• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

Shadowy Man said:
excreationist said:
Shadowy Man said:
That may be what he said, but the article was quite clear about what was going on and I trust that article more than I trust him to present me with facts. He is saying it is illegal under ITAR to hire these people but the article says that it is not. The laws are public information and this can be looked up.

And a persecution complex is typical right-wing nutjob fare.
Click to expand...
Musks' idea that some laws contradict each other so you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't" are interesting though.
Click to expand...
Sure, lots of ideas are interesting.


This is the problem with disinformation though. It takes only a sentence or two to spread it, but it takes a lot more time and effort and research and paragraphs to counter it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Complex issue with a one-sentence "solution" is wrong.
 
excreationist said:
southernhybrid said:
Nobody has gotten a late term abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus isn't viable. There are a lot of lies told by Republicans about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Well I intended this thread to just be about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Do the statistics you posted above refer to only late term abortions? If not then what’s the relevance to the discussion? Are late term abortions mostly about inconvenience?
 
excreationist said:
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
So involving rape, incest or threatening the life of the mother aren't a majority of the reasons
Click to expand...
You forget to link to source material?
Click to expand...
I provided a link to the webpage I copied and pasted the statistics from. The statistics for rape and health problems are part of that.
Elixir said:
provided sans support by a person who seems to believe Elon Musk.

Most are not medical or rape-related, true. Those are the people who now die in hospital parking lots. My wife had three ectopic pregnancies, any one of which would have likely killed her if it was in one of the twenty something States where bans now apply.
Whatever the reason, IMHO the dominant operative principle must be
NONE OF YOUR GODDAM BUSINESS.
(Assuming you’re not the pregnant one)
Click to expand...
I thought I justified my statement that "a large number of abortions the issue is just the inconvenience".
Click to expand...

You didn’t.

Also, IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS why a woman has an abortion.
 
excreationist said:
southernhybrid said:
Nobody has gotten a late term abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus isn't viable. There are a lot of lies told by Republicans about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Well I intended this thread to just be about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Why did you provide a page of misleading stats, then? In the United States, only about 1.3% of abortions occur at or after 21 weeks of gestation. Viability is generally considered to begin around 24 weeks, but survival rates vary significantly based on multiple factors.
Could you please provide the top three reasons for abortions at 24+ weeks, and we can perhaps have a discussion.
 
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
"a large number of abortions the issue is just the inconvenience".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A large number of trips to the grocery store, the issue is just the convenience. And people die on the way to the grocery store and because of people going to the grocery store.
Should going to the grocery store be considered murder?
Should non-sentient aggregations of cells EVER take primacy over humans’ personal decisions?
Click to expand...
So I intended this thread to be about late term abortions. I assume they are sentient at that point.
 
southernhybrid said:
These days it seems we go overboard trying to save very premature babies, who often have little chance of survival and may end up with serious disabilities if they do survive. I'm not sure which is more cruel, letting nature take its course, or giving what may be false hope to the parents by providing very expensive aggressive care hoping the premature infant will survive. It's complicated.
Click to expand...
Yeah--I consider a lot of what we do with extreme preemies to be child abuse.
 
Shadowy Man said:
excreationist said:
southernhybrid said:
Nobody has gotten a late term abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus isn't viable. There are a lot of lies told by Republicans about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Well I intended this thread to just be about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Do the statistics you posted above refer to only late term abortions? If not then what’s to r relevance to the discussion? Are late term abortions mostly about inconvenience?
Click to expand...
Sorry I only was aware of the "late term abortion" term later in this thread even though it was what the thread was initially about. I was talking about abortions in general later on which is off topic.
 
excreationist said:
So involving rape, incest or threatening the life of the mother aren't a majority of the reasons. For the other cases an alternative is to put the baby up for adoption.
Bronzeage in post #23 said that abortions can "allow her to behave more like a man" (related to convenience?)
Click to expand...
If you got your way--it would be leave your baby to die waiting for adoption. Back when abortion was illegal that's what happened--an awful lot of babies went unadopted and death was a very likely outcome of that.
 
excreationist said:
southernhybrid said:
Nobody has gotten a late term abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus isn't viable. There are a lot of lies told by Republicans about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Well I intended this thread to just be about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
But you never addressed my point about the age of viability being pushed back.

