pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,335
- 4,469
- 136
That’s a given.
You don’t agree with abortion don’t have one. STFU about anyone else’s decision to.
No. I won't STFU.
That’s a given.
You don’t agree with abortion don’t have one. STFU about anyone else’s decision to.
No. I won't STFU.
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 Morewww.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.
Equal and Inalienable Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
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?
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.
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).
Actually, there is.
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.
Oh, please, we have exception after exception to justify "killing humans", regardless of innocence.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.
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.
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.
When Is It Safe to Deliver Your Baby?
At U of U Health, our knowledgeable providers will be with you every step of the way to ensure a safe and successful preterm birth.healthcare.utah.edu
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???
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Abortions Later in Pregnancy in a Post-Dobbs Era | KFF
This brief explains why individuals may seek abortions later in pregnancy, how often these procedures occur, and the various laws which regulate access to abortions later in pregnancy across the country.www.kff.org
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.
I prefer to simply laugh 😆 at his pablum, mark it as so and move on to the next post.^^^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.
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.
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.
Are you guys really going to let him derail yet another thread with his stupid loops?