• 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]

This is precisely what the state should be allowed to choose. Good work Arkansas, let's hope this sets a precedent.
 
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.

Actually it means the woman has the choice to kill a baby because it would be inconvenient to birth it. Perhaps she will soon have the choice to kill it at any age. Planned Parenthood seems to be headed in that direction.

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard
 
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.

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.
Read the above as a response. Your train of thought is so off base and asinine that it's impossible to debate someone such as yourself. You jump to conclusions about people such as "if you are pro-life, you are pro-rape" and "if you are pro-life you are merely a dominant male". Absurd to say the least. Nice straw man. As I said earlier, debate with you (if that's what we're calling this) is totally beneath me or any other sane user on the website. Have a nice day.
 
Actually it means the woman has the choice to kill a baby because it would be inconvenient to birth it. Perhaps she will soon have the choice to kill it at any age. Planned Parenthood seems to be headed in that direction.

Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion | The Weekly Standard

Actually the planned parenthood official is not very informed about any abortion that takes place at or after 20 weeks gestation.

The youngest surviving premie was 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.
There is never going to be a baby who will survive a legal abortion anymore since partial birth abortions were banned.

The law requires that any abortion that takes place at or after 20 weeks gestation requires the doctor to inject a fatal injection into the fetus before the abortion starts to take place.

And since D and E is no longer used because of the partial birth ban ..after the fatal injection takes place the abortion doctor has to crush the skull of the fetus of 20 weeks gestation or later to be able to remove it from the undialated cervix.

So if the abortion is a legal abortion no fetus will ever survive an abortion.
 


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.

Absolutely. See, in a country founded on the principle of letting the people decide what they want for their own communities...The idea is federalism. Look it up. If NY, or any other state wants to ban sodas, limit salt, tell you what to eat, how much to eat, where to smoke, what to drink, what size you toilet tank can be, or kill your unborn child, then so be it, you can live there. What makes this country great so far is that there are other states with more freedom to make your own real choice about things like that, and I, if I choose, can move there. You on the other hand want a central government, or in this case a court of 9 unelected judges making law, then you get to call it a right, and muddy the issue by personally attacking anyone whom disagrees with you. When you have that centralized government that you think is all wise, trust me when I say when you find something you disagree with, there will be nowhere to get away from it.
 
Actually the planned parenthood official is not very informed about any abortion that takes place at or after 20 weeks gestation.

The youngest surviving premie was 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.
There is never going to be a baby who will survive a legal abortion anymore since partial birth abortions were banned.

The law requires that any abortion that takes place at or after 20 weeks gestation requires the doctor to inject a fatal injection into the fetus before the abortion starts to take place.

And since D and E is no longer used because of the partial birth ban ..after the fatal injection takes place the abortion doctor has to crush the skull of the fetus of 20 weeks gestation or later to be able to remove it from the undialated cervix.

So if the abortion is a legal abortion no fetus will ever survive an abortion.


Good Lord minnie....Think about what you just wrote, and then tell me you are not killing a child when this takes place...Makes me sad.
 
Good Lord minnie....Think about what you just wrote, and then tell me you are not killing a child when this takes place...Makes me sad.

What I wrote is fact.
And as I have written before abortions that take after 22 weeks gestation are the extreme cases. In 2008 there 323 abortions that took in place in Kansas at or after the 22 week gestation mark.
Of these 192 were not viable. They had either died in the womb and had not been expelled, would be stillborn or were so malformed they would not survive more than a few minutes. They were not viable.

In the other 131 cases the woman would have had irreparable damage to one of her major bodily functions if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

These are very real extreme cases.

I just feel bad that All D and Es were banned because of the partial birth abortion ban. If D and E abortions were allowed the
Fetuses could have been aborted still intact so the family could have buried an intact fetus if they desired that.
 
What I wrote is fact.
And as I have written before abortions that take after 22 weeks gestation are the extreme cases. In 2008 there 323 abortions that took in place in Kansas at or after the 22 week gestation mark.
Of these 192 were not viable. They had either died in the womb and had not been expelled, would be stillborn or were so malformed they would not survive more than a few minutes. They were not viable.

In the other 131 cases the woman would have had irreparable damage to one of her major bodily functions if the pregnancy were allowed to continue.

These are very real extreme cases.

I just feel bad that All D and Es were banned because of the partial birth abortion ban. If D and E abortions were allowed the
Fetuses could have been aborted still intact so the family could have buried an intact fetus if they desired that.

I am sorry minnie....It's not you, but I just feel a little more than a surreal feeling reading the facts you laid out about fatal injections, and crushing the skulls, and reading other postings about the aborted fetus is not a child....Just what the heck is it then? huh?

I gotta go...talk later. night.
 
I am sorry minnie....It's not you, but I just feel a little more than a surreal feeling reading the facts you laid out about fatal injections, and crushing the skulls, and reading other postings about the aborted fetus is not a child....Just what the heck is it then? huh?

