• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Viability point

What is the cut off point for abortions per the OP premises?

  • Never allow an abortion even if it kills the mother and child.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
2,380
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know what late abortion is. And I also know it is only carried out when a womans health is at risk. So your putting your own reasons as to why late abortions should happen is unnecessary and assumes that women are getting late term abortions for frivilous reason that you hope your ideas will put a stop to.

Basically yours is nothing more than another man who thinks he knows better than a woman what a pregnancy is about.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
25,767
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually doctors are opposed to abortion when there is viability. There own medical ethics standard does not allow abortion after viability unless more than one doctor agrees the child will not survive.

Just wanted to add that if the life of the woman or irreplaceable damage to major bodily function such as ( stroke , heart attack , paralysis from the neck down, liver or kidney damage would occur if the pregnancy were continued.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
2,380
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just wanted to add that if the life of the woman or irreplaceable damage to major bodily function such as ( stroke , heart attack , paralysis from the neck down, liver or kidney damage would occur if the pregnancy were continued.
I was going to point out that PK did not mention how late term abortion effect women . He only gave damage to a fetus as a reason for late term abortion. I am not sure if that demonstrates the usual lack of care about women that the anti abortion crowd usually display.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
25,767
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you be in favor of an abortion ban after viability then? Say 24 weeks?

Abortions past 22 weeks are extreamly rare in the Untiled States.

They are only performed if the fetus were non viable or if her life/ irreparable damage to major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.

In the United States ( as of 2003 ) there are only 4 abortion clinic doctors and 3 abotion clinics that perform abortions for women who have those extreme pregnancies.

In 2008 Kansas had one of a handful of clinics that performed abortions past 22 weeks for a non viable fetus or women who had a pregnacy that threatened irreparable damage or her life.

There were 323 abortions in Kansas in 2008 past 22 weeks ( one of less than a handful of clinics in the United States that performed abortions past 22 weeks for extreme cases )

131 cases were because the unborn would not live.
191 cases were because there would be irreparable damage to a major bodiliy function if the pregnancy continued.

See pages 8 and 9 of the 2008 Kansas abortion stats PDF

 
Last edited:

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
14,034
Reaction score
4,484
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree.

The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that medically abortion before viabilly is now safer than childbirth.

From Roe vs Wade edited:

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, ( before viability) it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it ( before viability) as a medical practice.



And ironically they were wrong, albeit most likely from ignorance. Abortion used to be a common practice, and there was nothing showing it more dangerous than child bearing until some doctors put their religious morals before medical science, even that of the time.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
26,446
Reaction score
12,605
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I know what late abortion is. And I also know it is only carried out when a womans health is at risk. So your putting your own reasons as to why late abortions should happen is unnecessary and assumes that women are getting late term abortions for frivilous reason that you hope your ideas will put a stop to.

Basically yours is nothing more than another man who thinks he knows better than a woman what a pregnancy is about.
Then why exactly did you write "what practice of late abortion?".

1. I was putting my own reasons as to why abortions should happen? I was stating why late abortions are now happening. I have never EVER stated on this website that woman had late abortions out of frivolous reasons.

2. stating what the law already says is not me thinking I know better than a woman. I am sorry but you are totally barking up the wrong tree/as wrong as you possibly can be.

Euthanizing after birth might be more preferable to late abortion, but that is just because we have euthanasia for new born baby's. It will give the parents the chance of saying goodbye to the child and holding it in their arms. And the reason why I think it is better is based mostly on my grandmother's child being taken away at birth by the doctors who thought women were too feeble to deal with severely handicapped children. My grandmother's daughter had spina bifida and other related problems and died shortly after birth. My grandmother was not even given the chance to bury her daughter as it was dealt with by the hospital/convent. Every day of her life she regretted not holding her baby and saying goodbye to her.
 
Last edited:

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
25,767
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I did. And FYI, I provided the link earlier when I first mentioned the study.

Preemies have survived as early as 22 weeks. Several examples I cited were after 22 weeks. Viability is the state whereby its possible for the child to survive outside the womb. That's definitely viable.

So. Do you still support post-viability abortions?

A fetus does not become viable until past 21 weeks.

At 20 weeks the lungs do not even have air sacs.

At 20 weeks the lungs of the fetus are the consistency of gelatin.


The youngest premie to ever live was 21 weeks 5 days old and was considered a medical miracle.

Elective abortions do not take place that late.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
25,767
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Then why do you cite the myriad problems faced by preemies?
For your information.

The limit of viability ( when 50 percent of premature babies survive currently Is 24 weeks )


In fact many hospitals recommend Palliative/ comfort care for any baby born befor before 23 weeks gestation.
 
