Good news in Michigan: Abortion amendment must appear on ballot

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,706
13,463
146
No. I won't STFU.

Then address the points in my post.

I made an argument using conservative, constitutional, original intent points.

Also, please have the integrity to capitulate on your false claim that 16 weeks is viable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
The right to privacy and body autonomy. Again, virtually the ONLY time abortions after 16 weeks are performed are for medical reasons. Not elective.


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.


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.

So, do you want to drop the 16 week bullshit?
Where do you get 16 weeks for viability from? That really needs to be sourced.
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.

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).


Alright I must have misread something as I can't locate it now. 24 week viability is the commonly accepted time period. I stand corrected.

I would amend my opinion to go with a 23 week limit for abortion with the exception of medical reasons. Then a Doctor can make a decision with the mother about the medical need after 23 weeks.

And for those telling me to STFU as it isn't my concern. The answer is no. It is my concern when killing innocent viable human beings is involved as it should be with you all. When you say well it is virtually none or a very small number that doesn't justify killing humans.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,706
13,463
146
Alright I must have misread something as I can't locate it now. 24 week viability is the commonly accepted time period. I stand corrected.

I would amend my opinion to go with a 23 week limit for abortion with the exception of medical reasons. Then a Doctor can make a decision with the mother about the medical need after 23 weeks.

And for those telling me to STFU as it isn't my concern. The answer is no. It is my concern when killing innocent viable human beings is involved as it should be with you all. When you say well it is virtually none or a very small number that doesn't justify killing humans.

The system you seek is ALREADY IN PLACE.

NO ONE is having elective abortions after 24 weeks.

Done.

I still am curious about you believing the majority get to determine individual rights AND that rights not enumerated are not real rights. Very NON-conservative beliefs there.

A pattern I have noticed with many far right so-called conservatives.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
The system you seek is ALREADY IN PLACE.

NO ONE is having elective abortions after 24 weeks.

Done.

I still am curious about you believing the majority get to determine individual rights AND that rights not enumerated are not real rights. Very NON-conservative beliefs there.

A pattern I have noticed with many far right so-called conservatives.

The system is not already in place as each state now has to address this issue since the Supreme Court Ruling.

I disagree that No One is seeking late term abortions. Even one viable killing is too many.


1663170734840.png

The woman's autonomy rights end when the baby becomes viable. Before that she should be allowed to do as she wants concerning abortion.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
57,092
10,757
126
Alright I must have misread something as I can't locate it now. 24 week viability is the commonly accepted time period. I stand corrected.

I would amend my opinion to go with a 23 week limit for abortion with the exception of medical reasons. Then a Doctor can make a decision with the mother about the medical need after 23 weeks.

And for those telling me to STFU as it isn't my concern. The answer is no. It is my concern when killing innocent viable human beings is involved as it should be with you all. When you say well it is virtually none or a very small number that doesn't justify killing humans.
Oh, please, we have exception after exception to justify "killing humans", regardless of innocence.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
10,781
6,751
136
Alright I must have misread something as I can't locate it now. 24 week viability is the commonly accepted time period. I stand corrected.

I would amend my opinion to go with a 23 week limit for abortion with the exception of medical reasons. Then a Doctor can make a decision with the mother about the medical need after 23 weeks.

And for those telling me to STFU as it isn't my concern. The answer is no. It is my concern when killing innocent viable human beings is involved as it should be with you all. When you say well it is virtually none or a very small number that doesn't justify killing humans.

I thought we'd been over this. They're not viable.

And it's none of your concern because they're making an individual health care choice that can't possibly impact you in any way, shape, or form. Stay out of it. It's none of your damn business.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
I thought we'd been over this. They're not viable.

And it's none of your concern because they're making an individual health care choice that can't possibly impact you in any way, shape, or form. Stay out of it. It's none of your damn business.


They aren't viable at 24 weeks? Many would disagree with that.


In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation. This means that if you give birth to an infant before they are 24 weeks old, their chance of surviving is usually less than 50 percent.

It is my concern.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
10,781
6,751
136
They aren't viable at 24 weeks? Many would disagree with that.


In general, infants that are born very early are not considered to be viable until after 24 weeks gestation. This means that if you give birth to an infant before they are 24 weeks old, their chance of surviving is usually less than 50 percent.

It is my concern.

We're talking pre-viability. Which until today you had no realistic idea of when that actually was. Maybe you should leave this topic up to others???
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
We're talking pre-viability. Which until today you had no realistic idea of when that actually was. Maybe you should leave this topic up to others???

Maybe I made a mistake when I was reading about the number of weeks. Which I freely admitted too.

I was pretty sure I was reading where the average accepted maximum time period for abortion was quite a bit less than 24 weeks. I adjusted my opinion based on the 24 week viability and facts presented here and reading further.


and here:

 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
57,092
10,757
126
It is my concern.
To use your words, that's silly. It's only your concern when it's your uterus being occupied, otherwise, it is not. Even IF you were willing to personally bankroll an undesired pregnancy, and somehow assume the physical risks inherent with carrying a pregnancy to term on the behalf of another person, it's still not your concern.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
To use your words, that's silly. It's only your concern when it's your uterus being occupied, otherwise, it is not. Even IF you were willing to personally bankroll an undesired pregnancy, and somehow assume the physical risks inherent with carrying a pregnancy to term on the behalf of another person, it's still not your concern.


