Good news in Michigan: Abortion amendment must appear on ballot

[pcgeek11]

Should it be within the power of the state to mandate women carry non-viable pregnancies to term or pregnancies that risk the life of the mother?

A lot of red state bans claim to not do this but functionally they do because the legal language is intentionally vague so doctors won't act.

I said what I think above here. You obviously didn't read the thread. Here I'll help you out:

It should be on the ballot in every state. As each state should vote a current law that follows the views of the majority of the current population.

Automatic trigger laws that were passed years ago should all be tossed.

That is one train of thought on the subject.

I agree up to a point, as do many others that after 15 -16 weeks abortion should only be considered for saving the life of the mother or severe defects in the fetus (baby). I say let the people have their voice as it should be.

 

[pcgeek11]

How hard is it for him to understand this?!?!? JFC…

How hard is it for you to understand everyone is not required to hold the same opinion of beliefs.

JFC

 

[K1052]

I said what I think above here. You obviously didn't read the thread. Here I'll help you out:

Who determines what a severe defect is or what conditions are medically risky for the mother? So far state legislatures are waving their hands and saying "well you know what we mean". If a doctor does something the local cops don't agree with, in their expert medical opinions, they could be jailed and prosecuted.

This is ultimately the functional issue with banning abortions after a certain number of weeks even with exceptions.

 

[Zorba]

OK... But Roe no longer applies as the Supreme Court Ruling, so each state must decide for their own what their citizens want.

It's just so weird how small government conservatives are all about creating regulations that would result in the exact same outcome as no regulation. Without any restrictions, literally no one (statistically) was getting an at will abortion past 16 weeks.

 

[Zorba]

After about 16 weeks I think it is killing a possible viable human. A woman shouldn't have a voice to kill a viable fetus without cause, even if the odds are only 50/50. If she so decides to abort before the 16 weeks point then that is fine.

Many here have claimed that late term abortions are very rare and are mostly due to medical reasons. If that is in fact true then it wouldn't be an issue to outlaw abortions after 16 weeks except for medical reasons. So who's voice is being restricted?

You are proposing creating a regulatory barrier that solves no problem, except to punish a woman for having a non-viable pregnancy by jumping through a lot of extra hoops.

 

[pcgeek11]

Who determines what a severe defect is or what conditions are medically risky for the mother? So far state legislatures are waving their hands and saying "well you know what we mean". If a doctor does something the local cops don't agree with, in their expert medical opinions, they could be jailed and prosecuted.

This is ultimately the functional issue with banning abortions after a certain number of weeks even with exceptions.

It should be written into the law that the attending doctor holds the ultimate call on medically risky or not.

 

[pcgeek11]

It's just so weird how small government conservatives are all about creating regulations that would result in the exact same outcome as no regulation. Without any restrictions, literally no one (statistically) was getting an at will abortion past 16 weeks.

You are proposing creating a regulatory barrier that solves no problem, except to punish a woman for having a non-viable pregnancy by jumping through a lot of extra hoops.

OK.

I feel like every life should be preserved as long as it is viable. It doesn't matter if it statistically is a small number.

You are entitled to have your opinion as am I. Make sure you vote for it in your states election(s). I'm not trying to change your mind or argue with you. We can disagree, it's OK.

 

[nakedfrog]

I was curious to see exactly what it was they were on about, calling it gibberish. Pretty transparent ploy IMO. Yes, it's poor kerning, but still fully legible.

 

[Fenixgoon]

OK.

I feel like every life should be preserved as long as it is viable. It doesn't matter if it statistically is a small number.

You are entitled to have your opinion as am I. Make sure you vote for it in your states election(s). I'm not trying to change your mind or argue with you. We can disagree, it's OK.

The problem with your position is you are taking autonomy away from other people.

Also, note how you qualified your statement in post25 - possibly viable human.

Possibly viable. Not guaranteed to be viable. And not fully human in some sense, otherwise you would have simply said "human" without qualifiers.

Further regulation accomplishes nothing except barriers to quick and proper medical care.

 

[pcgeek11]

The problem with your position is you are taking autonomy away from other people.

Also, note how you qualified your statement in post25 - possibly viable human.

Possibly viable. Not guaranteed to be viable. And not fully human in some sense, otherwise you would have simply said "human" without qualifiers.

Further regulation accomplishes nothing except barriers to quick and proper medical care.

She would have autonomy over her body up until the fetus becomes a viable human after 16 weeks. I said possibly viable because after 16 weeks there is about a 50/50 possibility of survival. The viability at that point is mainly determined by the maturity of the lungs, which isn't the same for every baby. Viability chances increase every day after. Hell even a full term baby is Not Guaranteed to be viable.

 

[nakedfrog]

Gosh, that sounds almost like an argument for making the decision on a case-by-case basis since every pregnancy is different.

 

[pcgeek11]

Gosh, that sounds almost like an argument for making the decision on a case-by-case basis since every pregnancy is different.

After 16 weeks the doctor should be the authority to determine the medical need for an abortion. Yes, it would be a case by case depending on the medical need. Before the 16 weeks it should be the mothers choice. There is no perfect answer. Each state needs to pass it's own law/rule.

 

[Amused]

OK... But Roe no longer applies as the Supreme Court Ruling, so each state must decide for their own what their citizens want.

A more macro thought: Do you believe the majority should be able to vote away civil rights? Individual rights?

Should the majority be able to vote away freedom of speech? Religion? Freedom of association? The right to keep and bear arms?

What other basic human rights do you believe the majority should be able to vote on?

Are you familiar with the tyranny of the majority and its inherent danger to individual rights?

