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

[Toni]

View attachment 48827

That's not how I picture Rhea.
Oh well.
Tom

View attachment 48839
Except I wouldn’t have my finger over the arrow.

It's been a long, long time since I've used a bow. My memory is that her behavior is reasonable while drawing the arrow to keep it in place. You remove the finger before releasing it.

Thanks for the lesson, sir.

I know how to draw a bow and shoot an arrow. Have a little range in my back yard.
When one nocks the arrow on the side opposite from one’s pull fingers, and then draws the string back (with one’s elbow lower than hers), the twist of the string by one’s fingers will twist the arrow against the bow holding it in place. The only time I’d have my finger over the arrow is prior to pulling back the string (which is not the condition of this image).

But I so appreciate a man charging in on his steed to tell me how to understand the picture I chose to represent myself, in case I didn’t know about the image I had chosen.

And in a thread about misogyny, no less!
~chef’s kiss~

Loren is always happy to explain things, especially to the ladies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 48827

That's not how I picture Rhea.
Oh well.
Tom

View attachment 48839
Except I wouldn’t have my finger over the arrow.

Personally, I wouldn't be standing so close to that flame.

 

[Elixir]

I wouldn't be standing so close to that flame.

And in that outfit! She could go off like a flashbulb.
(Does anyone say that anymore? Do people remember flashbulbs?)

 

[Rhea]

View attachment 48827

That's not how I picture Rhea.
Oh well.
Tom

View attachment 48839
Except I wouldn’t have my finger over the arrow.

Personally, I wouldn't be standing so close to that flame.

I’m okay with flames - Solstice at my house…

 

[NoHolyCows]

That's what Elon Musk says. I tend to agree with him.

I would ask Elon if a fetus is viable but the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, or the fetus has no chance of survival after birth, is it still ‘murder’ to end the pregnancy — or does that label collapse the full weight of moral responsibility, medical reality, and human suffering into a word that demands none of those considerations?

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To mess things up further:

Henrietta Lacks. Her cells most certainly survived outside her body.

How do you distinguish what's protected such that you don't count her cells?

 

[NoHolyCows]

To mess things up further:

Henrietta Lacks. Her cells most certainly survived outside her body.

How do you distinguish what's protected such that you don't count her cells?

Because her cells are human tissue, not a human being. Personhood requires more than biology—it requires consciousness, identity, and agency.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To mess things up further:

Henrietta Lacks. Her cells most certainly survived outside her body.

How do you distinguish what's protected such that you don't count her cells?

Because her cells are human tissue, not a human being. Personhood requires more than biology—it requires consciousness, identity, and agency.

NHC

Of course--but my point is that human cells do not make a person.

 

[Elixir]

Personhood requires more than biology

Not according to Emily Lake. She sez that some time in the 20-something weeks range, a fetus automatically becomes a person.
Though unable to detect personhood, she is sure that it is magically visited upon all fetuses. Well - no; it is only visited upon HEALTHY, possibly viable fetuses. She's okay with letting the other be aborted "on demand".
Of course ya never know how viable it is until you rip it out of the womb, so such knowledge is of limited utility. But Ems would make criminal laws based on it. Personhood doesn't get any more real than that , does it?
/sarcasm

 

[NoHolyCows]

Personhood requires more than biology

Not according to Emily Lake. She sez that some time in the 20-something weeks range, a fetus automatically becomes a person.
Though unable to detect personhood, she is sure that it is magically visited upon all fetuses. Well - no; it is only visited upon HEALTHY, possibly viable fetuses. She's okay with letting the other be aborted "on demand".
Of course ya never know how viable it is until you rip it out of the womb, so such knowledge is of limited utility. But Ems would make criminal laws based on it. Personhood doesn't get any more real than that , does it?
/sarcasm

I don’t know Emily Lake personally, but I’ll take your word that she believes personhood begins around 20-something weeks. If so, I get why that strikes you as arbitrary—like she’s drawing a line in the sand and calling it moral truth. That frustration is fair. Honestly, I think a lot of people are grasping for something solid in a morally complicated space.

But that’s actually the point I was making: personhood isn’t as simple as biology. If it were, then HeLa cells—or even a frozen embryo—would be people. But we don’t treat them that way, not in how we grieve, how we legislate, or how we form relationships. A person isn’t just a collection of human cells; it’s someone with a mind, a story, a presence in the world.