Last edited:

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,159
Reaction score
6,709
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What an amusing theory. Did the person who thought it up ever choose to consider how people behave rather than how an ideology works.

People have legal rights which may be taken from them. ie. a right to drive or a right to walk the streets. However the constitution of america only deals in constitutional rights which only effect how a government can operate. ie. It is not that a person has a right to own a gun. It is that the government does not have the right to interfere with ownership of a gun.

All you have done here is give another good argument as to why america should put that old useless document of a constitution in a museum where it belongs and do what what some other countries have done. Which is have a unwritten constitution.
I guess I'm too naive to see what is amusing. "It is not that a person has a right to own a gun. It is that the government does not have the right to interfere with ownership of a gun." This is a proper way of saying that the SC justices would examine the US Constitution in light of their judicial philosophies and conclude the government does not have a right to interfere. From this, we would perhaps less formally conclude that in the US, a person has a right to own a gun.

It works if a professional in law and justice actually feels obligated to apply a judicial philosophy rigorously. It is always possible for someone to be shameless in some office, but I do not think the US Constitution or this procedure is useless.

As for unwritten constitutions, the Taliban and ISIS have them. An unwritten constitution is also what men use when they want to kidnap, repeatedly rape, and imprison women for their amusement and force them to commit suicide or give birth to the enemy. I guess that's a fairly good reason to prefer the written US constitution.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
2,380
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Then why exactly did you write "what practice of late abortion?".

1. I was putting my own reasons as to why abortions should happen? I was stating why late abortions are now happening. I have never EVER stated on this website that woman had late abortions out of frivolous reasons.

2. stating what the law already says is not me thinking I know better than a woman. I am sorry but you are totally barking up the wrong tree/as wrong as you possibly can be.

Euthanizing after birth might be more preferable to late abortion, but that is just because we have euthanasia for new born baby's. It will give the parents the chance of saying goodbye to the child and holding it in their arms. And the reason why I think it is better is based mostly on my grandmother's child being taken away at birth by the doctors who thought women were too feeble to deal with severely handicapped children. My grandmother's daughter had spina bifida and other related problems and died shortly after birth. My grandmother was not even given the chance to bury her daughter as it was dealt with by the hospital/convent. Every day of her life she regretted not holding her baby and saying goodbye to her.

I asked because I was questioning why you think late term abortions happen.

And I was asking that not because you said the words that had late abortions out of frivolous reasons. But because the only need to make such laws is to suppose that it will stop frivolous abortions.

Stating that you think it needs be a law is thinking that you know better than women. There is no need for abortion to be subject to a law. The only purpose it serves is to make women jump through hoops to achieve something.

The anecdote of your grandmother is typical of an era when women had no say what happened to them medically.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
2,380
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I guess I'm too naive to see what is amusing. "It is not that a person has a right to own a gun. It is that the government does not have the right to interfere with ownership of a gun." This is a proper way of saying that the SC justices would examine the US Constitution in light of their judicial philosophies and conclude the government does not have a right to interfere. From this, we would perhaps less formally conclude that in the US, a person has a right to own a gun.

It works if a professional in law and justice actually feels obligated to apply a judicial philosophy rigorously. It is always possible for someone to be shameless in some office, but I do not think the US Constitution or this procedure is useless.

As for unwritten constitutions, the Taliban and ISIS have them. An unwritten constitution is also what men use when they want to kidnap, repeatedly rape, and imprison women for their amusement and force them to commit suicide or give birth to the enemy. I guess that's a fairly good reason to prefer the written US constitution.
It is kind of naive to think ideology actually works as predicted.
There is no such thing as a rigorous judicial philosophy. If there was then we could easily have just one judge rigorously interpreting the philosophy correctly. Instead you have several judges each arguing there own interpretation in order to reach a consensus.

You need to educate yourself about constitutions .

https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-con...-group-s-vision-for-afghanistan/30577298.html

When most of Afghanistan was under Taliban rule in the late 1990s, the fundamentalist regime drafted a new constitution.........But the constitution offers a glimpse into what kind of government the militant organization envisages as it prepares to negotiate a future power-sharing arrangement with the current Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

They had written constitutions. You do not even know what an unwritten constitution is do you. If you did then you would know that only three countries have an unwritten constitution. England, new zealand and isreal.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
26,446
Reaction score
12,605
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I asked because I was questioning why you think late term abortions happen.

And I was asking that not because you said the words that had late abortions out of frivolous reasons. But because the only need to make such laws is to suppose that it will stop frivolous abortions.

Stating that you think it needs be a law is thinking that you know better than women. There is no need for abortion to be subject to a law. The only purpose it serves is to make women jump through hoops to achieve something.

