Politics Third trimester abortions?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
magnifier661 said:
it's a citizen
Click to expand...

Wow! I had no idea they cared when the child becomes a citizen. I thought the whole idea was to extend a womans control over the beginnings of life regardless of what anyone else thinks.
I expect them to continue pushing to push the date back as each date is established.
But then, I agree with Sly. I have no intention of forcing a woman to raise another Democrat they do not want. However, I do hope some good soul is explaining the benefits of C section delivery to those not up to natural birth. ( Not to be confused with Natural Born).
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Not true.
Click to expand...

Mother in car accident. Baby injured. Abnormality. - c section

Mother and baby shot. Abnormality. - c section

Mother has stoke, suffers organ failure. Abnormality. - they would try their best to c section baby

Lots of things can happen to the mother and/or the baby after the 1st or 2nd trimester. Cesarian is not always a viable option.

Stop with the absolutes, the only ones are death and taxes.
Click to expand...

It may not be always viable, but it's always an option.
 
The way I see it is this:

I think abortion is murder and its my right to say it is.

BUT, some people think otherwise and what they do is their choice. I'm not going to tell them what to do, I will just judge them as such.

If they want to do it up to the day the kid is born, go right ahead. I think you're a scumbag for doing so and you killed your kid, but then again, I'll think the same way if you aborted after conception.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You do not have enough medical knowledge to make that statement.

And more importantly, the law you are upset over will not suddenly make it legal for anyone to have a 3rd trimester abortion for the hell of it. All it is doing is continuing to allow women to make that decision if their life is endangered.
Click to expand...

This.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
The way I see it is this:

I think abortion is murder and its my right to say it is.

BUT, some people think otherwise and what they do is their choice. I'm not going to tell them what to do, I will just judge them as such.

If they want to do it up to the day the kid is born, go right ahead. I think you're a scumbag for doing so and you killed your kid, but then again, I'll think the same way if you aborted after conception.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. But the third trimester is where I draw the line. The Baby is actually fully conscious, they dream, cry, feel comfort and even smile in this stage. At this point, I believe it isn't a fetus any longer. It's a baby!
 
Denny Crane said:
This.
Click to expand...

THIS?!

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2008/10/third-trimester-abortions-and-law.html

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

1. Roe vs. Wade, the most famous abortion case, allowed no "restrictions" on abortion in the first two trimesters. For the third trimester, the states were allowed to make some restrictions -- as long as they allowed abortions for "health" reasons. The companion decision, Doe vs. Bolton, then defined health so broadly that really, anything could suffice:

[M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

I must point out at this point that prior to Roe and Doe, there was no such thing as a third trimester abortion. Abortion was, by definition, killing the fetus prior to viability. So post-viability abortions were not only invented but enshrined as a supposed Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

For one that is a stickler for law, I would think you would be on top of the actual law itself.

It doesn't matter if it's 1 abortion out of a million, even if this is truly the case. The fact that it's perfectly legal for a woman to abort a fully developed baby because of emotional stress, but that very same woman would be charged for murder if she killed that baby just a day after birth is beyond reason!

It seems you and sly aren't looking at the entire picture here.
 
But of course, the argument is that I am not qualified to use "survival rates" as Sly and Denny suggest. So I will just give a link of the Scientific studies on survival rates "vitality" of the fetus in the womb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]


Stages in prenatal development, showing viability and point of 50% chance of survival (limit of viability) at bottom. Weeks and months numbered by gestation.
Completed weeks of Gestation at birth 21 and less 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 34
Chance of survival[5] 0% 0-10% 10-35% 40-70% 50-80% 80-90% >90% >95% >98%
 
magnifier661 said:
But of course, the argument is that I am not qualified to use "survival rates" as Sly and Denny suggest.
Click to expand...

Mags, not all women can have c-sections. There are medical reasons for this. Low blood pressure being number one. And I didn't say you're not qualified to use survival rates. I said you don't have the medical knowledge to make the claims that you are. C-section is not the medical answer to all pregnancies or abortions. You're trying to make the argument that all babies can be saved. They can't. Medical technology is advancing but it's not there yet.
 
Mags, it seems to come down to that you're fine with killing the mother if it means saving the baby. You either want government to make the decision or you feel that you should make it. I believe that in those very rare cases that it's the mother that should be allowed to make that decision. She is free to use science, religious beliefs or family to make but it should be hers to make.

You keep saying that there are no medical instances where the mother can't have a c-section and the baby be saved. And I'm telling you my friend that is not true. There are medical reasons that a women can't have a c-section and the pregnancy must be terminated for the health of the woman. It's rare but there are cases.
 
magnifier661 said:
THIS?!

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2008/10/third-trimester-abortions-and-law.html

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton



For one that is a stickler for law, I would think you would be on top of the actual law itself.

It doesn't matter if it's 1 abortion out of a million, even if this is truly the case. The fact that it's perfectly legal for a woman to abort a fully developed baby because of emotional stress, but that very same woman would be charged for murder if she killed that baby just a day after birth is beyond reason!

It seems you and sly aren't looking at the entire picture here.
Click to expand...

You aren't on top of the medicine.

Enough said.
 
Isn't the problem in the language of the bill? I can understand somebody having the ability to decide for health reasons if they want to keep themselves or their baby alive, but from i can gather, ANYONE can request a third trimester abortion if this law passes.

What am i missing?
 
Denny Crane said:
You aren't on top of the medicine.

Enough said.
Click to expand...

Oh so I haven't read the law correctly? Were the survival rates of fetus wrong? Or you just wanting to toss out I'm wrong, because I don't have a medical degree? So basically you are wrong with all your rant about politics because you aren't in congress? LMAO!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Mags, it seems to come down to that you're fine with killing the mother if it means saving the baby. You either want government to make the decision or you feel that you should make it. I believe that in those very rare cases that it's the mother that should be allowed to make that decision. She is free to use science, religious beliefs or family to make but it should be hers to make.

You keep saying that there are no medical instances where the mother can't have a c-section and the baby be saved. And I'm telling you my friend that is not true. There are medical reasons that a women can't have a c-section and the pregnancy must be terminated for the health of the woman. It's rare but there are cases.
Click to expand...

Odd that you just used hyperbole on me... Is this something sensitive in your personal life?

Fine, I guess I can toss hyperbole back at you... I guess you are fine with mothers killing their child a minute after birth because it will effect their emotional health? See what you just said to me?

As for your claim regarding medical cases... I would love to read these cases. I've tried to find them, so I'm not quite sure why you are so confident they exist
 
Last edited:
magnifier661 said:
Oh so I haven't read the law correctly? Were the survival rates of fetus wrong? Or you just wanting to toss out I'm wrong, because I don't have a medical degree? So basically you are wrong with all your rant about politics because you aren't in congress? LMAO!
Click to expand...

I showed you one of MANY examples of how the fetus wouldn't survive the terrible birth defects it acquired.

The law shouldn't decide, the woman and her doctor should. Only they know the actual details of the medicine in the case.
 
Denny Crane said:
I showed you one of MANY examples of how the fetus wouldn't survive the terrible birth defects it acquired.

The law shouldn't decide, the woman and her doctor should. Only they know the actual details of the medicine in the case.
Click to expand...

And I have showed you that all those "birth defects" you mentioned are detected in the second "trimester". But of course we know you ignore facts when they get in the way of your arguments.
 
magnifier661 said:
Odd that you just used hyperbole on me... Is this something sensitive in your personal life?

Fine, I guess I can toss hyperbole back at you... I guess you are fine with mothers killing their child a minute after birth because it will effect their emotional health? See what you just said to me?

As for your claim regarding medical cases... I would love to read these cases. I've tried to find them, so I'm not quite sure why you are so confident they exist
Click to expand...

You used hyperbole first, I was only joining the party.

"But of course, the argument is that I am not qualified to use "survival rates" as Sly and Denny suggest."
 
magnifier661 said:
And I have showed you that all those "birth defects" you mentioned are detected in the second "trimester". But of course we know you ignore facts when they get in the way of your arguments.
Click to expand...

You've shown me that you're not on top of the medicine.

And neither of us can fathom all the circumstances that would bring a woman to need a late term abortion. It's none of our business in any case.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You used hyperbole first, I was only joining the party.

"But of course, the argument is that I am not qualified to use "survival rates" as Sly and Denny suggest."
Click to expand...


This is what you wrote in response of the baby being able to survive at the third "trimester"...

SlyPokerDog said:
You do not have enough medical knowledge to make that statement.

And more importantly, the law you are upset over will not suddenly make it legal for anyone to have a 3rd trimester abortion for the hell of it. All it is doing is continuing to allow women to make that decision if their life is endangered.
Click to expand...

This after I made a statement that a baby can survive
 
Denny Crane said:
You've shown me that you're not on top of the medicine.

And neither of us can fathom all the circumstances that would bring a woman to need a late term abortion. It's none of our business in any case.
Click to expand...

This will be a great argument for barfo and jlpk to use on your silly political debates! HAHAHA

"Denny, you've shown me that you're not on the top of politics, so all your arguments should be ignored" --- barfo
 
magnifier661 said:
This will be a great argument for barfo and jlpk to use on your silly political debates! HAHAHA

"Denny, you've shown me that you're not on the top of politics, so all your arguments should be ignored" --- barfo
Click to expand...

Right now you have both Sly and myself questioning your medical knowledge. Keep trying and you'll get the rest of the board questioning it.
 
Denny Crane said:
Right now you have both Sly and myself questioning your medical knowledge. Keep trying and you'll get the rest of the board questioning it.
Click to expand...

Right?!?!?! Just like you are questioned daily by barfo, myself, jlpk, marazul, well pretty much everyone in this forum on your political beliefs! What a good argument!!! Hahaha

Question: Are you questioning the validity of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability or maybe this? 1. Roe vs. Wade, the most famous abortion case, allowed no "restrictions" on abortion in the first two trimesters. For the third trimester, the states were allowed to make some restrictions -- as long as they allowed abortions for "health" reasons. The companion decision, Doe vs. Bolton, then defined health so broadly that really, anything could suffice:

[M]edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.
 
Actually I find abortion most appalling, disgusting even. But then I did come to realize that it did remove mostly Democrats. This thought came to me about 48 years ago, sitting on a Jury for a woman on trial for preforming abortions. I found the whole thing very disturbing listening to all the witnesses and what for two days. In the jury deliberations I argued to find her not guilty and enough jurors agreed, so she was found not guilty. Disgusting tawdry business that I wish did not exist, but I can't see putting people in jail for this or making women have children they will not properly raise. It was no doubt jury nullification. I suppose I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat but losing a few of those is the upside.
 
I think it all depends on what crime the fetus has committed, and whether he or she can be rehabilitated to be a safe and productive member of society.
 
MARIS61 said:
I think it all depends on what crime the fetus has committed, and whether he or she can be rehabilitated to be a safe and productive member of society.
Click to expand...

Breaking and entering, theft, assault, kidnapping, and squatting.
 
Last edited:
SlyPokerDog said:
The vast majority of women getting 3rd trimester abortions would be the poor. That means they're on welfare and they're democrats. Fewer people on welfare and voting democrat seems like a win to me.
Click to expand...
This is sick, no human can support 3rd trimester abortions when the mothers health is in no danger.
 
magnifier661 said:
As I said to sly, you can have emergency c-sections. I just looked it up and there are accounts of 4 month premis still surviving. That is well before the third trimester.
Click to expand...
That is not AB 6221 is about. The concerns you speak of were legal befor this legislation. No it can be done for emotional or mental stress reasons.
 
My opinion:
If you get an abortion simply because you don't want the kid, you have serious issues. If you get an abortion because you can't afford the baby, put it up for adoption. If your/your wife's health is in severe danger, or the baby has a surefire chance of dying within the first few months, then, and only then would an abortion possibly be appropriate. I think of myself as somewhat pro-choice, but people who don't think piss me off.

Third trimester abortions do not sit right with me unless new evidence suggests that the mother's/baby's life(s) are endangered, but by then, I'd think you'd be able to tell if such issues were present.
 
Brian Furey said:
This is sick, no human can support 3rd trimester abortions when the mothers health is in no danger.
Click to expand...

I agree. My post was only meant as a sick joke. I do not support 3rd trimester abortions except when the mother's health is in danger.

BTW, welcome to the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top