The truth is, we draw these legal and moral lines—like viability—not because they’re perfect, but because we’re trying to balance competing values: respect for developing life, protection of bodily autonomy, and a recognition that not every human cell or cluster of cells is a “someone.” It’s messy, and I think we should admit that. But acknowledging that personhood involves more than biology isn’t magic—it’s just a recognition that being human and being a person aren’t always the same thing.

That doesn’t make the answers easy. But it makes the conversation honest.

NHC

 

[Elixir]

But acknowledging that personhood involves more than biology isn’t magic—it’s just a recognition that being human and being a person aren’t always the same thing.

That doesn’t make the answers easy. But it makes the conversation honest.

Good post.
I think we (Emily and I) agree that being human and being a person are two different things. For instance I don't think she believes that fingernail clippings or blood smears are persons, though they may be human. Same for a blastocyst and (I think) even an embryo. But when we get into fetal stages of development, Emily is inclined to grant them personhood at some time-designated point and endorses laws to ensure "personhood" rights are conferred upon them at that nebulous point. I am inclined to think of a viable fetus as an unborn person myself, but I think laws conferring such protections and rights capriciously or arbitrarily - such as assuming viability at a fixed number of weeks, or on someone's say-so - is fraught with all kinds of dangerous possibilities and probabilities, many of which we see playing out in abortion-restricting States and Countries with tragic results.
I also doubt that such laws actually bring about the results Emily claims to desire from those laws (reduction or elimination of the abortion of viable fetuses). There are no statistics of which I am aware, that indicate that those laws have ever prevented one single such abortion, and though I'm sure there MUST be a case or few where laws deterred a mother or a doctor from aborting a healthy late-term fetus, I sincerely doubt - in fact I'd bet the farm - it doesn't begin to reach the numbers of people harmed by those laws causing delayed or denied care.
So I oppose them, not on any moral authority or overarching knowledge of fetal development as it relates to "personhood", but just simply because I think government involvement in reproductive healthcare is FAR more dangerous than a few insane pregnant people who have managed to find a corrupt doctor to kill their fetus. I believe all available evidence bears that out.
No morality, just nuts and bolts. Abortion laws harm more than they help, period.

 

[excreationist]

This is a 4 minute video:

"They killed a 37 week healthy baby and the mum is not in an emergency situation" - "two doctors approved that"
37 weeks means it is in the 9th month.
1:00 "a baby can be killed right up until birth"
3:40 "the same law across the country, abortion up until birth is legal everywhere" (Australia)
BTW there is a politcal reason why the laws are so extreme but I don't want to hurt certain political parties.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

This is a 4 minute video:

"They killed a 37 week healthy baby and the mum is not in an emergency situation" - "two doctors approved that"
37 weeks means it is in the 9th month.
1:00 "a baby can be killed right up until birth"
3:40 "the same law across the country, abortion up until birth is legal everywhere" (Australia)
BTW there is a politcal reason why the laws are so extreme but I don't want to hurt certain political parties.

Fake information, with its only "evidence" being a phony animation.

 

[excreationist]

This is a 4 minute video:

"They killed a 37 week healthy baby and the mum is not in an emergency situation" - "two doctors approved that"
37 weeks means it is in the 9th month.
1:00 "a baby can be killed right up until birth"
3:40 "the same law across the country, abortion up until birth is legal everywhere" (Australia)
BTW there is a politcal reason why the laws are so extreme but I don't want to hurt certain political parties.

Fake information, with its only "evidence" being a phony animation.

Copilot: Is abortion up until birth legal in Australia?

In most states, abortion is allowed up to a certain point in pregnancy (e.g., 22–24 weeks). Beyond that, it typically requires approval from two doctors [i.e. can be allowed] and must meet specific criteria, such as risks to the pregnant person's health or severe fetal abnormalities.

are there any examples in Australia of legal abortion at 37 weeks?

Abortion at 37 weeks in Australia is extremely rare [i.e. it can happen] and typically only occurs under exceptional circumstances, such as when the pregnant person's life is at risk or there are severe fetal abnormalities. Each case is carefully reviewed by medical professionals and must meet strict legal and ethical criteria. If you're looking for specific examples, they are not commonly documented publicly due to privacy concerns.

She talked about there being 10 examples where 8 didn't involve a threat to the mother's health (just her mental health?)
From page 10:

https://www.wellbeingsa.sa.gov.au/assets/downloads/abortion-reporting/South-Australian-Abortion-Reporting-Committee-Report-2022.pdf

This is about the politics behind it. Apparently the organisation don't allow members to have reservations with late-term abortion.