The anecdote of your grandmother is typical of an era when women had no say what happened to them medically.
That is why my grandmother worked for the Rutger foundation, an organization that provided health care for men and women (to treat std's), handed out birth control too. My grandmother sold for cost condoms at her home but only during the evening because the catholic priest and his "eyes in the area" were always on the look for all those who wanted to prevent gods flock from giving his as many new babies as humanly possible. The catholic church who was the semi-dictatorial power in the region where my grandmother lived. Birth control was a big no-no in the region.

They also organized trips to the UK to have women have an abortion there because it was illegal in the Netherlands. The area was that backward from the catholic power that ruled it that there were no crematoria in the South, when my grandfather died in 1967 they had to take a bus trip close to Amsterdam (120 miles one way trip) for them to visit a crematorium who could cremate my grandfather.

And I was under the impression that these laws already existed and I described them, nothing more nothing less.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
2,380
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That is why my grandmother worked for the Rutger foundation, an organization that provided health care for men and women (to treat std's), handed out birth control too. My grandmother sold for cost condoms at her home but only during the evening because the catholic priest and his "eyes in the area" were always on the look for all those who wanted to prevent gods flock from giving his as many new babies as humanly possible. The catholic church who was the semi-dictatorial power in the region where my grandmother lived. Birth control was a big no-no in the region.

They also organized trips to the UK to have women have an abortion there because it was illegal in the Netherlands. The area was that backward from the catholic power that ruled it that there were no crematoria in the South, when my grandfather died in 1967 they had to take a bus trip close to Amsterdam (120 miles one way trip) for them to visit a crematorium who could cremate my grandfather.

And I was under the impression that these laws already existed and I described them, nothing more nothing less.
Good for her.

These laws do exist but they are complimentary to existing ethical standards of medicine. Abortion needs to be removed from the crimes act and seen for what it really is as a health issue.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
26,446
Reaction score
12,605
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Good for her.

These laws do exist but they are complimentary to existing ethical standards of medicine. Abortion needs to be removed from the crimes act and seen for what it really is as a health issue.
Well she was an atheist and was not someone who would hold her peace just because some religious person demanded her to do so. She was stubborn as hell. But this was a very different time, besides no birth control, no right for women to see their own children after birth if mr. doctor decided she would be too feeble to deal with it (she was a woman and they were seen in that time as totally unfit because of their hormones and emotions) and abortion was a total no-no.

It was even so bad that when they traded houses (in the summer vacation, we have weeks of paid vacation leave each year) with people from the Northern part of the Netherlands were the catholic church was not powerful (far from it, only the 2 southern provinces are catholic, the rest is protestant). Their children were allowed to play in shorts, both the girls and boys. But when they traveled to the south they could end up fined if their daughters were not wearing dresses. My mother was once walking through her neighborhood when a procession was coming down the street and as her parents were in a brass band (like more in her family) and she wanted to listen to the music. The norm was people had to bow down to their knees when the procession walked bye. My mother as an atheist was not willing to do so but people in the crowd forced her to her knees.

That was the repressive mood in the South of the Netherlands a few decades back. You can understand reproductive rights were a non-starter for women and men in those days. Abortion was almost a capital offense, birth control was not an option (getting condoms or the pill was almost impossible) and not starting a family was a sin. It was normal for the priest to visit newly married couples if they had not become pregnant within the first few months of the marriage.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
48,172
Reaction score
17,187
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's an arbitrary line, because it does not take into account any actual criteria of maturity. The current age is notably, more researched than it was before, but the point of becoming an adult still varies from person to person. We also have to choose criteria for what we consider adulthood. The best that such will get us is a bell curve, with probably 3 or 4 ages being the most likely point for reaching adulthood per the current criteria (which has changed in the past and can change in the future). So we have to pick one for the tipping point in law. We could have as easily chosen 17 or 19, or even 20 for a nice round number. We actually had 21 as the age for a while, but then pulled it back down to 18.

The same principle applies to viability. A fetus doesn't magically turn viable at 22 weeks, at the moment that it moves from then end of week 21 to the beginning of week 22. When each fetus becomes viable will vary. And again while we can develop a bell curve, we will still have to arbitrarily pick a point to encode into law.
To add to this, we actually don't know the exact age of a fetus in most cases, but are just guessing, for at least many women, since technically we go off "last period", possibly confirmed or countered by an ultrasound. Not only is it common for women to forget that actual date, they could be facing a very different cycle than others or issues that cause them to have no period for months, get pregnant sometime during that time, and have no clue how far along they are. Or they could experience multiple periods in a month.
 
Last edited:

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
25,767
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
To add to this, we actually don't know the exact age of a fetus in most cases, but are just guessing, for at least many women, since technically we go off "last period", possibly confirmed or countered by an ultrasound. Not only is it common for women to forget that actual date, they could be facing a very different cycle than others or issues that cause them to have no period for months, get pregnant sometime during that time, and have no clue how far along they are. Or they could experience multiple periods in a month.
I agree.