You are entitled to YOUR opinion and beliefs.
MY opinion and beliefs are none of YOUR concern.

I'm not talking about uterous' being occupied. I am discussing aborting viable humans at 24 weeks and greater should be illegal with the exception of medical reasons that are determined by a medical doctor.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
57,092
10,757
126
You are entitled to YOUR opinion and beliefs.
MY opinion and beliefs are none of YOUR concern.

I'm not talking about uterous' being occupied. I am discussing aborting viable humans at 24 weeks and greater should be illegal with the exception of medical reasons that are determined by a medical doctor.
You're the one seeking to subjugate others to your opinion and beliefs, not I. The burden should be much higher for you to be in that position to justify enforcing upon others. And yes, you ARE talking about a uterus being occupied, you're just wrapping it in emotions.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,706
13,463
146
The system is not already in place as each state now has to address this issue since the Supreme Court Ruling.

I disagree that No One is seeking late term abortions. Even one viable killing is too many.


View attachment 67548

The woman's autonomy rights end when the baby becomes viable. Before that she should be allowed to do as she wants concerning abortion.

This fails to give the REASON for the abortion. Your stats do not separate elective from medical.


The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation

a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.

Virtually ALL late term abortions over 21 weeks are for medical reasons.

So you're here to complain about the less than 1% of all abortions, in which virtually ALL of them are for medical reasons.

In this study, ALL third trimester and most second trimester abortions were associated with poor prognosis for the baby or mother:


A third trimester abortion is risky. By the third trimester the pregnancy can no longer be hidden anyhow.

The myth that women wait until the third trimester just because they're lazy or stupid is just fucking stupid in and of itself.

They do so because of medical reasons. They WANTED the baby. (Or, in extremely rare cases, abusive and or incest abuse prevented them from seeking help earlier)

Again, the system you claim to advocate for ALREADY EXISTS.

You have yet to explain why you support the tyranny of the majority when it comes to individual freedom, privacy, and body autonomy. This is a counter-conservative position.

Virtually ALL states ALREADY ban, in one way or another elective third trimester abortions. The ONLY elective exceptions in the few that do allow it are rape and incest.


Would you deny a raped, incest raped and abused woman a third trimester abortion?

So again, your system ALREADY EXISTS.

Now the point MUST be about personal liberty to abort in the first 2 trimesters and your belief that right can and should be voted away through the tyranny of the majority.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
22,684
5,102
146
Are you guys really going to let him derail yet another thread with his stupid loops? He's pulled this shit over and over where he brings up points (given to him by whatever right wing shit he's reading at the time, and typically just made up bullshit not based on any actual facts), has them refuted with facts, then resorts to more things he knows are false (or knows enough to know they are points that don't change anything). Facts do not matter to him, he just pretends to care because it keeps you responding while he keeps spouting his inherently dishonest opinion, letting him derail threads.

If I'm not mistaken he's even admitted he doesn't actually care about this, just that Republicans started using it as a political ploy so he seemingly feels compelled to regurgitate their bullshit claims and arguments. He doesn't care if its a viable human or not, that's just the base ploy that Republicans have used to try and manipulate people to their side. I'm not joking, he's literally just spouting directed talking points. He follows a formula on topics like this, both because he literally doesn't know anything about this, but because his intent is to derail discussion and keep interjecting his false claims to spread misinformation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
23,272
4,516
136
^^^The ignore button is the best feature on the forum.
At some point these discussions become an exercise in futility.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TeeJay1952

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
6,372
1,610
136
^^^The ignore button is the best feature on the forum.
At some point these discussions become an exercise in futility.
I prefer to simply laugh 😆 at his pablum, mark it as so and move on to the next post.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,706
13,463
146
I prefer to simply laugh 😆 at his pablum, mark it as so and move on to the next post.

In his defense, he has capitulated to some points in the face of objective fact.

I'm waiting for him to address the tyranny of the majority and inalienable rights arguments I made. To see if his conservatism is conditional.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
You're the one seeking to subjugate others to your opinion and beliefs, not I. The burden should be much higher for you to be in that position to justify enforcing upon others. And yes, you ARE talking about a uterus being occupied, you're just wrapping it in emotions.


And the burden should be much higher for killing viable human beings.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
20,867
4,104
126
In his defense, he has capitulated to some points in the face of objective fact.

I'm waiting for him to address the tyranny of the majority and inalienable rights arguments I made. To see if his conservatism is conditional.


There is no inalienable right to kill a viable human being. None.

I have no objections to a woman needing to get an abortion prior to viability. And after viability in a medical emergency defined by a medical doctor.

As for rape and incest and an abortion it should be done before the fetus is viable. Easy take a Plan B pill after the rape or incest as a precaution and no worries.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

ASK THE COMMUNITY