Those heartbeat laws (abortion).... yeah this is what happens.

[Atreus21]

Nice deceptive post, as expected. That isn't an image at 25 weeks, that's an image of a former 25 week preemie who was 4 months postnatal age (approximately corrected to 40 weeks gestational age, equivalent to a full term delivery).

Ah, I didn't take the time to run down the specifics on a Google image search. Here then:

People act like its all hunky dory for any birth at 24-28 weeks. There is a significant risk of morbidity and mortality on top of having a breathing tube stuck down your throat for weeks, being poked and prodded for blood samples, with additional risks of chronic lung disease, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, and risk of significant neurodevelopmental sequalae.

Are those people human beings or not?

And why are you posting an image in this thread when the OP was about a heartbeat abortion bill? Why aren't you posting an image of the conceptus when the heart begins to beat?

Because abortion proponents tend to focus on the extremes of the pro-life position as a proxy for the larger abortion debate. I'd like to focus for a moment on the extremes of the pro-abortion position.

 

[Atreus21]

Call it what ever you want, its still none of your damn business.

Why?

 

[MtnMan]

One group that will always have easy access to abortions in this country are the mistresses of Republican politicians.

Their gay prostitutes don't get pregnant.

 

[abj13]

Are those people human beings or not?

Because abortion proponents tend to focus on the extremes of the pro-life position as a proxy for the larger abortion debate. I'd like to focus for a moment on the extremes of the pro-abortion position

For somebody who claims to make primary decisions about voting based on one's stance on abortion, you sure are one of the most uninformed about the topic. This thread made about limiting abortions depending on the status of the conceptus' heart beat. It has long been held in BOTH Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey that there is a legal basis in which the State can restrict abortion once viability has been met, assuming there were still protections in place for the health of the mother. If the States desire to ban abortions at 25 weeks, it is up to the States to then construct a law that maintains the protections for the mother as described by the Supreme Court. In fact, most states have some sort of law already limiting abortions at 25 weeks (many before that timepoint).

Not only do you mislabel the appearance of a 25 week premature infant, you don't even understand the legal foundation for limiting abortions. Your post is entirely off topic and is a strawman. If you actually understood the Supreme Court rulings regarding abortion limits, you'd actually recognize how intellectually dishonest it is to bring up a hypothetical 25-week premature infant case when it comes to abortion, as the Supreme Court has already ruled on it twice. The discussion here is about a heart-beat ban bill, which is a significantly much more complex discussion.

 

[ivwshane]

Why?

Lol! Why is it none of your business what happens between someone that's not you and their doctor? Is that seriously what you are asking?

Who the fuck are you?

 

[HomerJS]

I agree with you here, except for the belief that the 'pro-lifers' are sincere in their motives.
They might believe that they are (I won't disagree with that), but behind this entire debate is female equality (wrt self-ownership/body sovereignty) vs the male need to reproduce. The purported concern for the children here represents placing the latter above the former. And the problem with that is that self-ownership is an inherent right and reproduction is not.

Most "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty. Can't be sincere and have it both ways

 

[HomerJS]

I believe that abortion should be legal, simply because it is the "least bad" of the alternatives when a woman is pregnant and does not wish to have the child. (Why she simply did not use birth control if she does not want to become pregnant is beyond me, but obviously that happens often). And of course rape, incest, or unforeseen health consequences are a totally different situation. However, I simply dont accept the "women must have equal rights, so they have a right to abortion argument." That is a gross oversimplification, and a way of making an unfortunate (and preventable) choice sound like something noble. As for the 14th amendment, nobody really knows how the writers would have viewed any specific situation. And since women can get pregnant and bear children, and men cant, the law can never be "equal". The best we can do is have it interpreted by the Supreme Court. Roe v Wade seems like a reasonable compromise and I would not like to see it overturned.

Don't worry Republicans in multiple states are trying to outlaw birth control

 

[HomerJS]

Why?