I had 2 miscarriages between my 2ed child and my 3 rd child.

After the miscarriages my cycles were irregular so when I found out I was pregnant again I could not give not the doctor an approximate date of my last period. My doctor had me have an ultrasound and based on that I was told I was due around the 3rd week of January. By the end of December my doctor told to expect the baby to come early. And I did have contractions in mid Jan. but they stopped. Later in January my doctor induced labor but stopped the labor because the contractions were too strong anyway ,to make a long story shorter …I went past the Jan due date , and all through all of February.

I had a vaginal birth on March 2ed. He weighed 10 ponds one 1 ounce and the doctor said the ultrasound was off but he would guess he had actually been born about 2 weeks late.

That however , did not stop my husban from telling everyone he saw that our son was a month old the
day he was born. 😂
 
Last edited:

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
48,172
Reaction score
17,187
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree.

I had 2 miscarriages between my 2ed child and my 3 rd child.

After the miscarriages my cycles were irregular so when I found out I was pregnant again I could not give not the doctor an approximate date of my last period. My doctor had me have an ultrasound and based on that I was told I was due around the 3rd week of January. By the end of December my doctor told to expect the baby to come early. And I did have contractions in mid Jan. but they stopped. Later in January my doctor induced labor but stopped the labor because the contractions were too strong anyway ,to make a long shorter …I went past the Jan due date , and all through all of February.

I had a vaginal birth on March 2ed. He weighed 10 ponds one 1 ounce and the doctor said the ultrasound was off but he would guess he had actually been born about 2 weeks late.

That however , did not stop my husban from telling everyone he saw that our son was a month old the
day he was born. 😂
My mom was breastfeeding me when she got pregnant with my sister. She never had a period in between. They hadn't actually restarted yet. They could guess at how far along she was only really because of how old I was. The reason she was tested for being pregnant is because her milk production for me had declined.
 

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
8,159
Reaction score
6,709
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is kind of naive to think ideology actually works as predicted.
There is no such thing as a rigorous judicial philosophy. If there was then we could easily have just one judge rigorously interpreting the philosophy correctly. Instead you have several judges each arguing there own interpretation in order to reach a consensus.

You need to educate yourself about constitutions .

https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-con...-group-s-vision-for-afghanistan/30577298.html



They had written constitutions. You do not even know what an unwritten constitution is do you. If you did then you would know that only three countries have an unwritten constitution. England, new zealand and isreal.
1) The articles was interesting, thanks, but not fundamentally different from anything I have read earlier.

2) As far as I am concerned, the 14-pager was not a constitution, but an ad hoc document no one had formally ratified, to state what the Taliban planned. As for later plans, they don't want anyone else's input: they want to appear as if they are not semi-educated bullies and apply unwritten customs in the regions they control.

3) Shari'a comes from the Koran, which does not say women have to cover their hair, faces, necks, limbs, or body shapes, but that women "should dress modestly." The many tiny rules based on unwritten custom for women's dress has never been negotiated, but imposed by bullies. Now that the reactionaries have arisen in Indonesia, they can't stand the lax customs and say, "It isn't Shari'a." Ridiculous.

4)I don't know about New Zealand and Israel, but England has a tradition of common law in addition to a written constitution. We have that here in the US. Abortion was legal in the pre-US British colonies - except possibly for a revision in Maryland - and the early US, because of common law. Is that what you mean?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
2,380
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1) The articles was interesting, thanks, but not fundamentally different from anything I have read earlier.

2) As far as I am concerned, the 14-pager was not a constitution, but an ad hoc document no one had formally ratified, to state what the Taliban planned. As for later plans, they don't want anyone else's input: they want to appear as if they are not semi-educated bullies and apply unwritten customs in the regions they control.

3) Shari'a comes from the Koran, which does not say women have to cover their hair, faces, necks, limbs, or body shapes, but that women "should dress modestly." The many tiny rules based on unwritten custom for women's dress has never been negotiated, but imposed by bullies. Now that the reactionaries have arisen in Indonesia, they can't stand the lax customs and say, "It isn't Shari'a." Ridiculous.

4)I don't know about New Zealand and Israel, but England has a tradition of common law in addition to a written constitution. We have that here in the US. Abortion was legal in the pre-US British colonies - except possibly for a revision in Maryland - and the early US, because of common law. Is that what you mean?
Again nothing to do with an unwritten constitution.
And no, you are wrong because nz, britain and israel do not have a written constitution. And no you do not have what britain has as britain does not have a written constitution.
Abortion can only be made legal through common la unless there is a an agreed change to the constitution.
 
Top Bottom