I gotta go...talk later. night.

The fatal injections and crushing of skulls is the only legal option left for the extreme cases because of the partial birth abortion act.
A long time ago before the the partial birth abortion act a very very few of the aborted fetus that would never survive because they were not viable did seem to survive for a few minutes so pro life people made a fuss because they thought that meant that the fetus would have survived if an abortion had not taken place.
That is why the partial birth abortions were banned. Now doctors cannot try to abort the fetus intact.
The skull of a fetus cannot be removed intact without a D and E and since D and E are against the law the doctor sadly has to crush the skull in order to remove it without a D and E .

Sometimes when politicians pass laws they make some situations worse for the women who were forced by medial need into having an abortion when the pregnancy they had was a wanted pregnancy turned into a nightmare because of medical reasons.

That is what I feel sad about.
 
The fatal injections and crushing of skulls is the only legal option left for the extreme cases because of the partial birth abortion act.
A long time ago before the the partial birth abortion act a very very few of the aborted fetus that would never survive because they were not viable did seem to survive for a few minutes so pro life people made a fuss because they thought that meant that the fetus would have survived if an abortion had not taken place.
That is why the partial birth abortions were banned. Now doctors cannot try to abort the fetus intact.
The skull of a fetus cannot be removed intact without a D and E and since D and E are against the law the doctor sadly has to crush the skull in order to remove it without a D and E .

Sometimes when politicians pass laws they make some situations worse for the women who were forced by medial need into having an abortion when the pregnancy they had was a wanted pregnancy turned into a nightmare because of medical reasons.

That is what I feel sad about.

It's absolutely grotesque. The partial birth anortion ban, I believe, also ended third trimester abortions that are not for health reasons.
 
Read the above as a response. Your train of thought is so off base and asinine that it's impossible to debate someone such as yourself. You jump to conclusions about people such as "if you are pro-life, you are pro-rape" and "if you are pro-life you are merely a dominant male". Absurd to say the least. Nice straw man. As I said earlier, debate with you (if that's what we're calling this) is totally beneath me or any other sane user on the website. Have a nice day.

A man such as you claiming men can just walk away from their children with no responsibility - in waves of self defined man-god status over women, definitely would not like me for sure.
 
Actually the planned parenthood official is not very informed about any abortion that takes place at or after 20 weeks gestation.

The youngest surviving premie was 21 weeks and 6 days gestation.
There is never going to be a baby who will survive a legal abortion anymore since partial birth abortions were banned.

The law requires that any abortion that takes place at or after 20 weeks gestation requires the doctor to inject a fatal injection into the fetus before the abortion starts to take place.

And since D and E is no longer used because of the partial birth ban ..after the fatal injection takes place the abortion doctor has to crush the skull of the fetus of 20 weeks gestation or later to be able to remove it from the undialated cervix.

So if the abortion is a legal abortion no fetus will ever survive an abortion.

The Planned Parenthood person NEVER said "post birth abortion," never said "destroy it" or "kill it' or any such thing. She said the doctor and patient would have to decide what to do, she can't know in that vague generalization.
 
The Planned Parenthood person NEVER said "post birth abortion," never said "destroy it" or "kill it' or any such thing. She said the doctor and patient would have to decide what to do, she can't know in that vague generalization.

If the baby is alive then you try to keep it alive. Some cases in the past have involved putting the baby in a bucket and letting it die.
 
Absolutely. See, in a country founded on the principle of letting the people decide what they want for their own communities...The idea is federalism. Look it up. If NY, or any other state wants to ban sodas, limit salt, tell you what to eat, how much to eat, where to smoke, what to drink, what size you toilet tank can be, or kill your unborn child, then so be it, you can live there. What makes this country great so far is that there are other states with more freedom to make your own real choice about things like that, and I, if I choose, can move there. You on the other hand want a central government, or in this case a court of 9 unelected judges making law, then you get to call it a right, and muddy the issue by personally attacking anyone whom disagrees with you. When you have that centralized government that you think is all wise, trust me when I say when you find something you disagree with, there will be nowhere to get away from it.

Other than you totally repudiate the U. S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, you have a point. Of course, then you agree any state or locality can totally ban firearms, shut down newspapers, ban free speech, and decide you can't vote. I disagree totally, but you can have your opinion.
 
If the baby is alive then you try to keep it alive. Some cases in the past have involved putting the baby in a bucket and letting it die.

The woman from Planned Parenthood never said, suggested or hinted "let it die." They were asking her for a medical opinion of a damaged child on birth - not even saying damaged how. There was no way for her to answer other than say that is to say she has no qualification to answer and that is up to the doctor and patient.

I have not read any pro-lifer saying to put a born baby in a bucket and let it die. Please link to it if I'm mistaken.
 
The woman from Planned Parenthood never said, suggested or hinted "let it die." They were asking her for a medical opinion of a damaged child on birth - not even saying damaged how. There was no way for her to answer other than say that is to say she has no qualification to answer and that is up to the doctor and patient.

