|
-
06-03-2019, 02:57 PM #151
-
06-03-2019, 03:17 PM #152
-
-
06-03-2019, 03:46 PM #153
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Sacramento, California, United States
- Posts: 37,388
- Rep Power: 272513
There are moral and legal effects clearly at work there, because I've seen liberals vehemently challenge the term of "partial/after-birth" abortion mentioned by some conservative groups. So a clear line is drawn between pre and post birth abortion.
So I have to ask, what's the difference in pulling out 90% of the body and aborting as opposed to the entire body, aside from one seeming more inhumane? Just seems arbitrary. I'm curious what the legality would be. I'm not finding much.ωσяℓ∂ тяανєℓєя ȼяєω
Pre-Med crew
★ NUFC ☆
₪ DEFQON.1 AUSTRALIA 2016 ₪
177 lbs | O: 165 /// B: 275 /// S: 335 /// D: 390
-
06-03-2019, 03:52 PM #154
-
06-03-2019, 04:00 PM #155
That's because conservative groups use terms like "partial birth" to rile up emotional low-info voters and nothing more. The phrase makes it seems like women can whimsically abort a full term, healthy, viable baby mid-labour while it is halfway out of the vaginal canal. Ie. the woman just turns to the doc with the baby hanging out of her, says "I've changed my mind doc, I no longer want the kid", and he drops what he's doing to go get the abortion kit before it's fully out.
That's not at all what "partial birth abortion", which is not a medically recognised term, is. It refers to one type of surgical method for performing an abortion in the second trimester onward, called an intact dilation and extraction (IDX), which specifically leaves the fetus intact, for a variety of reasons. It is rarely done in comparison to the much more common type of 2nd trimester surgical abortion which is dilation and evacuation, where the fetus is not left intact.
In either case, it in no way has anything to do with term limits. IDX abortions have the exact same limitations as any other method of abortion - post viability they are only done if the mother's health is at risk, or the fetus is non-viable, or both. Otherwise it just a different surgical procedure compared to the much more commonly used one for abortion, but has nothing to do with aborting a full term, partially born baby on a whim.
Liberals challenge the phrase because its a garbage term used to manipulate voters who don't read deeply into anything and just react emotionally to headlines, like 90% of this thread so far.Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
-
06-03-2019, 04:14 PM #156
We are still talking abortion right? The only difference is the doctor pulls the fetus out part way first?
It's not like these women are giving birth and then aborting. Can't abort after 24-28 weeks which is the same as 1/3 of the country.
It's simply a different method. Seems like a nothing-burger to me.Forever alone? Attraction and keeping the girl chasing you - http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=131498033
You will never know your limits, unless you push yourself past the imaginary lines you have drawn in the sand.
Knee Dragger - '06 GSX-R750
-
-
06-03-2019, 04:14 PM #157
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Sacramento, California, United States
- Posts: 37,388
- Rep Power: 272513
Perhaps it's not a medical term but it's recognized by federal law which is pertinent to my question.
If there are in fact substantial barriers to performing this procedure, like you mention, that would honestly be a relief. As a layperson, I don't understand though how a fetus that can be removed up to the head would cause life threatening issues to the mother at that point. Viability though, fine.
But I've read the claims of Ron Fitzsimmons (a former abortion advocate) that claims the procedure would be performed on perfectly healthy mothers in the late second trimester. Seems like murder to me and brings into question when we offer legal protections to the fetus.
Regarding other methods I still find some issue with those (abused by individuals like the one I mentioned). I'm assuming IDX gets this scrutiny because the fetus is actually extracted from the body. So the imagery is more compelling.ωσяℓ∂ тяανєℓєя ȼяєω
Pre-Med crew
★ NUFC ☆
₪ DEFQON.1 AUSTRALIA 2016 ₪
177 lbs | O: 165 /// B: 275 /// S: 335 /// D: 390
-
06-03-2019, 04:25 PM #158
Well for example a fetus with severe hydrocephalus where the head can't be removed without injuring the mother - in such a case an IDX is one option for abortion, particularly if the woman/family want to preserve the fetus intact for grieving/closure. These instances are rare but that's one medical example.
