Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My response was to previous poster regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade; I guess you weren't following the line of posts.
And yes, we all know the video at the start of the thread is about politicians asking a PP spokeswoman (who admittedly was too flustered to answer the question correctly) "what happens if the abortion results in a baby born alive?" That's a question which requires better definition, since only in the rarest of cases is it possible for the fetus to be born alive (that is, breathing). First of all, with only 1.4% of abortions occurring after 20 weeks (due to state laws prohibiting abortions after fetal viability), 98.6% of the time, the fetus could not survive even with the most expensive medical intervention, even if it were simply delivered (which is not a method of abortion). As to the other 1.4%, here we are talking about those extreme cases where the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus is grossly abnormal. If the fetus is grossly abnormal, again it probably won't survive no matter what is done. So take the incredibly rare case of pregnancy where the life of the mother is at stake, but the fetus is normal and gets all the way to the 24th week. Then the procedure used comes into play--and with the large fetuses that come with 24 week pregnancies, almost always we are talking about the D&E procedure where saline or other chemicals "kill" the fetus before the remains are removed by vacuum.
But say this method is not used and the 24-week fetus is taken by C-section and it starts to breath outside the womb. This is in all likelihood going to happen in a hospital, due to existing law. At this point it would be possible to medically intervene and some fetuses may survive (and existing law would require the physician to try and save the fetus). But the fact is that the fetus would in all likelihood suffer numerous medical problems relating to the prematurity, and at the very minimum would pose incredible expense. One couple who delivered twins at 24 weeks faced a bill of $450,000 as their portion of the $2.2 million it cost to keep their twins alive for the first 18 months of their lives--and they had insurance. For poor women, it will be the taxpayer on the hook for that entire $2.2 million. The Cost of Premature Birth: For One Family, More than $2 Million | TIME.com
"purely elective" could save people from fates worse than death as well. When you pick, pick, pick at the reasons for abortion you will eventually get to a place you personally don't agree with it but that still doesn't mean you get to control it.
In the instances discussed here, yes we can.
Quote:
Big picture, final answer....nobody can control anyone else when it comes to what is going on in their body. There is no fracking way. So WHY is this such an issue? People can't let things go because they hate admitting they have to.
My response was to previous poster regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade; I guess you weren't following the line of posts.
And yes, we all know the video at the start of the thread is about politicians asking a PP spokeswoman (who admittedly was too flustered to answer the question correctly) "what happens if the abortion results in a baby born alive?" That's a question which requires better definition, since only in the rarest of cases is it possible for the fetus to be born alive (that is, breathing). First of all, with only 1.4% of abortions occurring after 20 weeks (due to state laws prohibiting abortions after fetal viability), 98.6% of the time, the fetus could not survive even with the most expensive medical intervention, even if it were simply delivered (which is not a method of abortion). As to the other 1.4%, here we are talking about those extreme cases where the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus is grossly abnormal. If the fetus is grossly abnormal, again it probably won't survive no matter what is done. So take the incredibly rare case of pregnancy where the life of the mother is at stake, but the fetus is normal and gets all the way to the 24th week. Then the procedure used comes into play--and with the large fetuses that come with 24 week pregnancies, almost always we are talking about the D&E procedure where saline or other chemicals "kill" the fetus before the remains are removed by vacuum.
The fetus would be wanted at this point. Why would you kill it? Why would you not simply perform a cesarean and remove it? Doctors also do not like to perform abortions like this when it's this late in the pregnancy. It's why they came up with the intact dialation and extraction method.
Quote:
But say this method is not used and the 24-week fetus is taken by C-section and it starts to breath outside the womb. This is in all likelihood going to happen in a hospital, due to existing law. At this point it would be possible to medically intervene and some fetuses may survive (and existing law would require the physician to try and save the fetus). But the fact is that the fetus would in all likelihood suffer numerous medical problems relating to the prematurity, and at the very minimum would pose incredible expense. One couple who delivered twins at 24 weeks faced a bill of $450,000 as their portion of the $2.2 million it cost to keep their twins alive for the first 18 months of their lives--and they had insurance. For poor women, it will be the taxpayer on the hook for that entire $2.2 million. The Cost of Premature Birth: For One Family, More than $2 Million | TIME.com
Right, so just kill the damned things. Stab them in the head and save their feet as trophies.
