Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

[Stacyhs]

Roe v Wade said that women's right to abortion on demand ends when the child becomes viable and can survive outside of the womb.

Do you disagree with this reasoning?

That's not really a simple yes or no question. When a fetus becomes viable and can survive outside the womb isn't cut and dry. Richard Hutchinson was born prematurely 131 days prior to the expected due date and weighed just 11.9 ounces yet he survived after 6 months in the neonatal care unit. A full-term pregnancy is about 280 days so Richard was born at 21 weeks gestation. The general consensus is that a baby become viable at about 24 weeks.

 

[Hercules56]

That's not really a simple yes or no question. When a fetus becomes viable and can survive outside the womb isn't cut and dry. Richard Hutchinson was born prematurely 131 days prior to the expected due date and weighed just 11.9 ounces yet he survived after 6 months in the neonatal care unit. A full-term pregnancy is about 280 days so Richard was born at 21 weeks gestation. The general consensus is that a baby become viable at about 24 weeks.

I'm talking viability as in really good chance of survival outside the womb, not slim but they will try their best.

 

[acbytesla]

Roe v Wade said that women's right to abortion on demand ends when the child becomes viable and can survive outside of the womb.

Do you disagree with this reasoning?

Yes.

That said, I would at this time, settle returning to Roe v Wade.

 

[Hercules56]

Yes.

That said, I would at this time, settle returning to Roe v Wade.

So you think the viability of the fetus is of no consequence?

Would you allow abortion on demand, past the 28th week?

 

[acbytesla]

So you think the viability of the fetus is of no consequence?

That's up to the woman that has to bear the pregnancy, the birth and care for it after it's born. Our opinion on that question should be irrelevant.

Would you allow abortion on demand, past the 28th week?

Yes.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Ho hum.

Nobody saw this coming...

https://jezebel.com/childbearing-age-medication-denied-lawsuit-1850899899

It just goes to show how the anti-abortion movement is driven solely by a deep and irrational hatred of women.

 

[Hercules56]

That's up to the woman that has to bear the pregnancy, the birth and care for it after it's born. Our opinion on that question should be irrelevant.



Yes.

At what stage of fetal development do you believe the life of the child overrides that right of the mother to have an abortion on demand?

Seems you think the mother should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage of fetal development, even during the 8th month. Even if intact dilation & extraction is required. Unrelated to saving the life or health of the mother, simple cuz the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy, am i right?

 

[acbytesla]

At what stage of fetal development do you believe the life of the child overrides that right of the mother to have an abortion on demand?

I don't believe this we should ever bestow rights for one being to ever use anyone else's body without their permission.

Seems you think the mother should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage of fetal development, even during the 8th month. Even if intact dilation & extraction is required. Unrelated to saving the life or health of the mother, simple cuz the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy, am i right?

I do.

IMV, it's all about consent. A woman has a right to say no. No to another person touching them. No to sex. No to sex in the middle of having sex. No to pregnancy. No to remaining pregnant. It is their body and their life. Not mine, not yours, not the fetus's and not the government's. One's body is the one place where the individual's rights should remain supreme. The only exception I think is warranted is in public health.

It may seem cruel if we view a fetus as a human being. Just as it might seem cruel to deny a son or daughter a part of our body to save their life. But we are not obligated. Our consent is required.

Why should it be any different if that son or daughter is inside us?

Finally, there are practical considerations. The government is not equipped to make health decisions.

 

[Hercules56]

I don't believe this we should ever bestow rights for one being to ever use anyone else's body without their permission.



I do.

IMV, it's all about consent. A woman has a right to say no. No to another person touching them. No to sex. No to sex in the middle of having sex. No to pregnancy. No to remaining pregnant. It is their body and their life. Not mine, not yours, not the fetus's and not the government's. One's body is the one place where the individual's rights should remain supreme. The only exception I think is warranted is in public health.

It may seem cruel if we view a fetus as a human being. Just as it might seem cruel to deny a son or daughter a part of our body to save their life. But we are not obligated. Our consent is required.

Why should it be any different if that son or daughter is inside us?

Finally, there are practical considerations. The government is not equipped to make health decisions.

Do you oppose homicide charges on a criminal who kills an in utero fetus?

 

[acbytesla]

Do you oppose homicide charges on a criminal who kills an in utero fetus?

Probably not. I'm assuming the criminal caused the fetus's demise by violating the woman in some way. He took something that didn't belong to him.

IMV, this should all be about consent. The fetus is inside the woman. Her body is nourishing it. Her body is breathing for it. Her body is caring for it. It is hers to do with until it is born. At which point it has its own rights.

It makes it simpler. The government doesn’t need to get involved in what is a tricky issue. Is it the 27th or 28th or 29th week? What is the health of the woman and/or the fetus It doesn't make judges second guess doctors and women and prescribe poor remedies.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm talking viability as in really good chance of survival outside the womb, not slim but they will try their best.

I believe any decision is between a woman and her doctor. The government has no business interfering in that decision. When that happens, we've already seen the results: states passing restrictions ranging from a total ban to no restrictions. These draconian restrictions are not based on any science but primarily and overwhelmingly on personal religious beliefs being imposed on women.

 

[Aridas]

I believe any decision is between a woman and her doctor. The government has no business interfering in that decision. When that happens, we've already seen the results: states passing restrictions ranging from a total ban to no restrictions. These draconian restrictions are not based on any science but primarily and overwhelmingly on personal religious beliefs being imposed on women.

Quibble - I would suggest that they're frequently not actually religious in nature. At least not rooted in the more commonly accepted religions. If you count GOP propaganda as effectively having formed a cult, though, that quibble diminishes.

