Ark. lawmaker proposes new abortion restriction

There are 20 comments on the Jan 29, 2013, KTHV-TV Little Rock story titled Ark. lawmaker proposes new abortion restriction. In it, KTHV-TV Little Rock reports that:

Arkansas would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected under a bill introduced by a Republican senator Monday, a proposal that would prohibit the medical procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTHV-TV Little Rock.

Ocean56

AOL

#66 Feb 4, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Consenting to engage in sexual intercouse is willing acceptance of the possible consequences which include pregnancy. Murdering babies to avoid those consequences is unacceptable.
Murdering babies is ILLEGAL, goofy. You can stomp your feet and scream "abortion is murdering babies!" all you want. To me, it's just the usual anti-choice hysteria, which I can cheerfully ignore.

Consent to sex DOESN'T equal consent to unwanted pregnancy and birth, no matter how many times you whine that it does. EACH woman chooses what to do about a pregnancy, and if it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision. In other words, YOU don't make reproductive decisions for anyone but yourself. Get over it.
Ocean56

AOL

#67 Feb 4, 2013
the real guest wrote:
She's obviously suffering severe emotional trauma. That's another disastrous effect of abortion that the pro abortion lobby tries to bury.
SOME women may suffer "severe emotional trauma" as a result of having an abortion. Other women do not, as the stories at the link below clearly illustrate.

http://www.imnotsorry.net
the real guest

United States

#68 Feb 4, 2013
Bitner wrote:
What abortion really is, is the termination of a pregnancy, whether spontaneous (miscarriage), or induced, by the removal of the products of conception.
"Products of conception"??? Please. Every human being is a product of conception. Stop using lying phrases and deal with plain language.

Yes, abortion is indeed the termination of a human life. If it is spontaneous, no crime has been committed. If that human life is intentionally put to death, then it is murder. There are laws against me whacking a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat causing the death of her unborn baby. It's called murder.

Your weak attempt to justify murdering unborn babies is ridiculous. You might as well try to justify murdering adults on the basis that some of them die of natural causes. Sheer idiocy.
You are not dealing in facts. You are the one spouting propaganda, melodramatically so.
No, I'm giving you the facts. You just don't want to hear it because if you faced the truth you'd have to admit that what you support is sick and twisted.
Babies are not being murdered in such a decision to terminate the pregnancy.
Yes they are. You're spouting more lying bullshit from the pro agenda crowd. There is nothing magical about the birth canal that transforms the "products of conception" into a baby. It's sheer idiocy to believe that there is.
Getting pregnant does not injure the embryo/fetus.
Nope, but abortion imposes the ultimate injury on the unborn baby - a fatal injury.
What I actually said, was that you don't have to live with your own injury if you have an accident just because you accepted the risk of such an accident by driving.
Well yeah, you do. If I choose to drive my car into a brick wall and break my neck, I do have to live with that injury, assuming I don't die. What idiotic view would hold that I could simply snap my fingers and no longer have such an injury? Again, sheer idiocy.
It is not a crime at all. Morals are subjective, and relative to the person/group holding them. Your morals don't dictate our laws.
Actually they do, which is why all other types of murder our against the law, along with rape, armed robbery, battery, etc.
How young are you, exactly?
Probably old enough to be your parent.
Abortion is not murder.
Repeating the same lie will not make it true.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#69 Feb 4, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
"Please. Every human being is a product of conception. Stop using lying phrases and deal with plain language."

There were no "lying phrases", just the definition of abortion.

"Yes, abortion is indeed the termination of a human life."

No, abortion is the termination of the pregnancy.

"If it is spontaneous, no crime has been committed. If that human life is intentionally put to death, then it is murder."

Wrong. Either way no crime has been committed. Abortion is not murder.

"There are laws against me whacking a pregnant woman in the stomach with a baseball bat causing the death of her unborn baby. It's called murder."

No, it's called fetal homicide, not all states have such laws, and where they do, they are always the result of the death of the fetus coming against the woman's wishes, and during the commission of another crime; assault on the woman.

"Your weak attempt to justify murdering unborn babies is ridiculous. You might as well try to justify murdering adults on the basis that some of them die of natural causes. Sheer idiocy."

I have not attempted to justify any murder. Why must you lie?

"No, I'm giving you the facts."

You have given no facts. Just spouted propaganda.

"You just don't want to hear it because if you faced the truth you'd have to admit that what you support is sick and twisted."

What I support is a woman's civil rights. There is nothing sick or twisted about that.

"Yes they are. You're spouting more lying bullshit from the pro agenda crowd. There is nothing magical about the birth canal that transforms the "products of conception" into a baby. It's sheer idiocy to believe that there is."