And note the threshold of viability is the point where they don't quite suffocate. They still have a lot of damage from oxygen deprivation, though.
 
excreationist said:
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
"a large number of abortions the issue is just the inconvenience".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A large number of trips to the grocery store, the issue is just the convenience. And people die on the way to the grocery store and because of people going to the grocery store.
Should going to the grocery store be considered murder?
Should non-sentient aggregations of cells EVER take primacy over humans’ personal decisions?
Click to expand...
So I intended this thread to be about late term abortions. I assume they are sentient at that point.
Click to expand...
Assuming that doesn't make it so. We don't know.
 
excreationist said:
Shadowy Man said:
excreationist said:
southernhybrid said:
Nobody has gotten a late term abortion unless the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus isn't viable. There are a lot of lies told by Republicans about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Well I intended this thread to just be about late term abortions.
Click to expand...
Do the statistics you posted above refer to only late term abortions? If not then what’s to r relevance to the discussion? Are late term abortions mostly about inconvenience?
Click to expand...
Sorry I only was aware of the "late term abortion" term later in this thread even though it was what the thread was initially about. I was talking about abortions in general later on which is off topic.
Click to expand...
You provided statistics for abortion in general, not for late term abortion.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
excreationist said:
So involving rape, incest or threatening the life of the mother aren't a majority of the reasons. For the other cases an alternative is to put the baby up for adoption.
Bronzeage in post #23 said that abortions can "allow her to behave more like a man" (related to convenience?)
Click to expand...
If you got your way--it would be leave your baby to die waiting for adoption. Back when abortion was illegal that's what happened--an awful lot of babies went unadopted and death was a very likely outcome of that.
Click to expand...
Just because I think something might be considered unethical it doesn't mean I am completely against it... (and "have my way")
edit: I was meant to just be talking about late term abortions (and adoption [after normal birth time] in those circumstances).
 
Last edited:
Loren Pechtel said:
excreationist said:
Sorry I only was aware of the "late term abortion" term later in this thread even though it was what the thread was initially about. I was talking about abortions in general later on which is off topic.
Click to expand...
You provided statistics for abortion in general, not for late term abortion.

You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Yes that is my point. I was confused.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
excreationist said:
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
Elixir said:
excreationist said:
"a large number of abortions the issue is just the inconvenience".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A large number of trips to the grocery store, the issue is just the convenience. And people die on the way to the grocery store and because of people going to the grocery store.
Should going to the grocery store be considered murder?
Should non-sentient aggregations of cells EVER take primacy over humans’ personal decisions?
Click to expand...
So I intended this thread to be about late term abortions. I assume they are sentient at that point.
Click to expand...
Assuming that doesn't make it so. We don't know.
Click to expand...
So we say, despite the fact that all of us have been there.
If one defines sentience as the ability to feel feelings of any sort, it lets in a lot of - virtually all - organisms, and certainly includes third trimester human fetuses... but if one requires a degree of awareness, or memory or anything beyond mechanical reaction to stimulae, I'd expect most fetuses to fall short even in the late term, past "viability".
I have some very early memories, but they're ALL ex-utero. How about you?
 
excreationist said:
Loren Pechtel said:
excreationist said:
Sorry I only was aware of the "late term abortion" term later in this thread even though it was what the thread was initially about. I was talking about abortions in general later on which is off topic.
Click to expand...
You provided statistics for abortion in general, not for late term abortion.