Do you think that is also fake information?

 

[Elixir]

Do you think that is also fake information?

I didn’t watch it. But if you have to ask then, yeah probably.

 

[excreationist]

Do you think that is also fake information?

I didn’t watch it. But if you have to ask then, yeah probably.

She goes into a very detailed look at women in the Labor party including quotes. If you watch the first minute you'll get an idea of what it's about. If she made it up I think that could harm her reptuation more than it could damage the Labor party. BTW after the election (in less than a week) I'm going to see what the Labor party people have to say about it. I suspect that the video is at least mostly true.
The group explains how extreme the abortion laws are in Australia. Otherwise there would have to be some alternative pro-abortion lobby group somewhere. This group also explains the connection to Labor.

 

[excreationist]

This is a 4 minute video:

"They killed a 37 week healthy baby and the mum is not in an emergency situation" - "two doctors approved that"
37 weeks means it is in the 9th month.
1:00 "a baby can be killed right up until birth"
3:40 "the same law across the country, abortion up until birth is legal everywhere" (Australia)
BTW there is a politcal reason why the laws are so extreme but I don't want to hurt certain political parties.

Fake information, with its only "evidence" being a phony animation.

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/stillborn-baby-payment

"The Stillborn Baby Payment is currently $4,225.10"

In Australia, potassium chloride is used in a procedure called feticide, which involves terminating a pregnancy after the fetus has reached a gestational age where it might be viable outside the womb, typically after 22 weeks. This is done by injecting the potassium chloride directly into the fetal heart to stop the heartbeat. The purpose of feticide is to ensure the fetus is dead before the abortion procedure is performed.

How is the video phony or fake?

 

[bilby]

Do you think that is also fake information?

I didn’t watch it. But if you have to ask then, yeah probably.

[SARCASM]What, a YouTube video, with emotive words highlighted in the thumbnail still, that has a title beginning "The Secret..." or that includes "... protestor CRIES..."?

If such things were fake information, how could we possibly ever know what is true??[/SARCASM]

Seriously. YouTube is ENTERTAINMENT. It is not now, has never been, and never will be a source of INFORMATION, and if you use it as such, you WILL BE MISINFORMED.

Everyone and everything online should be assumed to be an effort to manipulate you into believing stuff that ain't true, at least until you have confirmed its claims elsewhere - and ideally by testing them against rival sources.

Get your information from written sources, that contain as little emotive language as possible.

Remember, in any circumstances, the more emotive language you see or hear, the less likely it is to be the truth.

You should also assume that (despite the absence of emotive language), anything produced by "AI" (eg Copilot) is nonsense until confirmed via a non-AI source. And given that you must confirm elsewhere before trusting it, it's usually a waste of time to ask an AI. Even systems like Perplexity, which provide links to sources, are useless except as a means to locate those sources, and should be ignored in favour of those sources (which themselves need to be run past your sanity checks).

Remember: YouTube is entertainment. YouTube is not a source of information. Ever. Even if it's not wrong, it's impossible to be sure it's not, without going to an actual information source to find out.

If you're getting your information from YouTube, you are not getting information at all.

 

[excreationist]

@bilby
What about this directly from the horse's mouth ("Emily's list")

Empowering pharmacies to prescribe abortion pill ‘worth exploring’: Emily’s List

www.emilyslist.org.au

Empowering pharmacies to prescribe abortion pill ‘worth exploring’: Emily’s List
An influential group of female Labor members is calling on the government to consider further broadening access to the abortion pill and allowing pharmacists to prescribe it without a script from a doctor or nurse.

So are people here still saying that that video about Emily's List was just made up?
Emily's List is clearly strongly pro-abortion.
In terms of it being "secret" - how many people have heard of it? But I've shown that the group actually exists.

 

[bilby]

If she made it up I think that could harm her reptuation more than it could damage the Labor party.

I don't know who "she" is, nor what the "it" she might have made up is - I have no intention of caring, or of watching the video.

But I can tell you without fear of error that your claim here is deeply flawed. YouTube content creators don't have to care one iota about their own reputations, and can cause massively disproportionate reputational damage to others. Particularly during election campaigns, where finding out you were misled after you cast your vote does the harm they sought, and when they can return at the next election under a brand new username, secure in the expectation that almost none of their audience will renember being fooled by them last time around.

Anything seen on YouTube should be assumed to be nonsense. That goes tenfold for political content, and a thousandfold for political content during an election campaign.