I never said there was. That is another of your strawman arguments.

"Baby" is slang for infant, and infants are already born. It is also a term of endearment for just about everything under the sun. I can call my youngest daughter "Baby", but she's 19, and is not really an infant. Birth is when a fetus becomes an infant, or neonate.

"Nope, but abortion imposes the ultimate injury on the unborn baby - a fatal injury."

Which is not what your comparison aimed at. It was not an apt comparison.

"Well yeah, you do. If I choose to drive my car into a brick wall and break my neck, I do have to live with that injury, assuming I don't die. What idiotic view would hold that I could simply snap my fingers and no longer have such an injury? Again, sheer idiocy."

Well fine, if I must dumb it down for you; if there is a medical remedy for your injury, then you are not required by law to live with it. I'm sorry you were not bright enough to understand the unspoken in my earlier statement.

"Actually they do, which is why all other types of murder our against the law, along with rape, armed robbery, battery, etc."

No, your personal morals do not dictate to our laws. Our civil rights do. Those things are illegal because they infringe on our civil rights, not because your religious beliefs say they are wrong. Sorry.

"Probably old enough to be your parent."

Doubtful. My father is 85. How old are you?

"Repeating the same lie will not make it true."

So you should stop doing so. I have told no lies.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#70 Feb 4, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? Uh, the difference is that you would be committing a violent crime. And unborn baby has done nothing wrong. Its completely innocent.
What crime has an unborn baby committed that earns him the death penalty?
<quoted text>
Not at all. I just believe a human being's right to life supercedes a woman's selfishness in avoiding the consequences of her own choices. It really is just that simple.
And the difference is I have the right to self defense which could render you six feet below ground.

That earns "him"? the death penalty? HE is trespassing on private property and using my resources MY BODY. Your terminology shows your feeling of vulnerability, poor you.

No you believe a woman/girl has no rights to determine her best interests and wish to impose punishment on her for having sex. Something you probably have none of. It REALLY is just that simple.

You are a perpetual dumb azz.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#71 Feb 4, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But YOU and the others who support slaughtering little babies are the ones who demane unborn babies and act like they don't exist. YOU are the ones who turn them into inanimate objects.
That's why I posted the link to the abortion website so you and others could see what abortion actually looks like. There are so many lies proffered by the pro abortion crowd that it has caused widespread ignorance.
Take a look at the truth:
http://www.abortioninstruments.com/
You demeaned women/girls who become pregnant from rape, and I know why, you think they deserved it! That is why you eliminate them entirely form the equation as though they don't matter. Women are inanimate objects to you, you have proved that.

The lies that are told are ENTIRELY by the anti choice religious nut fck crowd. I have seen the result of a 3 month miscarriage right before my eyes...have you? Of course not!!

Hey they left out some of the abortion instruments, coat hanger and knitting needle.
Ocean56

AOL

#72 Feb 5, 2013
the real guest wrote:
But you don't have the guts to look at the website I posted. Like every abortion supporter, you refuse facts and reality and choose instead to believe lies.
Awwwwww, still pissed that women DON'T need your approval or permission to decide NOT to stay pregnant, I see. Too bad.

Abortion IS a medical procedure, no matter how much you whine that it isn't. No woman has to go along with YOUR version of "facts and reality," by the way. Motherhood is still OPTIONAL, not required, and a woman can reject it because she doesn't want the hardships and responsibilities it involves. Don't like it? Tough.
Ocean56

AOL

#73 Feb 5, 2013
the real guest wrote:
"Products of conception"??? Please. Every human being is a product of conception. Stop using lying phrases and deal with plain language.
We can use ANY phrase we want, goofy, including "products of conception." Whether YOU approve of that phrase or not is irrelevant.

It's sad to see that some states in the U.S., including Arkansas, are still in the Dark Ages where women and women's reproductive rights are concerned. I'm just very glad I don't live in your BACKWARD state, and hope more prochoice women who are unlucky enough to live there will find a way to move to a far more progressive state. You know, a state that doesn't consider women nothing more than mindless baby factories "for God and church."

