What many conservatives call a heart beat is not actually a heart beat either, just disorganized electrical phenomenon in tissue that would eventually become a heart.
I don't have a link handy, so grain of salt, but I remember reading some time ago that the "heartbeat" sound heard when using the medical device (is a sonogram and an ultrasound the same thing? if they're not, I'm not sure which this was referring to) is just a 'sound effect' the machine produces artificially, for verisimilitude.
There should never be exceptions for rape or incest. Those imply that the purpose of the abortion ban is not to protect innocent life but only to punish girls or women for having consensual sex.
A recent executive summary of proceedings from a joint workshop sponsored by the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the Section on Perinatal Pediatrics of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in which a diverse group of experts were invited to participate, defined periviable birth as delivery occurring from 20 0/7 weeks to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation
In 2017, a study described survival and neurologic outcomes among more than 4,000 births from 2001 to 2011 that were between 22 weeks and 24 weeks of gestation at 11 centers in the United States.
Among those born at 22 0/7–22 6/7 weeks, death rates were 97–98% with just 1% surviving without neurodevelopmental impairment.
So the mortality rate for infants born before 23 weeks - who received 21st-Century medical attention, in the United States - was over 97%. So I guess I don't see how a fetus that's incapable of existing outside the mother's body can be called "human life." I don't see why I shouldn't call a human fetus at less than 22 weeks a 'potential' human life (and even at 22 weeks, we're clinging to a 3% survival rate, which is a dramatic improvement since Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey - as recently as 1980, the survival rate at 22 weeks was approaching zero).
If you're wondering what 'neurodevelopmental impairment' is:
ACOG said:
A follow-up study of a cohort of infants born at 22–26 weeks of gestation in England in 2006 found a progressive decrease in the proportion of children at age 30 months with severe or moderate impairment (defined as cerebral palsy, blindness, profound hearing loss, or developmental quotient 2 SDs or more below the mean)
We can't know the start, obviously, but we can rule out time periods. At about 22 weeks, I start to become distressed. At about week 30, I'm quite confident.
I don't believe in souls or any other non-physical forms of "life". I also agree that person-hood and life are two different things because people are a tiny fraction of all living things in the known universe. I would place separate person-hood when the fetus is viable outside the womb, but abortions that late term are pretty much exclusively medical emergencies, so it becomes the Trolley problem, which I am more than comfortable throwing the switch on.
What if the unborn child is found to have a genetic disorder, such as Batten's disease, which will be degenerative and fatal within 5 to 7 years? Should an abortion be allowed? If the State says no, who should pay the additional cost of caring for such a doomed child?
There should never be exceptions for rape or incest. Those imply that the purpose of the abortion ban is not to protect innocent life but only to punish girls or women for having consensual sex.
I think this line of logic leads to other issues. For example, a newborn remains dependent on the mother (or others to some extent, at the very least) after birth. And what of those on life support?
I think this line of logic leads to other issues. For example, a newborn remains dependent on the mother (or others to some extent, at the very least) after birth. And what of those on life support?
Well, the 97% of periviable births that didn't make it were on life-support. Those were babies who died while in 21st-Century American hospitals (which is down from nearly 100% of those born in 20th-Century American hospitals). When we say a 22-week fetus is dependent on her mother to live, I don't think we're talking about breast feeding them and making sure they're warm enough; I think we're talking about basic functions, like their lungs can't get oxygen into their bloodstream.
Well, the 97% of periviable births that didn't make it were on life-support. Those were babies who died while in 21st-Century American hospitals (which is down from nearly 100% of those born in 20th-Century American hospitals). When we say a 22-week fetus is dependent on her mother to live, I don't think we're talking about breast feeding them and making sure they're warm enough; I think we're talking about basic functions, like their lungs can't get oxygen into their bloodstream.
I think there's one more layer of nuance in his statement than you're perceiving. Everyone thinks that women should be allowed to terminate the implantation from a rapist, but this 'exception' doesn't then create the idea that women who consensually got impregnated then shouldn't be allowed to.
personhood starts at the moment the person is not an immediate threat to its host and can live on its own without dramatic medical intervention. Thus, it is a forever murky grey area that should be left to a woman and her healthcare providers!
There question answered and solved. End of discussion, yes?
personhood starts at the moment the person is not an immediate threat to its host and can live on its own without dramatic medical intervention. Thus, it is a forever murky grey area that should be left to a woman and her healthcare providers!
There question answered and solved. End of discussion, yes?
Cojoined twins are people, unless one is brainless. Then it's just one person.
We count functional minds when we're counting people, dependence on host isn't a factor.
As well, and this is an aside, but I've super-effing-pissed that people have been crapping on "medical privacy" and "decision between patient and healthcare provider" for the last two years. They've undermined a lot the meme-space around this, when the foundations were being eroded elsewhere.
Cojoined twins are people, unless one is brainless. Then it's just one person.
We count functional minds when we're counting people, dependence on host isn't a factor.
As well, and this is an aside, but I've super-effing-pissed that people have been crapping on "medical privacy" and "decision between patient and healthcare provider" for the last two years. They've undermined a lot the meme-space around this, when the foundations were being eroded elsewhere.
Conjoined twins that are not separable are such an outlier case as to be repugnant to use to respond to a point that 1/4 women in the US actually go through.
It's another childish "I don't have to live through this myself so I'm going to bring up insane outlier cases to break the logical purity of your argument". This is why say someone like Cloud gets so annoyed you guys and why I call this forum a basket of bigots so often. It not that many here are actively racist in intent or misogynistic in intent; it's that your ignorance and lack of willingness to be open to other viewpoints in favor of your "logic". If your logic cannot take in other life experiences (it cannot) then it should not be used to dictate policy over others, especially in regards to their own bodies.
Also how is a pregnancy not a medical privacy issue ? like 101 style case?
Moderator Action: You are on thin ice with your repeated and unnecessary attacks on others with whom you disagree. Please clean up your act or take it elsewhere. Birdjaguar.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