Another reason is if the baby has a severe congenital defect and is non-viable, but an accurate autopsy needs to be performed for diagnosis and for future pregnancy planning so the fetus needs to be intact.
The main thing to understand is that most IDX procedures are done on wanted pregnancies that were later discovered to have a severe problem like those mentioned. They aren't generally done for elective abortions of unwanted pregnancies, they aren't done late term for no reason (the same restrictions apply as any other method of abortion), and if anything it is less physically gruesome than the traditional surgical method of abortion as the fetus is kept intact except for decompression of the skull.
It's basically a non-issue, and was introduced in the legislation by a republican controlled congress for no reason other than to give the pro-life crowd an uninformed foothold in the losing abortion debate.Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
-
06-03-2019, 04:26 PM #159
-
06-03-2019, 04:40 PM #160
The principle of stare decisis still applies to any SCOTUS ruling - while states may try passing unconstitutional laws (such as the fetal heartbeat laws) to intentionally get a case infront of SCOTUS and get Roe re-examined, it isn't exactly a viable strategy to get it overturned - unless the current justices basically completely disregard stare decisis and use the political shift in the supreme court to immediately overturn a ruling to their personal favour.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
-
-
06-03-2019, 04:40 PM #161
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Sacramento, California, United States
- Posts: 37,388
- Rep Power: 272513
It's the *abortion of* unwanted pregnancies I personally take issue with and which probably invoke the majority of conservative response. To just wantonly discard offspring when precautions could be taken and/or the fetus and mother are healthy.
Sure it's not my body, but neither was John Doe who was shot dead last week in bumfuksville, but that was still a crime and a morally wrong. I just never understood why elective abortions are viewed so trivially by some in comparison.
There's definitely more gruesome procedures, which may or may not involve anesthesia on the fetus as far as I've read.Last edited by CaliSuperSport; 06-03-2019 at 04:46 PM.
ωσяℓ∂ тяανєℓєя ȼяєω
Pre-Med crew
★ NUFC ☆
₪ DEFQON.1 AUSTRALIA 2016 ₪
177 lbs | O: 165 /// B: 275 /// S: 335 /// D: 390
-
06-03-2019, 04:43 PM #162
-
06-03-2019, 04:53 PM #163
-
06-03-2019, 04:59 PM #164
-
-
06-03-2019, 05:04 PM #165
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Sacramento, California, United States
- Posts: 37,388
- Rep Power: 272513
isingmodel is saying it's to preserve life/health of the mother or if the fetus is non-viable (fetus wouldn't survive).
Thing is...I'm worried that's just how they "sell it" and there won't be any such actual restrictions. And I'm curious how this all relates to the partial birth abortion banωσяℓ∂ тяανєℓєя ȼяєω
Pre-Med crew
★ NUFC ☆
₪ DEFQON.1 AUSTRALIA 2016 ₪
177 lbs | O: 165 /// B: 275 /// S: 335 /// D: 390
-
06-03-2019, 05:04 PM #166
My body, my choice simply means that a woman isn't forcibly obligated to incubate another person inside her for 9 months, and go through all of the physical and emotional strains and health consequences of pregnancy (which in rare cases can be death, and not always preventable either), unless she willingly chooses to. The state can't force someone to do that, as the baby inside her doesn't have any de-facto rights to her body, because nobody has a right to anyone else's body under any circumstances, scenarios, or relations between persons.
Abortions should be as rare as possible, because of course it is much better for everyone involved if you can just prevent a pregnancy rather than getting pregnant, finding out you are pregnant, making the decision of whether to abort or not, and then possibly going through an invasive medical procedure. Fortunately abortions have been decreasing significantly in the US, mainly through access to contraceptives and better sex education/throwing out religious garbage abstinence-only teaching and the like.