I wonder how long it will be before some regressive right-wing politician in Arkansas decides that all forms of reliable contraception should be restricted as well. My guess; not that long.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#74 Feb 5, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
We can use ANY phrase we want, goofy, including "products of conception." Whether YOU approve of that phrase or not is irrelevant.
It's sad to see that some states in the U.S., including Arkansas, are still in the Dark Ages where women and women's reproductive rights are concerned. I'm just very glad I don't live in your BACKWARD state, and hope more prochoice women who are unlucky enough to live there will find a way to move to a far more progressive state. You know, a state that doesn't consider women nothing more than mindless baby factories "for God and church."
I wonder how long it will be before some regressive right-wing politician in Arkansas decides that all forms of reliable contraception should be restricted as well. My guess; not that long.
This guy is a perpetual dumb azz, now he is trying to control language? What a controlling little pissant he is!
Ocean56

AOL

#75 Feb 6, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
This guy is a perpetual dumb azz, now he is trying to control language? What a controlling little pissant he is!
Indeed, although I'm going to bet he'll deny that too.:-)
Ocean56

AOL

#76 Feb 6, 2013
the real guest wrote:
No, I'm giving you the facts. You just don't want to hear it because if you faced the truth you'd have to admit that what you support is sick and twisted.
You're not giving us "the facts," you're giving us your OPINIONS, which I can -- and DO -- cheerfully dismiss. But if you want REAL facts, here are some for you to think about.

**********

For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history, I think it's time for a little reminder of some facts you probably don't want to see mentioned on a public forum. Too bad. The fact is, we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in America --

-- Girls got much less education than boys did.

-- Girls' activities, especially for middle- and upper-class girls, were limited to "ladylike" pursuits.

-- Girls and women were considered naturally weaker and inferior to boys and men.

-- It was thought shocking, outrageous, and even scandalous for a woman to give a speech in public, especially to audiences of both men and women.

-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to confine their activities to a "separate sphere" or their homes. Women were also expected to show the "virtues" of religious piety, wifely submission, and motherly domesticity. And they always had to be escorted outside their homes by a man.

-- Married women had NO legal rights, including to own property, keep their inherited money, enter into contracts, sign legal documents, or control what happened to their wages or their children.

-- Women who were single or had to earn money had very few job opportunities and were always paid less than men who did the same job.

-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to wear layers of restrictive and heavy clothing, and corsets that were so tight that many women suffered health problems as a result.

-- Almost a million African women were chattel slaves.

-- Women were not allowed to vote.

-- Married women had no choices over their reproductive process. Any woman who got married was expected to produce children, whether she WANTED to be a mother or not.

In addition to the above, as if that weren't oppressive enough, conservative men of the 19th and early 20th century opposed every measure that improved women's lives, especially a woman's right to vote. THAT'S what the 19th century feminists fought so hard to change, and eventually succeeded in doing so, even though it took 72 years, from 1848 to 1920, to achieve that goal. The shame was that it took that long for women to GET that right to vote in the first place.

**********

So when I hear this anti-choice denial that "this isn't about control of women," I'll challenge that idiotic assertion every chance I get. Whether YOU like my doing so or not is irrelevant to me.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#77 Feb 6, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not giving us "the facts," you're giving us your OPINIONS, which I can -- and DO -- cheerfully dismiss. But if you want REAL facts, here are some for you to think about.
**********
For the "christian" extremists who think that girls and women were well treated in past American history, I think it's time for a little reminder of some facts you probably don't want to see mentioned on a public forum. Too bad. The fact is, we had an American version of Sharia Law in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century in America --
-- Girls got much less education than boys did.
-- Girls' activities, especially for middle- and upper-class girls, were limited to "ladylike" pursuits.
-- Girls and women were considered naturally weaker and inferior to boys and men.
-- It was thought shocking, outrageous, and even scandalous for a woman to give a speech in public, especially to audiences of both men and women.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to confine their activities to a "separate sphere" or their homes. Women were also expected to show the "virtues" of religious piety, wifely submission, and motherly domesticity. And they always had to be escorted outside their homes by a man.
-- Married women had NO legal rights, including to own property, keep their inherited money, enter into contracts, sign legal documents, or control what happened to their wages or their children.
-- Women who were single or had to earn money had very few job opportunities and were always paid less than men who did the same job.
-- Middle- and upper-class women were expected to wear layers of restrictive and heavy clothing, and corsets that were so tight that many women suffered health problems as a result.
-- Almost a million African women were chattel slaves.
-- Women were not allowed to vote.
-- Married women had no choices over their reproductive process. Any woman who got married was expected to produce children, whether she WANTED to be a mother or not.
In addition to the above, as if that weren't oppressive enough, conservative men of the 19th and early 20th century opposed every measure that improved women's lives, especially a woman's right to vote. THAT'S what the 19th century feminists fought so hard to change, and eventually succeeded in doing so, even though it took 72 years, from 1848 to 1920, to achieve that goal. The shame was that it took that long for women to GET that right to vote in the first place.
**********
So when I hear this anti-choice denial that "this isn't about control of women," I'll challenge that idiotic assertion every chance I get. Whether YOU like my doing so or not is irrelevant to me.
And whether we want to be mothers or not, vote or not, and be married or not, is quite immaterial to him, as long as we marry, give birth, and shut the hell up about it. Independent women scare the bejeezus out of the boy, which is why he's so rabid to keep us barefoot, pregnant, and completely dependent on the men in our lives.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#78 Feb 6, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
She's obviously suffering severe emotional trauma. That's another disastrous effect of abortion that the pro abortion lobby tries to bury.
Dude. The death from a brain aneurysm, last year, of my 23 year old first born son, was FAR more traumatic than my abortion. He was the 'effect' of that procedure, because if I hadn't had that abortion, I would never have had him.