 

[pcgeek11]

A more macro thought: Do you believe the majority should be able to vote away civil rights? Individual rights?

Should the majority be able to vote away freedom of speech? Religion? Freedom of association? The right to keep and bear arms?

What other basic human rights do you believe the majority should be able to vote on?

Are you familiar with the tyranny of the majority and its inherent danger to individual rights?

Where is it a right to kill an unborn viable ( after 16 weeks ) human?

 

[iRONic]

How hard is it for you to understand everyone is not required to hold the same opinion of beliefs.

JFC

That’s a given.

You don’t agree with abortion don’t have one. STFU about anyone else’s decision to.

 

[Amused]

Where is it a right to kill an unborn viable ( after 16 weeks ) human?

The right to privacy and body autonomy. Again, virtually the ONLY time abortions after 16 weeks are performed are for medical reasons. Not elective.

Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy Legally Protected by the Constitution

Justia - Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy - Free Legal Information - Laws, Blogs, Legal Services and More

www.justia.com

Do you believe individual rights must be specifically enumerated to be a right? Are rights given, or are they inherent?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Do you believe in tyranny of the majority when it comes to individual rights that harm NO ONE ELSE?

Inalienable Rights

billofrightsinstitute.org

No, the baby is not viable at 16 weeks. The chance of survival is zero. Pre-term births up to 22-24 weeks are at best crippled.


Chances of survival following preterm birth
Medical advances mean that we are getting better at treating preterm babies but the chances of survival still depend on gestational age (week of pregnancy) at time of birth.

• Less than 22 weeks is close to zero chance of survival
• 22 weeks is around 10%
• 24 weeks is around 60%
• 27 weeks is around 89%
• 31 weeks is around 95%
• 34 weeks is equivalent to a baby born at full term.

Premature birth statistics

A preterm birth is one that happens before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Globally, more than 1 in 10 pregnancies will experience in preterm birth.

www.tommys.org

So, do you want to drop the 16 week bullshit?

 

[brycejones]

Where is it a right to kill an unborn viable ( after 16 weeks ) human?

Where do you get 16 weeks for viability from? That really needs to be sourced.

 

[nakedfrog]

There is no perfect answer.

Actually, there is.

You don’t agree with abortion don’t have one. STFU about anyone else’s decision to.

 

[Paratus]

OK.

I feel like every life should be preserved as long as it is viable. It doesn't matter if it statistically is a small number.

You are entitled to have your opinion as am I. Make sure you vote for it in your states election(s). I'm not trying to change your mind or argue with you. We can disagree, it's OK.

I agree. Every life should be preserved. It doesn’t matter if the risk is large or small.

That’s why you shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms. I’m sure you agree.

 

[Pens1566]

Came here to say 16w isn't viable. Seems some others beat me to it.

I believe the earliest recorded survival is at 21w. And even that early the odds are astronomical. The more accepted threshold is 24w.

 

[brycejones]

Came here to say 16w isn't viable. Seems some others beat me to it.

I believe the earliest recorded survival is at 21w. And even that early the odds are astronomical. The more accepted threshold is 24w.

Baby Born 19 Weeks Early Defies Long Odds and Astonishes Doctors (Published 2021)

Curtis Means, now 16 months old, reflects a troubling trend of premature births across the United States, a problem that some research has associated with climate change.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah, the earliest I could find was around that 21 week mark and very rare. The baby in the linked article was the only 1 of twins to survive and was in the NICU for 275 days. (good god that hospital bill).

 

[HomerJS]

OK.

I feel like every life should be preserved as long as it is viable. It doesn't matter if it statistically is a small number.

You are entitled to have your opinion as am I. Make sure you vote for it in your states election(s). I'm not trying to change your mind or argue with you. We can disagree, it's OK.

Interesting how you want your opinion foisted upon others when it comes to a ban after 15 weeks. Why not leave that decision between the woman and her doctor?

Meanwhile because of overzealous extreme Republicans doctors are unable to make decisions and threaten the health of women.
Louisiana woman whose water broke at 16 weeks was forced into 'painful, hours-long labor' because of abortion ban, lawsuit says (yahoo.com)

 

[brycejones]

Interesting how you want your opinion foisted upon others when it comes to a ban after 15 weeks. Why not leave that decision between the woman and her doctor?

Meanwhile because of overzealous extreme Republicans doctors are unable to make decisions and threaten the health of women.
Louisiana woman whose water broke at 16 weeks was forced into 'painful, hours-long labor' because of abortion ban, lawsuit says (yahoo.com)

Well according to @pcgeek11 that fetus was viable. Still waiting on the evidence of that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The way I see it is that we have two groups that hold diametrically opposed views of human rights and after more than 50 years they have not been able to find a working compromise. As much as I hate the idea of putting human rights up to a vote, it seems to be the only solution here. Each state needs to put it on the ballot, and let the people decide.
Maybe agree to revisit it every 50 years and hold the vote again.

 

[fleshconsumed]

After 16 weeks the doctor should be the authority to determine the medical need for an abortion. Yes, it would be a case by case depending on the medical need. Before the 16 weeks it should be the mothers choice. There is no perfect answer. Each state needs to pass it's own law/rule.

First of all, as others mentioned it's not 50/50 at 16 weeks, the earliest recorded survival is at around 20 weeks. Second of all, all but 7 states ban late term abortion already, and even in those states that do allow it, it is already up to doctor's discretion whether or not to perform abortion. The doctor is not obligated to perform late term abortion if asked, the doctors already have "authority" to determine medical need for late term abortion.

Basically, abortion already works the way you say you want it to work. You're just misinformed about the whole process and want to impose arbitrary bureaucratic restrictions when there is no need for them in the first place.