Because government interference in family decisions concerning life gave us Terry Schivo

 

[Atreus21]

For somebody who claims to make primary decisions about voting based on one's stance on abortion, you sure are one of the most uninformed about the topic. This thread made about limiting abortions depending on the status of the conceptus' heart beat. It has long been held in BOTH Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey that there is a legal basis in which the State can restrict abortion once viability has been met, assuming there were still protections in place for the health of the mother. If the States desire to ban abortions at 25 weeks, it is up to the States to then construct a law that maintains the protections for the mother as described by the Supreme Court. In fact, most states have some sort of law already limiting abortions at 25 weeks (many before that timepoint).

Not only do you mislabel the appearance of a 25 week premature infant, you don't even understand the legal foundation for limiting abortions. Your post is entirely off topic and is a strawman. If you actually understood the Supreme Court rulings regarding abortion limits, you'd actually recognize how intellectually dishonest it is to bring up a hypothetical 25-week premature infant case when it comes to abortion, as the Supreme Court has already ruled on it twice. The discussion here is about a heart-beat ban bill, which is a significantly much more complex discussion.

Im arguing the issue of abortion itself, not whatever Roe or Casey sanction.

I dont think this is off topic at all. The topic is that of an 11 year old girl being impregnated by rape, now unable to procure an abortion, certainly an extreme case. I think it's relevant to consider the extremes of both positions. The first involves forcing an 11 year old rape victim to go through with a dangerous and potentially life threatening pregnancy. The second involves tearing to pieces a wholly healthy, viable, and developed baby.

Truly, that is no easy decision. But at the end, only one involves deliberately and necessarily depriving an innocent human being of his or her life.

 

[Atreus21]

Lol! Why is it none of your business what happens between someone that's not you and their doctor? Is that seriously what you are asking?

Who the fuck are you?

The deliberate taking of innocent human lives is all of society's concern.

 

[sandorski]

Im arguing the issue of abortion itself, not whatever Roe or Casey sanction.

I dont think this is off topic at all. The topic is that of an 11 year old girl being impregnated by rape, now unable to procure an abortion, certainly an extreme case. I think it's relevant to consider the extremes of both positions. The first involves forcing an 11 year old rape victim to go through with a dangerous and potentially life threatening pregnancy. The second involves tearing to pieces a wholly healthy, viable, and developed baby.

Truly, that is no easy decision. But at the end, only one involves deliberately and necessarily depriving an innocent human being of his or her life.

Easy decision, it is her choice.

 

[ivwshane]

The deliberate taking of innocent human lives is all of society's concern.

No its not unless that life exists outside of the womb.

If that's your position though, then can we also assume you are for gun control if not the outright banning of guns? Does that mean you are also a staunch supporter of regulations on businesses, especially with regards to the environment? Can we also assume you are now for universal health care? Banning cigarettes? Regulating unhealthy food intake? And all of the other millions of things that kill innocent human beings everyday?

 

[abj13]

Im arguing the issue of abortion itself, not whatever Roe or Casey sanction.

I dont think this is off topic at all. The topic is that of an 11 year old girl being impregnated by rape, now unable to procure an abortion, certainly an extreme case. I think it's relevant to consider the extremes of both positions. The first involves forcing an 11 year old rape victim to go through with a dangerous and potentially life threatening pregnancy. The second involves tearing to pieces a wholly healthy, viable, and developed baby.

Your strawman holds no merit, and now you are just making MORE strawmen arguments. The OP refers to a case in which a child was raped and with the Ohio "law," as soon as 5-6 weeks after conception, she is barred from having an abortion. There is no "wholly healthy, viable, and developed baby" at 5-6 weeks. There is no "wholly healthy, viable, and developed baby" at 10 weeks. There is no "wholly healthy, viable, and developed baby" at 15 weeks. The fact you are willing to write that tells me you don't understand the implications of what is described in the OP, and don't understand the fundamentals of development of the conceptus.

Truly, that is no easy decision. But at the end, only one involves deliberately and necessarily depriving an innocent human being of his or her life.

Its amazing. You can distill the entire discussion about abortion into a single sentence and woefully miss a major point of contention. Your assumption that there's an "innocent human being" at 5 week, 10 week, or 15 weeks is one of the major points of contention of this entire topic. Despite extensive testimony to the Supreme Court, they repeatedly write that there's no clear evidence that there is a human being with a right to life at those stages. If ethicists, scientists, religious scholars, and other relevant people couldn't come to a consensus, why should we make your leap of logic? As already discussed many times with you on this forum (and your subsequent running away from those discussions), your assumptions about what happens regarding personhood at conception is woefully misinformed and illogical.

