Rapert's abortion ban is unconstituti...

Rapert's abortion ban is unconstitutional

There are 137 comments on the Arkansas Times story from Feb 10, 2013, titled Rapert's abortion ban is unconstitutional. In it, Arkansas Times reports that:

Duh. Sen. Jason Rapert's bill to ban abortions from the 12th week of pregnancy onward is unconstitutional under every controlling legal precedent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Arkansas Times.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Dan

Omaha, NE

#124 Feb 18, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
A miscarriage is an abortion. And no, I did not "claim the results were nearly identical".
Try for a little honesty. When you can address what I'm actually saying, we can go on from there.
"the result of one looks the same as the result of 88% of all induced abortions."

What, is 89% the threshold? If 88% isn't significant, why mention it, Bitner? You felt 88% was significant before, but now it's not. I guess.

What a spin doctor.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#125 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"the result of one looks the same as the result of 88% of all induced abortions."
What, is 89% the threshold? If 88% isn't significant, why mention it, Bitner? You felt 88% was significant before, but now it's not. I guess.
What a spin doctor.
The 88% is significant, because the bill in question is about the 12th week, and 88% of all abortions are performed at 12 and before anyway.

If you don't know that much about this issue, why are you even here?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#126 Feb 18, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The 88% is significant, because the bill in question is about the 12th week, and 88% of all abortions are performed at 12 and before anyway.
If you don't know that much about this issue, why are you even here?
You said that the visual results of spontaneous abortion resembled 88% of all induced abortions. That's what you said.

Why, I don't know, but, that's what you said.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#127 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You said that the visual results of spontaneous abortion resembled 88% of all induced abortions. That's what you said.
Why, I don't know, but, that's what you said.
No. I didn't. I said the results of a spontaneous abortion look the same as the results of induced abortions when 88% of them occur. I clarified in other posts, as did Morgana, that we were talking about spontaneous abortions that occur at the same time, in the first 12 weeks. It's not my fault you've been obtuse.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#128 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the deflection. Predictable as the sunrise.
The exception doesn't proves the rule, no matter how you'd have it otherwise.
The truth is you have no idea why women choose not to continue a pregnancy. You are trying to prove a "rule" in an area where you have NO idea., no knowledge and certainly no expertise.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#129 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetally-induced tumors?
The pregnancy, the thing you have trouble defining as a state of nothing, not a medical condition, not an illness, not a dysfunction was causing rapid development of uterine tumors.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#130 Feb 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, if the Catholic Church ever were to have their way in the matter, induced abortion would be illegal or not take place.
You would concede, I hope, that those opposed to abortion aren't lumped by you into one neat tidy lttle box of "misogyny" and wrapped up thusly.
That's the same rhetoric that you (and espcially Bitner) tell us you are so strongly opposed to, yet you never fail to take occasion to employ it in service to your argument.
I absolutely would define those who oppose a womans choice over her medical/physical well being as misogynistic and wrap it up with a nice tight bow.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#131 Feb 18, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I didn't. I said the results of a spontaneous abortion look the same as the results of induced abortions when 88% of them occur. I clarified in other posts, as did Morgana, that we were talking about spontaneous abortions that occur at the same time, in the first 12 weeks. It's not my fault you've been obtuse.
He is in way over his head. He is an outsider looking in.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#132 Feb 19, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth is you have no idea why women choose not to continue a pregnancy. You are trying to prove a "rule" in an area where you have NO idea., no knowledge and certainly no expertise.
I addressed the "why" abortion is sought-to avoid having a baby. In the overwhelming majority of incidences.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#133 Feb 19, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I addressed the "why" abortion is sought-to avoid having a baby. In the overwhelming majority of incidences.
Perhaps women/girls simply do not want to be pregnant since it is a medical condition.
Ocean56

AOL

#134 Feb 20, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
Perhaps women/girls simply do not want to be pregnant since it is a medical condition.
That's what they have such a problem with; the fact that pregnancy is NOT welcomed by all women. Mentally, these right-wing misogynist guys are stuck in the 19th century and can't seem to get past it. In his essay "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:

"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."

**********

I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.