Common sense shouldn't have to be legislated. Then again, some people are idiots. Don't think so? Cool, grab a protest sign with me and lets go protest at some soldier's funeral. See? Idiots. You have to protect them from themselves. What? Polio? It paralyzes you? You don't say? Who cares? I want to see my kid paralyzed for life. See? Idiots.
What's funny is that the government wants to do the same thing to a woman. Basically protect her from... herself. Oh sorry, the baby. Because it is a baby. Kill that mom. You're getting TWO life sentences. You killed a fetus. Go to Jail twice. Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But if a doctor does it... it's perfectly legal.
It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives claim they don't want the government telling them how to live their lives. But when it comes to what a woman does with her own body (and yes, a fetus is part of the woman's body until it can viably survive on its own), then they're nearly foaming at the mouth rabid screaming about how wrong it is. So they want the government to stay out of people's personal lives, unless someone is doing something in their personal life that they don't agree with (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc), then of course they want the government to jump in and make it illegal. So you don't want the government to tell you personally how to live, but you do want it to tell those who you don't agree with how to live. No intelligent, thinking person can take these people seriously.
It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives claim they don't want the government telling them how to live their lives. But when it comes to what a woman does with her own body (and yes, a fetus is part of the woman's body until it can viably survive on its own), then they're nearly foaming at the mouth rabid screaming about how wrong it is. So they want the government to stay out of people's personal lives, unless someone is doing something in their personal life that they don't agree with (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc), then of course they want the government to jump in and make it illegal. So you don't want the government to tell you personally how to live, but you do want it to tell those who you don't agree with how to live. No intelligent, thinking person can take these people seriously.
No, they made the decision to appease religious people (who follow their Church's member-increasing dictates) by allowing regulation (government oversight, restrictions and mandates) at an increasing level as the fetus is approaching birth. This is pretty consistent with the Judicial Branch's support of the expansion of government power and regulation in all our lives. Our courts unfortunately make decisions for purely political reasons all the time, with the reasoning behind allowing Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance being the most recent (the penalty is either a "tax" or "fee" depending on which precedent you're trying to match) and suddenly our Constitution is perfectly fine with Government ordering us to buy the very expensive product of a for-profit company.
Science tells us that while in the womb, even the day before labor, the fetus is asleep due to low oxygen pressure and chemicals/hormones (natural drugs) that sedate it (When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?: Scientific American), and in addition, it cannot achieve consciousness because basic thalamocortical connections are not yet fully established (The emergence of human consciousness: from fetal... [Pediatr Res. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI). There are fundamental changes that take place during birth, and those change--combined with a brain that has reached a certain stage of development--create a milestone that everyone can agree on. The Supreme Court decision allowed a "phasing in" of government intrusion was at least a compromise that everyone learned to live with, although it opened the door for religious fanatics to use increasing government regulations to (in effect) to make abortions hard or impossible to get.
Well said. You've touched on the dirty compromise most self-proclaimed 'choicers' not only learned to live with, but worship. The arbitrary use of 'viability' as the dividing line between choice and government interference.
I don't agree that 'lifers' learned to live with the Roe v. Wade compromise.
It never ceases to amaze me how many conservatives claim they don't want the government telling them how to live their lives. But when it comes to what a woman does with her own body (and yes, a fetus is part of the woman's body until it can viably survive on its own), then they're nearly foaming at the mouth rabid screaming about how wrong it is. So they want the government to stay out of people's personal lives, unless someone is doing something in their personal life that they don't agree with (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, etc), then of course they want the government to jump in and make it illegal. So you don't want the government to tell you personally how to live, but you do want it to tell those who you don't agree with how to live. No intelligent, thinking person can take these people seriously.
Good summary.
I would rep you, but I seem to be out of rep bullets for you.
Well said. You've touched on the dirty compromise most self-proclaimed 'choicers' not only learned to live with, but worship. The arbitrary use of 'viability' as the dividing line between choice and government interference.
I don't agree that 'lifers' learned to live with the Roe v. Wade compromise.
We have discussed this before. Viability is not arbitrary just because you don't understand it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
