Ohio's heartbeat bill could upend Roe v. Wade. It started at a sleepover.

[We Never Know]

Really? So if a tiny organism, a single cell organism, was found on Mars or some moon what do you think science will say? What will the headlines say? You get the point I hope

You and I both know it will be called life. It also lives on its own, on another planet, yada yada. It's not the number of cells that qualifies something to be called life.

 

[Shiranui117]

Normally late term fetal abnormalities “incompatible for life.” It’s been a while since health class, so forgive me. But if I recall correctly it’s a spectrum of birth defects. It is also done if the life of the mother is in danger or would seriously affect her mental or physical health to continue the pregnancy.
That sort of thing.
Given how grave late term abortion is, I doubt it’s taken lightly by medical professionals involved.

There have been a number of cases where children without a good prenatal prognosis have been born and turned out to lead healthy lives. It was feared when I was born that I would have Down Syndrome, and my parents were preparing themselves for that eventuality. Moreover, my umbilical cord had two tight knots in it thanks to how much I was constantly doing somersaults in my mom's womb. Thanks to the knots, I had been getting hardly any nutrients for two weeks and I had stopped growing. When I was delivered by emergency C-section at 5 weeks premature, I was the size of a 7-week premature baby. I didn't have Down Syndrome, but I did have grade-3 microtia of the left ear, meaning I was functionally born only with a right ear. It was around three months before the doctors let my parents take me home because of how critically small I was (2.5 pounds, or just above 1kg). I think my mother still has photos of me hooked up to a whole bunch of tubes in the neonatal unit; my skin was practically translucent.

I'm not sure killing unborn children with birth defects is the right solution to the problem of birth defects. With the continual advancement of medical technology, I predict that most birth defects will eventually be able to be fixed inexpensively and satisfactorily. Spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, microtia, and butterfly children will all be able to be treated and fixed as we continue to learn more about these conditions, what causes them and how we can fix them. Already we can fix cat's lip and heart defects, and cloning technology will enable us to grow entire organs such as missing bones, noses or outer ears. Having a birth defect doesn't mean that the child is relegated to a miserable existence where they can't achieve any measure of happiness or success. Stephen Hawking gave talks and wrote massive amounts of scientific literature long after his paralysis started taking hold. Even when all he had control of was a singular cheek muscle, he was still able to communicate and carry on his work.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying if you want to do a big, long insult, switch up the formula a bit and show that half-witted, pit-scratching, backwoods, rung-out, numbskulled hopeless wigglewaggler of a primate who has the REAL intellectual and linguistic superiority. Make them feel in the depths of their souls just how much of a brazenly avaricious, duplicitous, larcenous ursine they are.

You have the form, but not the spirit.
It is more random & meaningless than real insults...ya
poodle groom'n, sock juggle'n, pansy plant'n, lamp grabber!

 

[Shiranui117]

That's what I'm saying. A 3 month old fetus and a 1 month old baby arent really that different except one is not considered life and the other is.
Really the only difference is ones been born. It seems that's the line we have drawn on what considers something to be life.

Yet that same distinction doesn't seem to apply whenever we speak of baby reptiles or birds developing inside their eggs. We speak of the mother needing to regulate the temperature of the eggs to ensure that the babies inside don't die. Why do we deem baby animals inside eggs to be life, but not baby humans in the womb?

 

[We Never Know]

Yet that same distinction doesn't seem to apply whenever we speak of baby reptiles or birds developing inside their eggs. We speak of the mother needing to regulate the temperature of the eggs to ensure that the babies inside don't die. Why do we deem baby animals inside eggs to be life, but not baby humans in the womb?

Back to what I've said. We need to have a clear line on what constitutes what is and isn't life. We have it set for everything from bacteria up but are unsure when it comes to a fetus. That's sad.

 

[David1967]

There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying if you want to do a big, long insult, switch up the formula a bit and show that half-witted, pit-scratching, backwoods, rung-out, numbskulled hopeless wigglewaggler of a primate who has the REAL intellectual and linguistic superiority. Make them feel in the depths of their souls just how much of a brazenly avaricious, duplicitous, larcenous ursine they are.

Don't encourage him!

 

[Shad]

You and I both know it will be called life. It also lives on its own, on another planet, yada yada. It's not the number of cells that qualifies something to be called life.

Life is not determined by living on it's own either.

 

[We Never Know]

Life is not determined by living on it's own either.

Thats true and was already covered. See post #69

 

[Shiranui117]

The unborn is a part of the mother. She develops it inside her, what she takes in effects it, and without her it up to a point it doesn't survive.