I have not read any pro-lifer saying to put a born baby in a bucket and let it die. Please link to it if I'm mistaken.
No, they told her that the law currently does not demand that doctors in abortion clinics have to provide emergency care to babies born from botched abortions. And she said that planned parenthood disagrees that they should have to provide that care but rather it should be the choice of the mother and physician. And then the lawmaker asked what happens to the baby who is crying on the table and the lady from PP said 'that is the decision of the woman.'
 
No, they told her that the law currently does not demand that doctors in abortion clinics have to provide emergency care to babies born from botched abortions. And she said that planned parenthood disagrees that they should have to provide that care but rather it should be the choice of the mother and physician. And then the lawmaker asked what happens to the baby who is crying on the table and the lady from PP said 'that is the decision of the woman.'

If that is what was truly asked and of that was reply then whoever was asking the questions either did not know a law was already in place to prevent any fetus from being born alive or they were trying to set lady from the planned parenthood up , hoping she did not know the abortion procedure ( which apparently she didnt ) so they send the video to media and stir up the abortion issue all over again.
 
It's absolutely grotesque. The partial birth anortion ban, I believe, also ended third trimester abortions that are not for health reasons.
No , third trimester abortions were already rare and were used for health reasons anyway.
Partial birth abortion were usually done during the late second trimester.

It was the procedure that was banned not the abortions themselves.

it was a piece of legislation signed to make pro life people feel like something had been done..but the egislation just made it harder on the the women who wanted to bury the remains of a pregnancy that went medically wrong.

from wiki:

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 ...enacted November 5, 2003, ... is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", often referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction...

This statute prohibits a method of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute isually used in the second trimester,from 15 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.[4]


Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
If that is what was truly asked and of that was reply then whoever was asking the questions either did not know a law was already in place to prevent any fetus from being born alive or they were trying to set lady from the planned parenthood up , hoping she did not know the abortion procedure ( which apparently she didnt ) so they send the video to media and stir up the abortion issue all over again.

Ok I just watched the video ( I had only read the slanted article in the link before) the first question was not clear and she answered any decision should be between the doctor and the family.
When the congressman clarified his question she said she did not know the answer because she was not a doctor and she did not know what happens.

Yep... it sure looks like the congressman was trying to put on her on the spot which he did because she really did not know what happens when an abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation takes place.
 
Other than you totally repudiate the U. S. Constitution's Bill of Rights...

How so? I beg to differ.

you have a point.

Yes I know.

Of course, then you agree any state or locality can totally ban firearms, shut down newspapers, ban free speech, and decide you can't vote.

No, this is where your own misguided, and distorted view of what a "right" is, is muddled....The only way for your side of the argument to have any credibility is not in reading the Bill of Rights and finding in there anything about abortion, but rather using a reference to privacy and extending that to cover an act that many find deplorable. If it was such a consensus in this country for abortion to be the norm there is one way that those in support could ensure that it is an actual right, and that is to offer an amendment and go through that process. But, that will never happen because in referendum like that you know full well it would fail. So instead what progressives do is to use the court in a way that was never intended for the court to have such power, and claim it anyway through judicial fiat, through un elected judges. Progressives have politicized the court since Marbury, and it is one reason that our country is in jeopardy of losing the foundation that we were founded on....

I disagree totally, but you can have your opinion.

I can have my opinion, but I know you saying it is really just more lip service, you don't believe that at all.
 
Actually it was a majority of republican appointed justices that legalized abortions in the Roe vs Wade decision.
 
How so? I beg to differ.



Yes I know.



No, this is where your own misguided, and distorted view of what a "right" is, is muddled....The only way for your side of the argument to have any credibility is not in reading the Bill of Rights and finding in there anything about abortion, but rather using a reference to privacy and extending that to cover an act that many find deplorable. If it was such a consensus in this country for abortion to be the norm there is one way that those in support could ensure that it is an actual right, and that is to offer an amendment and go through that process. But, that will never happen because in referendum like that you know full well it would fail. So instead what progressives do is to use the court in a way that was never intended for the court to have such power, and claim it anyway through judicial fiat, through un elected judges. Progressives have politicized the court since Marbury, and it is one reason that our country is in jeopardy of losing the foundation that we were founded on....



I can have my opinion, but I know you saying it is really just more lip service, you don't believe that at all.

Because you declared that Federal courts should be inferior to state government and what the legislature or majority in a state wants.

Also, obviously you believe federal laws banning partial birth abortions etc are illegal and unconstitutional - since there is no Constitutional authority provided for this in the Constitution.
 
Because you declared that Federal courts should be inferior to state government and what the legislature or majority in a state wants.

Also, obviously you believe federal laws banning partial birth abortions etc are illegal and unconstitutional - since there is no Constitutional authority provided for this in the Constitution.

Do you believe that the SOCTUS is in place to make law?
 
Back
Top Bottom