But fundamentally if a woman does decide she no longer wants to carry the fetus to term, that has to be her right, her decision and something between her and her doctor.Last edited by isingmodel; 06-03-2019 at 05:20 PM.
Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
-
06-03-2019, 05:13 PM #167
To clarify, the procedure itself - intact dilation and extraction, is just another method of surgical abortion, albeit a very rare one (around 0.17% of overall abortions). The ban on "partial birth abortion" is just an essentially aimless ban on this very specific and rare surgical method, even through the procedure itself does not in any way negate the general term limits on abortion, which would remain as before unless that has been also changed.
If the procedure is done post fetal viability, then it would have to have the same justification as any other post viability abortion, which is typically health of the mother or nonviability/severe congenital defect. Nothing about the procedure is different there, which is why the ban is such a completely meaningless piece of legislation.Misc Crypto Crew
BTC to $200k
-
06-03-2019, 05:17 PM #168
V proud of my state for standing up for women's rights while others regress to the medieval ages. The government regulating what you can and can't do with your body is insane and violates the most inherent freedom you have as a human being.
Pritzker has been hitting it out of the park lately between this and legalizing weed on Friday.
Conservatives are filling up their diapers as usual I see.Misc photography crew
Chicago crew
Polski crew
Throw keys on bench to claim it crew
6'2" 193lbs crew
#MMGA
-
-
06-04-2019, 06:41 AM #169
-
06-04-2019, 07:24 AM #170
Fetus...as in a human.. you are killing a human. It biologically cannot be anything but a human, the body would reject it otherwise, so calling it a FETUS is quite disingenuous.
Life begins at conception every doctor & the whole of the scientific community will tell you this. Hence the definition of the actual word.
con·cep·tion
/kənˈsepSH(ə)n/
1.
the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived.
synonyms inception of pregnancy, conceiving, fertilization, impregnation, insemination; rarefecundation
Once egg is fertilized it is a human. The question whether or not it is a baby is irrelevant. The start of the first week ovulation happens, the egg is fertilized, & at that point human life begins. There is no question about this. If we make it to Mars, & come across this exact stage, we would conclude that is a human(Alien) life. We would say, "Life found on Mars". It will have an independent DNA, an independent exsistance. I'm not saying it is a baby, it is a human life. It never ceases to be anything but that. Next is implantation, & by 4 weeks it is now an embryo, by 5 weeks it has already formed its own circulatory system. Heart beat begins at week 5. By week 6 (one month) nose mouth & ears take shape, brains develop. Week 7 baby has doubled in size, hands & feet. Week 8, neural pathways formed. Week 9 physiology formed 10 weeks- you can tell sex all within the FIRST TRIMESTER
-
06-04-2019, 07:39 AM #171
This red cockroach and others like him have been given their marching orders. Their mandate is simply to spam any conservative leaning forums with troll posts in order to derail the thread so that conservatives are unable to have any sort of rational discussion and figure out ways to better organize. The best thing to do with this infestation of vermin is to turn on the lights and expose them and watch them scatter back into hiding like the parasites they are. Or just ignore them.
A concern troll is someone who disingenuously visits sites of an opposing ideology to disrupt conversation by offering unwanted advice on how to solve problems which do not really exist. Topics of "concern" usually involve tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency. The concern troll's posts are almost exclusively intended to derail the normal functions of their targeted website.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll
Plenty of info out there about these wastes of oxygen.
-
06-04-2019, 07:45 AM #172
-
-
06-04-2019, 07:48 AM #173
-
06-04-2019, 08:07 AM #174
-
06-04-2019, 08:21 AM #175
-
06-04-2019, 08:56 AM #176
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Posts: 45,373
- Rep Power: 395836
-
-
06-04-2019, 09:49 AM #177
-
06-04-2019, 09:51 AM #178
-
06-04-2019, 10:00 AM #179
-
06-04-2019, 10:01 AM #180
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Posts: 45,373
- Rep Power: 395836
Bookmarks