B-Man Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 42 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Except no one hands them out on demand. No one. No medical professional. Once again, this is not true. . 1
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: To the child? At two months, it's not a child. It's not even a fetus. 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: You can see a heartbeat on the sonogram at 5 weeks gestational age. But you can't see a head or spine.
whatdrought Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: At two months, it's not a child. It's not even a fetus. But you can't see a head or spine. But that's the problem with the "when life begins" argument. It's all renaming standards. There's always one more reason to say it isn't life yet, but if left alone it becomes life. At very least its potential life. We arrest people who destroy Eagles eggs because they're destroying potential life. (I'm not advocating the arrest of those who have abortions, rather point to the duplicity of the argument.) 1
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: But that's the problem with the "when life begins" argument. It's all renaming standards. There's always one more reason to say it isn't life yet, but if left alone it becomes life. At very least its potential life. We arrest people who destroy Eagles eggs because they're destroying potential life. (I'm not advocating the arrest of those who have abortions, rather point to the duplicity of the argument.) I know. But it's not so much "renaming" standards as "misapplying" or "misrepresenting" them. This current discussion is a good example - a consistent confusion of the concepts of "life" and "viability." Life begins "when you can hear a heartbeat," which is 7 gestational weeks...but no head or spine, and a quarter-inch long? Not even remotely a viable person. So should the argument be "when life begins," or "when viability begins?" Because viability is considered to start after...24 weeks, which shows you the basis for NY's bill (25 weeks is the point where half of all premature births survive.) Whether or not that's a reasonable legal definition for abortion legality, I think it at least represents a reasonable point of departure for discussion, being as it is a concrete objective measurable.
whatdrought Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: I know. But it's not so much "renaming" standards as "misapplying" or "misrepresenting" them. This current discussion is a good example - a consistent confusion of the concepts of "life" and "viability." Life begins "when you can hear a heartbeat," which is 7 gestational weeks...but no head or spine, and a quarter-inch long? Not even remotely a viable person. So should the argument be "when life begins," or "when viability begins?" Because viability is considered to start after...24 weeks, which shows you the basis for NY's bill (25 weeks is the point where half of all premature births survive.) Whether or not that's a reasonable legal definition for abortion legality, I think it at least represents a reasonable point of departure for discussion, being as it is a concrete objective measurable. I see what you're saying about the two arguments not aligning. The problem with the viability argument is that it's not asking the overall viability of the life, but rather the viability within its current contexts. As in, in order for it to be viable it must be able to live outside the womb. I reject that idea. I say that viability is measured by the ability of a life to continue without being acted on by external forces (i.e. removal from the womb). To me this seems straight forward. My neighbor is a viable life as long as I leave him in his current contexts and don't go shoot him in the face cause he dicked with my lawn mower again. Is my direct action towards him, that changes his context of existence, a determination of the viability of his life? The reason that I even use the word viability is because of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. Both naturally (read: happen without external intervention) occurring disasters that make the life inviable.
Doc Brown Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 56 minutes ago, whatdrought said: You can see a heartbeat on the sonogram at 5 weeks gestational age. Right, which is why the "heartbeat bill" would outlaw abortion in the majority of cases even if the women doesn't know she's pregnant yet. The bill would pry be unconstitutional. It's just my opinion of that's when life starts. Edited January 25, 2019 by Doc Brown
whatdrought Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Right, which is why the "heartbeat bill" would outlaw abortion in the majority of cases even if the women doesn't know she's pregnant yet. The bill would pry be unconstitutional. It's just my opinion of that's when life starts. Where (short of a scotus decision) is abortion protected in the constitution?
Doc Brown Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Where (short of a scotus decision) is abortion protected in the constitution? It's not. Similar heartbeat bills have been found unconstitutional in other states. At a national level, it could be found unconstitutional due to the Casey and Roe decisions under the 1st and/or 14th amendment. That's why I said "pry be unconstitutional." Edited January 25, 2019 by Doc Brown
BringBackOrton Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Golf is a sport. ***** FINALLY 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: Actually, I'd guess that roughly a third of the people who are pro-choice are so precisely because of that reasoning, and because they have the humility to admit that "when life begins" is not a question without a hard, factual answer. Hard disagree. Anyone with the humility to admit they don’t know when life begins would err on the side of not killing life. I can’t prove a 12 week fetus is “life beginning.” I can’t prove it isn’t. So I probably shouldn’t kill it, just in case. THAT’S humility. Edited January 25, 2019 by BringBackOrton 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 8 hours ago, DC Tom said: No one aborts "infants," Yet. After all, they can't survive without their parents' intervention.
boyst Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 8 hours ago, DC Tom said: At two months, it's not a child. It's not even a fetus. But you can't see a head or spine. I say it's a blood clot until the 3th trimester/11 months.
KRC Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 10 hours ago, whatdrought said: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm The creation of new genetic material and information. That, to me, is the beginning of life. If left to it's own devices, unless catastrophe happens (such as a miscarriage), this zygote becomes a human. This is where I fall. Life begins at conception. However, that does not mean it is human life. I am a pro-life person, but if I had to vote, I would vote pro-choice, because there are instances where you need the option. You will always have people who will abort out of convenience instead of necessity.
Foxx Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 12 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think y'all should get pregnant and find out at 24 weeks you're carrying a baby with some birth defect that won't survive. Have fun while everyone points you out as a vile disgusting low life. Unlike you gemstones, I actually know two families who went through that. "The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life." gemstones eh? nice, real nice.
B-Man Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Yes, it is from a Pro-life site, but tell me what in the video is mis-stated. provides another link to the bill also
boyst Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 32 minutes ago, Foxx said: gemstones eh? nice, real nice. She made the drive by. Wonder if she'll come back. She has a lot of splainin' to do. 1
B-Man Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 Quote Omar L. Hamada, MD, MBA @OmarHamada Jan 23 I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. . In New York State: 0800: Vaginal delivery, 8lb, 4oz. boy (39 weeks gestation) or 0745: Abortion performed with lethal injection, for the 'health' of the mother Fetus vaginally delivered after .
row_33 Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 i'm pro life, with a seatbelt on in discussing it people are going to do whatever they want to do getting jubilant and happy over an abortion is beyond me though
GoBills808 Posted January 25, 2019 Posted January 25, 2019 19 hours ago, DC Tom said: All I know for certain is that life definitely begins at birth or earlier, and definitely doesn't begin when the sperm fertilizes the ovum, and any action before implantation is contraception, not abortion. Other than that, I'm not willing to dictate my moral beliefs to others. Which is where TYTT usually pops in with a complaint about moral relativism that goes something like "Then you're not willing to convict murders, as the definition of murder is an individual moral choice." Which is a logical fallacy, shifting the discussion from the moral determination of "when life begins" to an argument about "when life should be taken away." I think it's actually reductio ad absurdum. ...you idiot.
Beast Posted January 26, 2019 Author Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) On 1/24/2019 at 8:52 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said: I think y'all should get pregnant and find out at 24 weeks you're carrying a baby with some birth defect that won't survive. Have fun while everyone points you out as a vile disgusting low life. Unlike you gemstones, I actually know two families who went through that. "The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. Previously, abortions after that point were permitted only to preserve a mother’s life." Gemstones? LOL, dude you need to ***** read what you just wrote and respond back. Murder. Plain and simple. Justify it however you wish to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Edited January 26, 2019 by Binghamton Beast
Recommended Posts