I'd have been dead.

I don't feel guilty...I feel like A MOTHER. Because I am one.

Get it through your skull: Women usually gestate, keep, and raise our children. Have you ever once thought about the generosity of spirit it takes to be an effective mother? Why, in the name of the Divine, would you want to condemn BORN CHILDREN to life with someone who doesn't want motherhood?

It's OBVIOUSLY more healthy for us to have the choice to BE MOMS, than to make it an obligation.

The whole reason you want to oblige, mandate, insist, and ensure that women bear children, is because you CAN'T.

Grow up.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#79 Feb 6, 2013
shovelhead72 wrote:
<quoted text>Dude. The death from a brain aneurysm, last year, of my 23 year old first born son, was FAR more traumatic than my abortion. He was the 'effect' of that procedure, because if I hadn't had that abortion, I would never have had him.
I'd have been dead.
I don't feel guilty...I feel like A MOTHER. Because I am one.
Get it through your skull: Women usually gestate, keep, and raise our children. Have you ever once thought about the generosity of spirit it takes to be an effective mother? Why, in the name of the Divine, would you want to condemn BORN CHILDREN to life with someone who doesn't want motherhood?
It's OBVIOUSLY more healthy for us to have the choice to BE MOMS, than to make it an obligation.
The whole reason you want to oblige, mandate, insist, and ensure that women bear children, is because you CAN'T.
Grow up.
I am so sorry about your son, my husbands cousin died at 25 from the same. Don't know what else to say except I hope you are doing OK . I never know what to say in these circumstances. I am more of a doer, I would get you something to eat, but you something you wanted, try to make you laugh, give you a hug and pour you a beer. I just never know what to say.:o(

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#80 Feb 6, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am so sorry about your son, my husbands cousin died at 25 from the same. Don't know what else to say except I hope you are doing OK . I never know what to say in these circumstances. I am more of a doer, I would get you something to eat, but you something you wanted, try to make you laugh, give you a hug and pour you a beer. I just never know what to say.:o(
I'll take the hug, you make me laugh all the time, I've just had supper, and you can keep the beer, but pour me a few rattlesnakes, and a shot or three of Jaeger, and we'll have ourselves a time......

Thanks, hon.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#81 Feb 6, 2013
By the way.....don't feel as if you have to say something to a grieving person, to make them 'feel better'...can't be done.

There's really nothing to say.

Just being there to provide a dry shoulder, a hug, a laugh, a meal they don't have to prepare, or a beer, is the best thing to do.

Love is the only antidote to death.
the real guest

United States

#82 Feb 7, 2013
Who grieves for the murdered babies?

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#83 Feb 7, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Who grieves for the murdered babies?
Sounds like a job for you, grieve away. While you are at it, don't forget to grieve for the miscarried ones that god murdered. That should keep you busy and off of the streets.
Ocean56

AOL

#84 Feb 7, 2013
shovelhead72 wrote:
And whether we want to be mothers or not, vote or not, and be married or not, is quite immaterial to him, as long as we marry, give birth, and shut the hell up about it. Independent women scare the bejeezus out of the boy, which is why he's so rabid to keep us barefoot, pregnant, and completely dependent on the men in our lives.
Exactly. A lot of male anti-choice imbeciles have this kind of backward "thinking" where women are concerned. I have no doubt whatsoever that these guys would love to turn the clock back to the 1950's or even the 1850's. Tough luck for them that they CAN'T.

“searching myself”

Since: Sep 09

In Charming CA

#85 Feb 7, 2013
the real guest wrote:
Who grieves for the murdered babies?
Casey Anthony sure as hell doesn't...

I guess it's all on you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 24 min State the Obvious 309,671
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) 4 hr zef 5,652
News New abortion controversy hits Congress 9 hr RP McMurphy 14
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 15 hr thetruth 7,406
Fri Ren 2
News Pediatricians Warn of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Thu dpriver 2
safe abortion 0780343859wts hap in Queens twn, ... Apr 22 mama hawa 1
More from around the web