It is demonstrably not a part of the mother. It is contained, sustained and nourished by the mother, but that does not mean it is a simple extension of the mother's body. An unborn baby is a human life in its own right by all accounts.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is demonstrably not a part of the mother. It is contained, sustained and nourished by the mother, but that does not mean it is a simple extension of the mother's body. An unborn baby is a human life in its own right by all accounts.

At what point? It's very normal and frequently occurring for the mother's body to naturally/spontaneously abort a pregnancy. Before a certain point the fetus cannot survive outside the womb. There is no self-awareness, and before a certain point no possibility of conscious thought.

 

[SomeRandom]

There have been a number of cases where children without a good prenatal prognosis have been born and turned out to lead healthy lives. It was feared when I was born that I would have Down Syndrome, and my parents were preparing themselves for that eventuality. Moreover, my umbilical cord had two tight knots in it thanks to how much I was constantly doing somersaults in my mom's womb. Thanks to the knots, I had been getting hardly any nutrients for two weeks and I had stopped growing. When I was delivered by emergency C-section at 5 weeks premature, I was the size of a 7-week premature baby. I didn't have Down Syndrome, but I did have grade-3 microtia of the left ear, meaning I was functionally born only with a right ear. It was around three months before the doctors let my parents take me home because of how critically small I was (2.5 pounds, or just above 1kg). I think my mother still has photos of me hooked up to a whole bunch of tubes in the neonatal unit; my skin was practically translucent.

When I say birth defects I’m not talking about disabilities or even mild defects that lead to “awkward” lives. Like fingers not developing properly. We don’t recommend aborting just for disabilities or harder lives. At least not anymore. A doctor might lay it out on the table for the mother to make her decision, but it’s not like doctors look at paralysed foetuses and fervently recommend an abortion. They might suggest it, but ehh.
I’m talking about conditions which would inevitably result in an agonising death for the fetus post birth. I mean maybe the fetus has only half a brain and the scans didn’t pick it up until the second trimester. Maybe it didn’t develop a skull and birthing it would result in the brain crashing through the head and falling on the floor, even with a C section. Like there are many really screwed up things that can happen during a pregnancy. Disabilities that we can “work with” are really mild in comparison, honestly.
You paint an optimistic picture, unfortunately biology is a far harsher mistress.

I'm not sure killing unborn children with birth defects is the right solution to the problem of birth defects. With the continual advancement of medical technology, I predict that most birth defects will eventually be able to be fixed inexpensively and satisfactorily. Spina bifida, muscular dystrophy, microtia, and butterfly children will all be able to be treated and fixed as we continue to learn more about these conditions, what causes them and how we can fix them. Already we can fix cat's lip and heart defects, and cloning technology will enable us to grow entire organs such as missing bones, noses or outer ears. Having a birth defect doesn't mean that the child is relegated to a miserable existence where they can't achieve any measure of happiness or success. Stephen Hawking gave talks and wrote massive amounts of scientific literature long after his paralysis started taking hold. Even when all he had control of was a singular cheek muscle, he was still able to communicate and carry on his work.

There are miracle stories, obviously. People who defied the odds. For every one that did though, you have 100 others who died gasping and in agony in their distraught mother’s arms. That’s the reality until we can “fix” all those issues and more.
A woman shouldn’t be forced to carry through a pregnancy for any reason. But to force or coerce her into it when the baby could die within mere hours or minutes (even with “miracles” out there) is beyond cruel.
I thought the US was against cruel and unusual punishment? Because that’s what it looks like to me.
(I’m not saying that’s what you’re specifically advocating, but that’s the implications of what your argument is, really. Presuming one bans late term abortions.)
I mean if going through with the pregnancy in such extreme scenarios truly is her choice (emphasis on the choice part!!!!) then so be it. If not, I don’t see someone with empathy truly trying to stand in her way, to be frank.

 

[David T]

I don't agree with abortion and it has nothing to do with religion. Maybe that's why you condone it, because of religion which you don't agree with. What do you think?

Biology is the science concerned with the study of life. One popular definition of life is...
1. that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis
2. are composed of cells
3. have a lifecycle
4. undergo metabolism
5. can grow, adapt to their environment
6. respond to stimuli
7. reproduce and evolve

Tell me which ones pertain to a fetus and which ones pertain to a 1 month old baby.

I actually never said I condoned it's narrcisism to be concerned about it. A bit like cluelessly worrying about something butbreally at the end of the day irrelevant .2.8 billion to 7.5 bill in one lifetime and abortion is a concern? Ha omg.no wonder the Catholic Church and others have serious REALITY issues.