You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Yes that is my point. I was confused.
Click to expand...
Forgiveable.
There must exist somewhere, a compilation of reasons given for abortions performed after 24 weeks... and I doubt that it consists of much more than lethal fetal abnormalities and threats to the life of the mother.
 
I'm primarily posting a link to help Excreationist have a better understanding of so called late term abortions. I don't think he fully understood much about abortions that occur during the third trimester of a pregnancy, so this is simply meant to be educational.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-p...tions-later-in-pregnancy-in-a-post-dobbs-era/

  • Abortions at or after 21 weeks are uncommon and represent 1% of all abortions in the U.S. The procedures are expensive and often require travel and lost wages. They normally require treatment over multiple days and are only performed by a subset of all abortion providers.
  • Claims of abortions occurring “moments before birth” or even “after birth” are false. These scenarios do not occur, nor are they legal in the United States.
Click to expand...

What is a so-called “late-term” abortion?​

“Late term” abortion typically refers to abortions obtained at or after 21 weeks, however it is not an accepted medical term, nor is there a consensus around to which gestational ages it refers. Members of the medical community have criticized the term “late-term” abortion, as it implies abortions are taking place after a pregnancy has reached “term” (37 weeks) or “late term” (>41 weeks) which is false. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has written that “late-term abortion” has no medical meaning. As such, this brief discusses abortions occurring at ≥21 weeks gestation as abortions later in pregnancy, but it should be noted that 21 weeks is a largely arbitrary cutoff based on how the CDC collects data on abortions. Abortions at this stage in pregnancy are sometimes referred to as “later abortions” by the medical community as well.

How do states restrict or regulate abortions later in pregnancy?​

On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and eliminated the federal constitutional standard that had protected the right to abortion. Without any federal standards, states can now set their own policies banning or protecting abortion at any point in pregnancy. This has drastically changed the landscape of abortion in the United States, as 14 states have now banned abortion at any stage of pregnancy and 11 others have gestational limits banning abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, such as before cardiac activity is detected in the fetus or up to a certain number of weeks of pregnancy.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more information in the linked piece and I hope it will be helpful to anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of abortion that occur in or close to the third trimester of a pregnancy. They are extremely rare.
 
Politesse said:
bilby said:
pood said:
The big difference between 1900-1960 and 1960-2020 is not so much in technological change, but in social change. Tell someone in 1960 that by 2020 gays would be out and allowed to marry, that a black man would be president, and that trans people would have recognized rights, and he would have told you that you were an idiot.
Click to expand...
Tell any soldier in the trenches in the Great War, or in WWII for that matter, that he was fighting for the freedom of one man to marry another, and he would likely have shot you.
Click to expand...
Any soldier? There's some WWI history that you have not been exposed to, methinks.
Click to expand...
"likely".

Some, of course, would have been delighted. But that would not have been the likely response.
 
Last edited:
bilby said:
Politesse said:
bilby said:
pood said:
The big difference between 1900-1960 and 1960-2020 is not so much in technological change, but in social change. Tell someone in 1960 that by 2020 gays would be out and allowed to marry, that a black man would be president, and that trans people would have recognized rights, and he would have told you that you were an idiot.
Click to expand...
Tell any soldier in the trenches in the Great War, or in WWII for that matter, that he was fighting for the freedom of one man to marry another, and he would likely have shot you.
Click to expand...
Any soldier? There's some WWI history that you have not been exposed to, methinks.
Click to expand...
"likely".

Some, of course, would have been delighted. But that would not have been the likely response.
Click to expand...
Fair enough I suppose. Hundreds of American soldiers dishonoroubly discharged. Dozens of German ones straight up arrested. Many murders and suicides. But the backlash from that over-reaction led to the first real gay rights movement on both continents. And the genesis of the idea of gay marriage, which began with the "field marriages" of the Great War. Which were not in all cases romantic in nature, but for those few for whom it mattered, it was an acceptable way to express and otherwise inexpressible longing for social normality in that part of their life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom