Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[r9etb]

@Idaho_Cowboy   @Jazzhead

In jazzhead's defense,he did use the word "non-viable". It's still a fetus,not a baby. Anybody that doesn't understand the difference is operation off of emotion,not logic,and their opinions are worth as much as farts. Which is where the term "brain farts" comes from.

A 5 month old premie is a BABY,not a fetus. I may be wrong because I make zero attempt to keep up with this,but I THINK the current standard is anything newer than 90 days is a fetus,and anything 91 days or more is a baby. Seems reasonable to me.

Actually, "non-viable" is not a reasonable standard.  For one thing, there's no clear line between "viable" and "non-viable."  For another, the unborn child is perfectly viable where she is; it's if you take her out of the womb before she's sufficiently developed, that she becomes "non-viable" in an environment other than that in which she properly belongs.

Likewise, the difference between "fetus" and "baby" is one of semantics, not of actual science. 

Euphemisms are necessary to those who defend abortion; they offer a means of dehumanizing the child, so as to make us forget what it is we're actually talking about.  ("Product of conception" is another good one.) 

One simply cannot discuss abortion in the same way, if you use the more accurate terms -- unborn child, human being, and so on.

The point is amply demonstrated by Jazzhead's posts on this thread: he will not -- apparently cannot -- acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child. 

[sneakypete]

I can live with that.

@Idaho_Cowboy

If it makes you happy,I'm happy for you.

[truth_seeker]

The ironic thing about that...and I noted this earlier in the thread...is that the same Supreme Court Justice that made up the mythical "right" to abortion...also wrote the majority opinion striking down the death penalty in the 70's as cruel and unusual punishment.

Leaving us with a state "morality" of legally killing the good and innocent, simply for being too young; and sparing the worst of the worst since killing them would be "immoral."

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Actually, "non-viable" is not a reasonable standard.  For one thing, there's no clear line between "viable" and "non-viable."  For another, the unborn child is perfectly viable where she is; it's if you take her out of the womb before she's sufficiently developed, that she becomes "non-viable" in an environment other than that in which she properly belongs.

Likewise, the difference between "fetus" and "baby" is one of semantics, not of actual science. 

Euphemisms are necessary to those who defend abortion; they offer a means of dehumanizing the child, so as to make us forget what it is we're actually talking about.  ("Product of conception" is another good one.) 

One simply cannot discuss abortion in the same way, if you use the more accurate terms -- unborn child, human being, and so on.

The point is amply demonstrated by Jazzhead's posts on this thread: he will not -- apparently cannot -- acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child.

I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding. 

[EC]

I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.

The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.

With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.

[Bigun]

I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.

Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?

[EC]

Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?

Since, despite the fevered wishes of the snowflakes, a child can't stay in the womb forever - the environment decides what is and isn't viable.

[Bigun]

The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.

With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.

But is totally viable in the natural environment of a 90 day fetus! i.e. in its mother's womb.

[Oceander]

Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?

The best medical science available, conducted on a nonpartisan basis.  Even St. Augustine had a measure for when viability was determined - quickening - which might not be the same basis now, but demonstrates that the task can be done tolerably well. 

[INVAR]

To expend that much energy to ensure the right to kill children is ... well, it's demonic.

And that right there Ladies and Gentlemen, is the crux and root of the entire argument: the justification of institutionalized death under the rubric of "liberty" and the Constitution.

It IS demonic and evil, right up there with the extermination of other peoples for the convenience of their societies, using the same methods of justification Jazzhead has demonstrated here.  Only the subjects of termination have changed.  The excuses are similar if not the same.

[Oceander]

But is totally viable in the natural environment of a 90 day fetus! i.e. in its mother's womb.

Until and unless somebody else can step in and take over that task, it doesn't count. 

[EC]

Can't stay there, my brother. 

Viable, in terms of babies, is if they can survive in the external world (with help if necessary - in most sane countries as support for premature births improves, the cut off for abortions shrinks, since viability is earlier and earlier.)

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Since, despite the fevered wishes of the snowflakes, a child can't stay in the womb forever - the environment decides what is and isn't viable.

Historically plenty of children weren't viable even after they were born.

[EC]

Historically plenty of children weren't viable even after they were born.

And they died. Just like a non viable fetus (different term than we've been discussing) in the womb dies.

[Bigun]

Can't stay there, my brother. 

Viable, in terms of babies, is if they can survive in the external world (with help if necessary - in most sane countries as support for premature births improves, the cut off for abortions shrinks, since viability is earlier and earlier.)

If left alone it can sure as hell stay there for the natural term of 9 months at which point it will, more than likely, be "viable" when it leaves of its own accord!!

[Jazzhead]

 
Yup,and if she lets it get far enough along the line to become viable,that was her choice also,and she needs to face up to HER obligations just like the man does. What could be fairer?

This I agree with.  Once the fetus is viable I have no objection whatsoever for the state to ban abortion.   There's plenty of time prior to viability for the woman to make up her mind and exercise her right to abortion.  If she fails to do so, then, yeah, she should be stuck with that decision.   In legal parlance, her failure to exercise her legal right within a reasonable period of time means she has assumed a duty of care over the now-viable fetus.

 

[driftdiver]

Until and unless somebody else can step in and take over that task, it doesn't count.

@Oceander
@Bigun

Doesn't count?   That makes no sense whatsoever,  please explain the logic.

[driftdiver]

This I agree with.  Once the fetus is viable I have no objection whatsoever for the state to ban abortion.   There's plenty of time prior to viability for the woman to make up her mind and exercise her right to abortion.  If she fails to do so, then, yeah, she should be stuck with that decision.   In legal parlance, her failure to exercise her legal right within a reasonable period of time means she has assumed a duty of care over the now-viable fetus.

 

@Jazzhead

The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human.   Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby.  If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.

An immoral position to say the least.  A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.

[Bigun]

@Oceander
@Bigun

Doesn't count?   That makes no sense whatsoever,  please explain the logic.

I don't know how to make it any more clear!   An embryo, once fertilized, most often stays in its mother's womb until it's ready to come out.  Usually at around nine months!

[EC]

If left alone it can sure as hell stay there for the natural term of 9 months at which point it will, more than likely, be "viable" when it leaves of its own accord!!

True. I was just answering your asking who decides what's viable.

Personally I think there should be no abortion. Morning after pill - fine. It works for up to a week afterwards. Contraceptives - should be free (and yes, I have ZERO problems with my tax money going to that - it's cheaper than supporting bastards).

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Jazzhead

The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human.   Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby.  If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.

An immoral position to say the least.  A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.

Or the level of tech that makes them "viable" or not.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human.   Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby.  If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.

An immoral position to say the least.  A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.

My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.   The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women - self-determination is the most basic human right there is.   But the right isn't unlimited, either - as SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm.   

The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief.  That's fine - to each his own when it comes to God and souls and so forth.   But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter.   That's tyranny, not as Hoodat strangely defines it.   Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history.   But the United States is different -  what is sacred is the individual.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

what is sacred is the individual.   

Unless the State rules you aren't viable then so long sucker.

[Bigun]

Personally I think there should be no abortion. Morning after pill - fine. It works for up to a week afterwards. Contraceptives - should be free (and yes, I have ZERO problems with my tax money going to that - it's cheaper than supporting bastards).

Another subject entirely. 

[driftdiver]

I don't know how to make it any more clear!   An embryo, once fertilized, most often stays in its mother's womb until it's ready to come out.  Usually at around nine months!

@Bigun

What does that have to do with whether its ok to kill that "embryo" which is really a baby.