 

[Vic]

Could you clarify what you mean by that?

John 8:1-11

 

[Jaskalas]

The discussion here is about a heart-beat ban bill, which is a significantly much more complex discussion.

Discusing late term abortion is directly addressing the topic.

Because when the dust settles there will be either extreme and intolerable absolutes, or a compromise somewhere in the middle.

 

[ivwshane]

Discusing late term abortion is directly addressing the topic.

Because when the dust settles there will be either extreme and intolerable absolutes, or a compromise somewhere in the middle.

Both for and against are absolute positions. There is no middle ground. The logical solution would be to support policies which
minimize the need for an abortion while still allowing for access to abortions.

Take a guess at which party doesn't support policies that would do that?

 

[TheVrolok]

Most fetuses born at 25 weeks don't survive without a fairly costly and lengthy stay in Neonate ICU, which I worked in for 6 months. Damned depressing place with infant after infant dying. Lungs are barely able to function...prior to 24 weeks gestational age, the fetus's lungs don't produce surfactant and thereby aren't able to clear fluids from the alveolar sacs in the lungs, essentially drowning the fetus.

There are success stories...but they are not the norm, sorry.

That must have been exhausting. I spent just a month working on the neurology floor of a well known pediatric hospital. Good God that was horribly emotionally draining. A large number of the patients were premies who would never develop fully functional brains (say 2 year old that can't roll over independently) and/or had entirely uncontrolled epilepsy despite all possible medical therapy. It was basically a place to wait for children to die. It was horrible. There were very, very few success stories.

 

[vi edit]

Guess we have to keep on top of the dead mother statistic. Don't want to lose that title.

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/5280...ate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world

 

[Sunburn74]

The deliberate taking of innocent human lives is all of society's concern.

Abortion is more regulated than US war practices or policing practices where physical people you can see and touch are actually being killed. Stop the hypocrisy already

 

[Ichinisan]

This just makes me sick. This poor girl is being victimized twice.

https://buckeyestate.news/2019/05/03/police-ohio-man-raped-11-year-old-who-is-now-pregnant/



And the kicker? No laws to provide for the child's welfare once it's born. The law allows for exceptions for the health of the "mother" (fuck it I can't call this child that) but nothing for incest or rape.


Fuck you GOP.

"The law allows for exceptions for the health of the "mother" (fuck it I can't call this child that) but nothing for incest or rape."

That's ridiculous. I don't believe it for a second, and I haven't looked up a single thing about this bill.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

"The law allows for exceptions for the health of the "mother" (fuck it I can't call this child that) but nothing for incest or rape."

That's ridiculous. I don't believe it for a second, and I haven't looked up a single thing about this bill.

Ummmm... ok then. You might want to read it.

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

 

[trenchfoot]

The New Age of Trump folks, where this odd assortment of racists, Nazis, evangelicals, corporate rip-off artists, Tea Bagger has-been's and warmongers (among other sundry conservative nutjob organizations) have all gotten a brand spank'in new lease on life.

Next up, conquering the evils of alcoholic beverages, porn and reversing the church's shrinking influence over the populace.

 

[dainthomas]

Imagine if one of these cases gets to the SC and it gets shot down because RvW is rightly seen as precedent. Evangelicals and other righties just spent at least the last three decades allowing republicans to completely torpedo the middle class/poor, workers rights, and environmental protections all to overturn this and it ends up being all for naught.

That's why I'm surprised backwards red states are pushing this so hard. I always figured this was the perfect permanent wedge issue for them, otherwise who's going to vote for the party of the oligarchs?

 

[Ichinisan]

Ummmm... ok then. You might want to read it.

http://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf

Well that's just ridiculous. Even the similar Georgia bill has exceptions for rape and incest.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Well that's just ridiculous. Even the similar Georgia bill has exceptions for rape and incest.

You sound surprised? GA's just more progressive than OH apparently.