This is exactly the type of injustice and open discrimination against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to eliminate, and, no doubt, what many conservative right-wing guys would like to see women returned to. These guys can't get past the fact that both marriage and motherhood are now CHOICES, which women can REJECT if they don't want to be wives or mothers.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#135 Feb 20, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they have such a problem with; the fact that pregnancy is NOT welcomed by all women. Mentally, these right-wing misogynist guys are stuck in the 19th century and can't seem to get past it. In his essay "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:
"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."
**********
I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.
This is exactly the type of injustice and open discrimination against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to eliminate, and, no doubt, what many conservative right-wing guys would like to see women returned to. These guys can't get past the fact that both marriage and motherhood are now CHOICES, which women can REJECT if they don't want to be wives or mothers.
That Mills guy was a character huh? Thinking women can think for themselves and not be directed by men!! I love how the fundies try do deny the second class citizenship they bestow on women!!

""In Mill's time a woman was generally subject to the whims of her husband and/or father due to social norms which said women were both physically and mentally less able than men, and therefore needed to be "taken care of." Contributing to this view were social theories, i.e. survival of the fittest and biological determinism, based on a now considered incorrect understanding of the biological theory of evolution and also religious views supporting a hierarchical view of men and women within the family. The archetype of the ideal woman as mother, wife and homemaker was a powerful idea in 19th century society."""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subjection_o...
Ocean56

AOL

#136 Feb 20, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
That Mills guy was a character huh? Thinking women can think for themselves and not be directed by men!! I love how the fundies try do deny the second class citizenship they bestow on women!!
""In Mill's time a woman was generally subject to the whims of her husband and/or father due to social norms which said women were both physically and mentally less able than men, and therefore needed to be "taken care of." Contributing to this view were social theories, i.e. survival of the fittest and biological determinism, based on a now considered incorrect understanding of the biological theory of evolution and also religious views supporting a hierarchical view of men and women within the family. The archetype of the ideal woman as mother, wife and homemaker was a powerful idea in 19th century society."""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subjection_o...
The women in the 19th century "needed to be taken care of" because men at that time DENIED woman all opportunities to be single and independent by denying them a college education and denying women access to the trades and professions.

Thanks to the constant efforts of the 19th century suffragists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (to name just two, there were many more), there were a lot more trades and professions open to women at the end of the 19th century. It was sad that some of the leading feminist foremothers died before they could LEGALLY vote.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#137 Feb 21, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps women/girls simply do not want to be pregnant since it is a medical condition.
Then take BC or wait 9 months.

Queen of Denial.

Women get abortions to avoid the result of the pregnancy-the baby.

Everyone knows this, yet you spin like a top to deny it. Why?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#138 Feb 21, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutely would define those who oppose a womans choice over her medical/physical well being as misogynistic and wrap it up with a nice tight bow.
That's obvious, but it's a straw man argument.

Women are pro-choice. You'd term them dupes or similar, I'm sure, but it vitiates your claim.

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#139 Feb 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Then take BC or wait 9 months.
Queen of Denial.
Women get abortions to avoid the result of the pregnancy-the baby.
Everyone knows this, yet you spin like a top to deny it. Why?
You don't know anything Dan. You like to pretend you know as an outsider looking in and as a man who thinks he knows so much better than them dumb women.

Further, if the reason is NOT wanting a baby then you don't carry the medical condition that eventually produces one, you abort.

I did not want another child in my forties entering menopause. Even without the problems that developed I would have aborted. Apparently that would be a problem for you, but your opinion would have been as insignificant as doggie doo on my shoe. None of your business, not your life, not your problem, not your responsibility, and that is a wrap!

Morgana 9

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#140 Feb 21, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
That's obvious, but it's a straw man argument.
Women are pro-choice. You'd term them dupes or similar, I'm sure, but it vitiates your claim.
Women are pro choice in a majority, women are more in tune with the issues surrounding pregnancy. AND yes I would label any anti choice woman as misogynistic because the majority of them that are anti choice follow misogynistic male phallic worshipping religious beliefs and in my opinion are filled with self hatred.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

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 Right to Life remembering lives lost to abortion (Jan '13) 7 hr Beyond Belief 693
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 hr Advocate 310,640
News Bush vows to back GOP nominee, slams Rubio on a... 12 hr No Way 1
News Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 13 hr MichelleMC 219,861
News Here is the latest Texas news from The Associat... 16 hr Left farts 11
Miss Jenny Abortion Procedure (Apr '14) Fri Hyan 52
News Anti-abortion activist indicted in Texas turns ... Fri Activist farts 9
More from around the web