The form of today's forced birtherism can be said to have been a brazen political campaign by rich and powerful segregationists to fight back when they were starting to face consequences for defying the government over desegregation and equal rights for minorities, rather than actually being truly rooted in religion. The sheer vagueness of what counts as a personal religious belief often serves as a shield for the underlying evil, prejudice, and lies in play, which I don't like.

 

[Hercules56]

I believe any decision is between a woman and her doctor. The government has no business interfering in that decision. When that happens, we've already seen the results: states passing restrictions ranging from a total ban to no restrictions. These draconian restrictions are not based on any science but primarily and overwhelmingly on personal religious beliefs being imposed on women.

So there is no science behind the view that a baby is viable outside the womb after the 24th week?

 

[Hercules56]

Probably not. I'm assuming the criminal caused the fetus's demise by violating the woman in some way. He took something that didn't belong to him.

IMV, this should all be about consent. The fetus is inside the woman. Her body is nourishing it. Her body is breathing for it. Her body is caring for it. It is hers to do with until it is born. At which point it has its own rights.

It makes it simpler. The government doesn’t need to get involved in what is a tricky issue. Is it the 27th or 28th or 29th week? What is the health of the woman and/or the fetus It doesn't make judges second guess doctors and women and prescribe poor remedies.

So you believe until it is born, the mother can do as it wishes to the fetus. Mother could kill the fetus the day before it's due date, and you have no problem with that. Interesting.

 

[acbytesla]

So you believe until it is born, the mother can do as it wishes to the fetus. Mother could kill the fetus the day before it's due date, and you have no problem with that. Interesting.

Whether I have a problem, does not matter. This is up to the woman and her doctors.

 

[Stacyhs]

So there is no science behind the view that a baby is viable outside the womb after the 24th week?

Please read more carefully. I never said that. I said "When that happens, we've already seen the results: states passing restrictions ranging from a total ban to no restrictions. These draconian restrictions are not based on any science
What part of "draconian restrictions"...which include states with a total ban, no abortions after 6 weeks, no abortions after 12-15 weeks, or no abortions after 18 weeks are you not understanding? What 'science' says fetuses of those gestation weeks are viable outside the womb? As I previously posted, the earliest baby to survive was at 21 weeks.

 

[acbytesla]

Please read more carefully. I never said that. I said "When that happens, we've already seen the results: states passing restrictions ranging from a total ban to no restrictions. These draconian restrictions are not based on any science
What part of "draconian restrictions"...which include states with a total ban, no abortions after 6 weeks, no abortions after 12-15 weeks, or no abortions after 18 weeks are you not understanding? What 'science' says fetuses of those gestation weeks are viable outside the womb? As I previously posted, the earliest baby to survive was at 21 weeks.

One thing you didn’t mention was the healthcare costs of that premature childbirth and the long term health problems suffered.

 

[Stacyhs]

So you believe until it is born, the mother can do as it wishes to the fetus. Mother could kill the fetus the day before it's due date, and you have no problem with that. Interesting.

You keep bringing up hypothetical situations that do not happen.

Just how and why would a mother not extremely mentally ill, kill her baby just before she's about to give birth full term? Do you think she's going to go to her doctor and say, "Hey, Doc, I'm due to give birth tomorrow but I've changed my mind so I'd like you to perform an abortion," ? And he'll say, "Oh, sure! Here, we'll schedule you for later this afternoon." You've been told repeatedly that no doctor is going to do that. A doctor will either induce labor to deliver or perform a caesarian section if there is a medical problem. For the umpteenth time: NO DOCTOR IS GOING TO KILL/ABORT A FULL TERM FETUS JUST BECAUSE THE WOMAN WANTS AN ABORTION.

 

[Stacyhs]

One thing you didn’t mention was the healthcare costs of that premature childbirth and the long term health problems suffered.

Six months in neonatal care and the photo of him at his first birthday showed an oxygen tube.

Curtis Means, another baby born just one day 'younger' in gestational age than Richard, was in neonatal care on a ventilator for three months following his birth, and stayed in there for 275 days with around-the-clock care. At 18 months old, he "remains on a handful of medications and special treatment, including a feeding tube and bottled oxygen."

His twin sister did not survive.

These "micropreemies" are also at great risk for disabilities:

"Beyond the risk of death, babies at “borderline viability” are highly susceptible to disabilities such as cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, blindness and severe lung problems" and "Even today, up to a year in the hospital isn’t unusual for micropreemies, and costs can run into the millions of dollars. Most of these infants spend time on ventilators, are warmed in isolettes and get fluids and nutrition through tubes. Their skin, as delicate as a burn victim’s, needs meticulous care."

 

[Hercules56]

You keep bringing up hypothetical situations that do not happen.

Just how and why would a mother not extremely mentally ill, kill her baby just before she's about to give birth full term? Do you think she's going to go to her doctor and say, "Hey, Doc, I'm due to give birth tomorrow but I've changed my mind so I'd like you to perform an abortion," ? And he'll say, "Oh, sure! Here, we'll schedule you for later this afternoon." You've been told repeatedly that no doctor is going to do that. A doctor will either induce labor to deliver or perform a caesarian section if there is a medical problem. For the umpteenth time: NO DOCTOR IS GOING TO KILL/ABORT A FULL TERM FETUS JUST BECAUSE THE WOMAN WANTS AN ABORTION.

So you never heard of intact dilation & extraction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

https://www.awomansright.org/d&x.html

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt\olr\htm/98-R-0212.htm