology. Pro-choice is giving the woman the right to CHOOSE whether to have the baby or not. Hence PRO-CHOICE. Your side doesn't want the woman to be able to choose.

Nonsense. See, this is what I mean...You telling me what I believe when I use terms is funny. The choice is made earlier than the point where a life is electively ended.
 
Sliding "subsidize" in that statement is, again, you trying to divert to change the topic - as you typically do.

No, it is me evening up the debate ground by using the same strategies of debate that my opponents use...So you want an unfair debate ground to discuss the topic...I wonder why?
 
No, I think it is an accurate description....False terminology like "pro choice" is meant to mask what it is that side of the argument is for...I mean, can not "pro choice" also mean the choice to keep the baby?
Wow. You were going for a hat trick of errors in a single post? A rarity, to be sure.

1) Since she's having an abortion, she already 'chose' not to.
2) It couldn't be 'false terminology', since it's self-explanatory and logically consistent. There's no ambiguity or attempt to deceive.
3) Pro-Abortion would indeed be an inaccurate depiction of Pro-Choicers' beliefs, since they don't actively encourage abortion.
 
He wants mo2re than that. He wants men singularly to make the choice.

2nd time....Please talk to me when speaking about me....If you continue to misrepresent my views to a third party, I'll report it.
 
Nonsense. See, this is what I mean...You telling me what I believe when I use terms is funny. The choice is made earlier than the point where a life is electively ended.
If you're Pro-Life, you'd see the option of abortion denied and prohibited. There's no mistaking what you believe.

No, it is me evening up the debate ground by using the same strategies of debate that my opponents use...So you want an unfair debate ground to discuss the topic...I wonder why?
Good luck levelling a moral debate.

No one else ever managed it.
 
Nonsense. See, this is what I mean...You telling me what I believe when I use terms is funny. The choice is made earlier than the point where a life is electively ended.

No more funny than you telling me what I believe when I use terms. The fact here is you don't want the woman to choose to carry the fetus or not. That's anti-choice no matter how you look at it.
 
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.

Ok, then you are on record as being entirely agreeable to California, New York and any other state having legalized abortion - and the U.S. Supreme Court may never establish any legal rights for any "person" until after that person is born. That is what you just stated, that the U.S. Supreme Court would never had any jurisdiction to rule that a fetus has any human or legal rights.


I colored this in red so I can find it easily to be able to find it in the future - to make it clear that you support the rights of people to legalize abortion as is the case for over 90% of Americans and most states. Wouldn't want you contradicting yourself.

Therefore, in all but North Dakota, it is correct law that life does NOT begin at conception AND that women are allowed abortions as the will of the legislatures of all other 49 states.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom