Recent SCOTUS rulings....

[RPMtech147]

States decide if you can kill your unborn kids and you get to carry guns with "shall issue" CCW permits, for those of yall that don't have constitutional carry already.

(too add. they just said that states get to decide if you can kill your kid while still in the womb...no longer a "federal" issue)

Is that bad?

[bakedziti]

Is that bad?

Yes, this is horrible because coupled with some of the other rulings out this past week (Maine, Oregon), the SC has entirely blown apart the separation of church and state (1st amendment) and left the door widely open for fanatical Christians to bring the Bible further into, or even entirely halt, our government operations based on an assembled, second-hand account of stories from hundreds of years after the fact that they interrupt to make up their religious beliefs today in what’s supposedly a secular country. Not everyone subscribes to your religion and holds the same beliefs and these states are forcing people to follow their archaic religion-based beliefs when they constantly reference their religion, the Bible etc and especially when we get down to issues such as rape. It’s disgusting and shows how regressive and intolerant we really are. This wouldn’t even be a thought in your mind if the religious beliefs being pushed were by an Islamic politician; no matter the law or the belief being pushed.

[SugarTTRS]

$

States decides if you can kill your unborn kids and you get to carry guns with "shall issue" CCW permits, for those of yall that don't have constitution carry already.

(too add. they just said that states get to decide if you can kill your kid while still in the womb...no longer a "federal" issue)

Is that bad?

No, not bad at all. More state control, less federal control. If abortion is so necessary, then get your state to enact legislation.

[Saracen]

$
No, not bad at all. More state control, less federal control. If abortion is so necessary, then get your state to enact legislation.

If only it actually worked that way.

How about this: Don't like abortions? Then don't get one.

[bakedziti]

$
No, not bad at all. More state control, less federal control. If abortion is so necessary, then get your state to enact legislation.

If only it actually worked that way.

How about this: Don't like abortions? Then don't get one.

Exactly, it’s not like you’re convincing your buddy to come over and help you install coilovers or pull an engine and have a few beers; @SugarTTRS is acting like you just head over to your representative’s home, have dinner and ultimately influence state laws. You’re stuck with whatever your elected representatives decide is ‘best’ and too much of that is being based in religion, IMO.

[ericw.]

I'm not religious and I know killing a baby in the womb at 8 months is wrong and should be banned.

It's not a right, nor in the constitution. There should be limitations, not free range baby killing like NYC and CA have passed.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

[sepheroth86]

I'm not religious and I know killing a baby in the womb at 8 months is wrong and should be banned.

It's not a right, nor in the constitution. There should be limitations, not free range baby killing like NYC and CA have passed.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

This.

[jbain2]

I'm not religious and I know killing a baby in the womb at 8 months is wrong and should be banned.

It's not a right, nor in the constitution. There should be limitations, not free range baby killing like NYC and CA have passed.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

It’s 24 weeks not 8 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

It’s 24 weeks not 8 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

My wife was 6 months pregnant when she was given the unwelcome offer for an abortion appointment at a planned parenthood office in Sacramento, CA. There was 0 medical necessity for it and no genetic defects found in testing. It was a purely elective offering from the state of CA as an "informed option". We were informed that only one location in Sacramento could perform a late term abortion.

Despite what you might read on the internet about limitations for a "viable fetus", they do not define what "viable" is in law. The medical definition of a viable fetus is when the baby can survive outside the uterus on it's own without extensive medical intervention. That extends well past 24 weeks and into the final trimester. So in practice, abortions are regularly being offered and happening far beyond any acceptable term.

[jbain2]

My wife was 6 months pregnant when she was given the unwelcome offer for an abortion appointment at a planned parenthood office in Sacramento, CA. There was 0 medical necessity for it and no genetic defects found in testing. It was a purely elective offering from the state of CA as an "informed option". We were informed that only one location in Sacramento could perform a late term abortion.

Despite what you might read on the internet about limitations for a "viable fetus", they do not define what "viable" is in law. The medical definition of a viable fetus is when the baby can survive outside the uterus on it's own without extensive medical intervention. That extends well past 24 weeks and into the final trimester. So in practice, abortions are regularly being offered and happening far beyond any acceptable term.

I’m sorry that she and you were offered something you felt wasn’t necessary. I’m sure that was troubling.


That’s why it’s quantified at 24 weeks. I can assure you that even at 24 weeks gestation, infants born at that time period will not survive without significant support. In situations beyond 24 weeks when a serious risk is present to either the mother or fetus, every attempt to preserve both is attempted but in situations when the mothers life is in jeopardy that is prioritized if needed. Your suggestion that fetuses post-24 weeks conception, are being electively and legally aborted for no reason is not accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

I’m sorry that she and you were offered something you felt wasn’t necessary. I’m sure that was troubling.


That’s why it’s quantified at 24 weeks. I can assure you that even at 24 weeks gestation, infants born at that time period will not survive without significant support. In situations beyond 24 weeks when a serious risk is present to either the mother or fetus, every attempt to preserve both is attempted but in situations when the mothers life is in jeopardy that is prioritized if needed. Your suggestion that fetuses post-24 weeks conception, are being electively and legally aborted for no reason is not accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

37 weeks or earlier is considered a premature baby, and it's assumed (professionally) that it won't survive outside the womb without medical intervention... ie meeting the medical definition of a "viable fetus" only after 37 weeks. They're still doing elective abortions at 8 months despite the attempt to divert your attention to a 24 weeks, and away from the "viable fetus" terminology.

The offer wasn't troubling, the killing of unborn babies at 6+ months is troubling. There's plenty of scientific proof that shows even a 24 week old fetus has consciousness and feel pain. Nobel prize winning scientists have even backed this up, and this is referenced in Ireland's abortion laws where it's now restricted to the first 12 weeks.

[ericw.]

Here's my son's 24 week 3D ultrasound picture... This is what you're wanting to murder.

https://i.imgur.com/v7uF5hV.png

[jbain2]

37 weeks or earlier is considered a premature baby, and it's assumed (professionally) that it won't survive outside the womb without medical intervention... ie meeting the medical definition of a "viable fetus" only after 37 weeks. They're still doing elective abortions at 8 months despite the attempt to divert your attention to a 24 weeks, and away from the "viable fetus" terminology.

The offer wasn't troubling, the killing of unborn babies at 6+ months is troubling. There's plenty of scientific proof that shows even a 24 week old fetus has consciousness and feel pain. Nobel prize winning scientists have even backed this up, and this is referenced in Ireland's abortion laws where it's now restricted to the first 12 weeks.

Here's my son's 24 week 3D ultrasound picture... This is what you're wanting to murder.

I think you’ve mistaken my position. I’m in no way advocating for what you claim to be happening, elective abortions at 8 months gestation.

I’m well aware of what a baby born at 24 weeks looks like and needs for medical care. I don’t disagree with your points regarding their development.

Again, I’m not advocating for terminating healthy pregnancies. Your accusation of my desire to murder babies is based on what you think you know about me or anyone from an incredibly brief internet dialogue.




Sent from my iPad using Audizine

[ericw.]

I think you’ve mistaken my position. I’m in no way advocating for what you claim to be happening, elective abortions at 8 months gestation.

I’m well aware of what a baby born at 24 weeks looks like and needs for medical care. I don’t disagree with your points regarding their development.

Again, I’m not advocating for terminating healthy pregnancies. Your accusation of my desire to murder babies is based on what you think you know about me or anyone from an incredibly brief internet dialogue.




Sent from my iPad using Audizine

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like you were advocating in favor of abortion at 6 months. 24 weeks / 4 = 6 months - that's a conscious baby at that point who feels pain.

[jbain2]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like you were advocating in favor of abortion at 6 months. 24 weeks / 4 = 6 months - that's a conscious baby at that point who feels pain.

I never advocated for anything. I merely stated that the current laws are in place for 24 weeks, which is not 8 months.


Sent from my iPad using Audizine

[tbetth01]

I think states should implement their own rules on abortion. I'm lucky, I guess, in that we made a decision to never put ourselves in a position where we had to decide about an abortion. I'd still probably vote to have some access to abortion if the issue was on the ballot.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Audizine Forum mobile app

[ericw.]

I never advocated for anything. I merely stated that the current laws are in place for 24 weeks, which is not 8 months.


Sent from my iPad using Audizine

That's a misrepresentation because the laws state 24 weeks OR when it's a viable fetus - which is at 37 weeks by medical definition, because it wasn't defined legally in any state that has this law.

So by default, it's 24 weeks OR 37 weeks. Planned Parenthood is happy to help you have it your way, whichever is your choice.

[jbain2]

The medical community typically defines viability as some time between 23-24 weeks gestation. Over the years this number has gotten lower and will likely continue to do so with advancements in medical care and technology. This is the reason why 24 weeks is in legal language.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

The medical community typically defines viability as some time between 23-24 weeks gestation. Over the years this number has gotten lower and will likely continue to do so with advancements in medical care and technology. This is the reason why 24 weeks is in legal language.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

"viable fetus" has a definition - it's when the fetus can survive outside the womb without extensive medical intervention.
By definition, that excludes a premature baby (premature also has a definition: a baby born before 37 weeks)

The medical community doesn't get to decide on the fly what the definition of these words are. Especially with something as politically charged as abortion in states like CA, NY, PA, etc.. That's a career ending move.

[jbain2]

There are NICU’s full of infants born at 24 weeks in every state. Viability is not qualified by the support they need when born. If they can be supported, and need it, they are regardless of gestational age. I’m not sure where you are getting your definition from. “Extensive” medical intervention is provided to infants born at 24 weeks or 40 weeks when it’s needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[bakedziti]

"viable fetus" has a definition - it's when the fetus can survive outside the womb without extensive medical intervention.
By definition, that excludes a premature baby (premature also has a definition: a baby born before 37 weeks)

The medical community doesn't get to decide on the fly what the definition of these words are. Especially with something as politically charged as abortion in states like CA, NY, PA, etc.. That's a career ending move.

Ummm, who would you suggest define these terms? I hope not your elected officials.

All medical cases are different and this isn’t a one size fits all issue as much as you’d like for it to be as black and white as you attempt to make it out to be. Plus, it sounds like from your own admission that you declined just fine and could proceed with your planned pregnancy.

I get your point and your opinion is clear (not that I agree)…but why can’t you, or anyone else with this opinion for that matter, just avoid these places you claim are ‘murdering babies’ or simply avoid an instance where an abortion may be necessary for your family instead of limiting or denying access for everyone?

Honestly at the end of the day what bearing does it have on your life if woman other than the mother of your child has safe access to an abortion in your city, state or country? Especially when you say religion isn’t a motivating factor.

[ericw.]

There are NICU’s full of infants born at 24 weeks in every state. Viability is not qualified by the support they need when born. If they can be supported, and need it, they are regardless of gestational age. I’m not sure where you are getting your definition from. “Extensive” medical intervention is provided to infants born at 24 weeks or 40 weeks when it’s needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

NICU's being full of premature babies really doesn't relate to what we're talking about at all does it?

According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viable of a fetus it means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

I'm not just making this up as I go.

Ummm, who would you suggest define these terms? I hope not your elected officials.

All medical cases are different and this isn’t a one size fits all issue as much as you’d like for it to be as black and white as you attempt to make it out to be. Plus, it sounds like from your own admission that you declined just fine and could proceed with your planned pregnancy.

I get your point and your opinion is clear (not that I agree)…but why can’t you, or anyone else with this opinion for that matter, just avoid these places you claim are ‘murdering babies’ or simply avoid an instance where an abortion may be necessary for your family instead of limiting or denying access for everyone?

Honestly at the end of the day what bearing does it have on your life if woman other than the mother of your child has safe access to an abortion in your city, state or country? Especially when you say religion isn’t a motivating factor.

What bearing does murder have on someone's life as long as they're not effected by the murder? Maybe we should just stop investigating any homicide cases and legalize murdering family members of all ages..

There's a huge disconnect from reality happening here.. A society raised by television where they think that murdering children doesn't really mean that a child had their life ended.


I'm pro..

• birth control
• condoms
• plan b
• abortion up to 12 weeks - as backed by scientists

You're pro murder.

[bakedziti]

What bearing does murder have on someone's life as long as they're not effected by the murder? Maybe we should just stop investigating any homicide cases and legalize murdering family members of all ages..

There's a huge disconnect from reality happening here.. A society raised by television where they think that murdering children doesn't really mean that a child had their life ended.
…
You're pro murder.

Absolutely not, and you sound quite extreme and seem to have trouble differentiating murder and abortion or a fetus from a child. You’re so triggered by a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her or her family that you honestly think that the people in these situations can’t comprehend the gravity of their decision and are still insensitive enough to run around calling everyone murderers. This has nothing to do with TV outside of the stop the steal idiots running around trying to run this country like an incestual Bible camp. I’m very happy for you and that your planned pregnancy is working out for you and your family, but do I really have to point out to you that not everyone is so lucky and we should be intelligent enough to understand that society needs options to deal with situations that you may not agree with?

[ericw.]

Absolutely not, and you sound quite extreme and seem to have trouble differentiating murder and abortion or a fetus from a child. You’re so triggered by a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her or her family that you honestly think that the people in these situations can’t comprehend the gravity of their decision and are still insensitive enough to run around calling everyone murderers. This has nothing to do with TV outside of the stop the steal idiots running around trying to run this country like an incestual Bible camp. I’m very happy for you and that your planned pregnancy is working out for you and your family, but do I really have to point out to you that not everyone is so lucky and we should be intelligent enough to understand that society needs options to deal with situations that you may not agree with?

It's pretty easy to understand.. It's a baby, and those who see them as babies will always see you as endorsing the murder of children. You can't argue your way out of that. People like me will never respect you or your opinion. So maybe, it's you who doesn't comprehend the gravity of what you're saying to a person like myself. It's a fundamental disagreement and something you should really be embarrassed by. There's no talking your way around that and no seeing eye to eye.

If your mother killed you today, it's the same as killing you at 6 months in the womb. You would feel the pain just the same, your heart would be beating and then stop beating, your blood would stop flowing to your extremities, and your functional nervous system would die soon after you died. Face the reality, that's murder and you're the extremist.

24 weeks 3D ultrasound:

[jbain2]

Edit

[jbain2]

NICU's being full of premature babies really doesn't relate to what we're talking about at all does it?

According to Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, viable of a fetus it means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

I'm not just making this up as I go.



What bearing does murder have on someone's life as long as they're not effected by the murder? Maybe we should just stop investigating any homicide cases and legalize murdering family members of all ages..

There's a huge disconnect from reality happening here.. A society raised by television where they think that murdering children doesn't really mean that a child had their life ended.


I'm pro..

• birth control
• condoms
• plan b
• abortion up to 12 weeks - as backed by scientists

You're pro murder.

Websters is totally irrelevant when talking about medical definitions. Not a source anyone in medicine would use.

My point about that NICU’s is that if the medical profession didn’t view infants at 24 weeks as being viable they wouldn’t be caring for them. I was using it to illustrate the constraints you are using aren’t applicable to my point.

The issue with setting a limit at 12 weeks is that there is minimal ability to diagnose potentially fatal diagnoses as well as the fact that a significant number of spontaneous abortions happen beyond that.

I agree with limitations on how it should be used. Just not to the same degree you do. It doesn’t make me a murderer.



Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

Websters is totally irrelevant when talking about medical definitions. Not a source anyone in medicine would use.

My point about that NICU’s is that if the medical profession didn’t view infants at 24 weeks as being viable they wouldn’t be caring for them. I was using it to illustrate the constraints you are using aren’t applicable to my point.

The issue with setting a limit at 12 weeks is that there is minimal ability to diagnose potentially fatal diagnoses as well as the fact that a significant number of spontaneous abortions happen beyond that.

I agree with limitations on how it should be used. Just not to the same degree you do. It doesn’t make me a murderer.



Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

You sure about websters? Because the NIH website cites that as the source for their definition of a viable fetus..

Most all genetic testing, including gender, is done at 10 weeks now through the mother's blood.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

[bakedziti]

It's pretty easy to understand.. It's a baby, and those who see them as babies will always see you as endorsing the murder of children. You can't argue your way out of that. People like me will never respect you or your opinion. So maybe, it's you who doesn't comprehend the gravity of what you're saying to a person like myself. It's a fundamental disagreement and something you should really be embarrassed by. There's no talking your way around that and no seeing eye to eye.

If your mother killed you today, it's the same as killing you at 6 months in the womb. You would feel the pain just the same, your heart would be beating and then stop beating, your blood would stop flowing to your extremities, and your functional nervous system would die soon after you died. Face the reality, that's murder and you're the extremist.

I understand entirely and FYI, it’s scientifically a fetus until birth upon which it becomes a baby.

The sheer fact that you openly admit that you can’t respect the opinions of others who disagree with you in a civil discussion and that you want to call everyone murderers makes you look and sound like a child or a total lunatic. Furthermore and because of that position, get off your bullshit moral high ground and gain some fucking humility you little c*nt muscle; not sure who you think you are trying to suggest others should be embarrassed by something that clearly grinds your gears more than ours and has clearly triggered you to be a twat with your opinions. The loudest in the room are generally compensating or hiding something and I perceive that to be exactly the case with you and your position here.

This conversation obviously won’t go anywhere else with your extreme views and inability or unwillingness to even respect the people you have a discussion with. None of which makes me a ‘murderer’ either but does indicate exactly how low your EQ is and how extreme your views are.

Man, it must really frustrate you being in liberal California who’s using all those tax dollars on stem cell research with Prop 14 over the next 30 years to the tune of $5.5B….next you’ll tell me the abortions are being pushed by the state to fuel their research with your money; oh the conspiracy

[jbain2]

You sure about websters? Because the NIH website cites that as the source for their definition of a viable fetus..

Most all genetic testing, including gender, is done at 10 weeks now through the mother's blood.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

I’m sure.

The NIH does not cite anything nor do they take an opinion on this. They serve as a clearinghouse for publications and a scientific oversight body. One of these publications happens to cite Websters. The paper goes on to discuss all of the factors that are involved in viability including ethical considerations, social, psychological and medical to go along with biomedical and technologic capabilities. Not to mention access to all of this stuff.

Genetic testing can first be performed at 10 weeks. It is a screening test that looks at a few genetic disorders. Diagnostic testing is done later and includes invasive procedures along with ultrasounds. There are innumerable genetic conditions not detected in the screening test of which can lead to fetal demise.

Understanding the timeline for fetal development and it’s timeline would lead you to know that what is in place at 10 weeks isn’t the end of development for much of the fetus and things certainly go awry during every point of early development during both the first and second trimester.

It’s not black and white.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

I understand entirely and FYI, it’s scientifically a fetus until birth upon which it becomes a baby.

The sheer fact that you openly admit that you can’t respect the opinions of others who disagree with you in a civil discussion and that you want to call everyone murderers makes you look and sound like a child or a total lunatic. Furthermore and because of that position, get off your bullshit moral high ground and gain some fucking humility you little c*nt muscle; not sure who you think you are trying to suggest others should be embarrassed by something that clearly grinds your gears more than ours and has clearly triggered you to be a twat with your opinions. The loudest in the room are generally compensating or hiding something and I perceive that to be exactly the case with you and your position here.

This conversation obviously won’t go anywhere else with your extreme views and inability or unwillingness to even respect the people you have a discussion with. None of which makes me a ‘murderer’ either but does indicate exactly how low your EQ is and how extreme your views are.

Man, it must really frustrate you being in liberal California who’s using all those tax dollars on stem cell research with Prop 14 over the next 30 years to the tune of $5.5B….next you’ll tell me the abortions are being pushed by the state to fuel their research with your money; oh the conspiracy

Right there, your first sentence. So it being "scientifically a fetus until birth" changes anything? Not a single person here, science, or any of the 50 states will legally allow aborting a fetus after 37 weeks so it sounds pretty much like you're trying to justify actual murder by standards of even some of the furthest left opinions. It is universally accepted, by everybody on all sides (except the biggest extremists), that a 38+ week old fetus is a living baby.

My opinion was expressed precisely and you simply can't handle it. Your opinion is riddled with insults and foul language so, who here is triggered or extreme? That's rhetorical because the answer is obvious...

It takes only the most basic understanding to grasp that a person who believes life has begun, and ending that life is murder, would say that you are endorsing murder. No college degree or high school diploma required to get this one simple thing.

Lastly, I have no issues with stem cell research because again, I'm not religious. I own a couple properties in CA and we do pretty well taking advantage of the high cost of rent that we can charge due to leftist policy driven inflation like spending 5.5B on admin and office tasks while calling it stem cell research. Silver lining. So let's all vote for another high speed rail in CA so I can charge gender studies students more money for rent.

[ericw.]

I’m sure.

The NIH does not cite anything nor do they take an opinion on this. They serve as a clearinghouse for publications and a scientific oversight body. One of these publications happens to cite Websters. The paper goes on to discuss all of the factors that are involved in viability including ethical considerations, social, psychological and medical to go along with biomedical and technologic capabilities. Not to mention access to all of this stuff.

Genetic testing can first be performed at 10 weeks. It is a screening test that looks at a few genetic disorders. Diagnostic testing is done later and includes invasive procedures along with ultrasounds. There are innumerable genetic conditions not detected in the screening test of which can lead to fetal demise.

Understanding the timeline for fetal development and it’s timeline would lead you to know that what is in place at 10 weeks isn’t the end of development for much of the fetus and things certainly go awry during every point of early development during both the first and second trimester.

It’s not black and white.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

Here you go, 573 pages of the NIH website cite Websters.

Unless an issue is found in the 10 week blood work, there's no invasive procedures being performed after the 80's without cause. After 10 weeks, they only monitor growth and organ development via ultrasound which could lead to finding development issues or tumor growth. I do agree that abortion out of medical necessity should be allowed though. I would totally agree with cases where they could prevent unreasonable pain and suffering.

[jbain2]

Here you go, 573 pages of the NIH website cite Websters.

Unless an issue is found in the 10 week blood work, there's no invasive procedures being performed after the 80's without cause. After 10 weeks, they only monitor growth and organ development via ultrasound which could lead to finding development issues or tumor growth. I do agree that abortion out of medical necessity should be allowed though. I would totally agree with cases where they could prevent unreasonable pain and suffering.

I don’t really want to belabor this point. The citations you are showing are not from the NIH. The NIH (specifically PubMed) serves as a storage site for publications accepted to 1000’s of different journals. I could cite this conversation in a paper that gets stored by PubMed. That doesn’t make is gospel.

My point about screening period is that we don’t know far more then what is detected in these screening tests which encompass a relatively minute number of diagnoses screened for. You are correct though that unless something is discovered, further testing isn’t done. If you knew that less then 0.01% of genetic tests are screened for and only 1 of those screened for is actual fatal in the first year of life, you’d understand that there is very little utility as it relates to being able to terminate a pregnancy.


Sent from my iPad using Audizine

[ericw.]

I don’t really want to belabor this point. The citations you are showing are not from the NIH. The NIH (specifically PubMed) serves as a storage site for publications accepted to 1000’s of different journals. I could cite this conversation in a paper that gets stored by PubMed. That doesn’t make is gospel.

My point about screening period is that we don’t know far more then what is detected in these screening tests which encompass a relatively minute number of diagnoses screened for. You are correct though that unless something is discovered, further testing isn’t done. If you knew that less then 0.01% of genetic tests are screened for and only 1 of those screened for is actual fatal in the first year of life, you’d understand that there is very little utility as it relates to being able to terminate a pregnancy.


Sent from my iPad using Audizine

If you exclude pubmed results that are stored at NIH.gov, you get 527 citations of Websters on NIH website.. Although I'm not sure why you would exclude a medical journal who's writings are from medical professionals and students in training.

Over 2000 results if you use the apostrophe in the name

Websters is the #1 selling medical dictionary in the industry.

[jbain2]

I can’t go back and forth on this with you anymore. The examples you cite go back to the 1800’s. And are not at all relevant to this conversation by both subject matter and currency.

A fetus is defined as from 8 weeks until birth. Viability is not black and white. Countless numbers of infants are saved with current medical care and technology that would otherwise not survive. I can assure you they would not otherwise survive. But by your definition they are not viable because the require significant support outside the womb. Should we let those babies die? Because by your definition they aren’t viable?


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

I can’t go back and forth on this with you anymore. The examples you cite go back to the 1800’s. And are not at all relevant to this conversation by both subject matter and currency.

A fetus is defined as from 8 weeks until birth. Viability is not black and white. Countless numbers of infants are saved with current medical care and technology that would otherwise not survive. I can assure you they would not otherwise survive. But by your definition they are not viable because the require significant support outside the womb. Should we let those babies die? Because by your definition they aren’t viable?


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

Are you still referring to NICU? ... premature babies couldn't have less to do with people receiving abortions, abortion laws, or the medical definition of fetus viability and how it relates to abortions. It's an entirely different circumstance but your acknowledgement that it DOES take medical intervention for survival is proof that prior to a premature birth, the parent could have aborted their baby because it did not meet the definition of a viable fetus. However, those parents chose not to have an abortion and were met with an unfortunate circumstance. Now their baby is born and with support, can live a long and healthy life.

I know someone who had been trying to have a baby for years. They ended up going the route of IVF and that failed multiple times as well. Finally it happened, cut to the point, they had a premature birth at 27 weeks and the baby is alive and doing very well. You'd never even know he was a preemie. By state laws in multiple states he was not viable at the time.. So claiming that NICU patients are always considered viable is demonstrably false.

[jbain2]

This will be my last reply on this. This all goes back to the point you are making using the term viable.

No. All NICU babies are not viable. That’s my point. They require significant medical interventions in some cases. Does that mean we shouldn’t save them because by your definition they aren’t viable? Of course not. Most of the time it goes well. Other times not so much. Viability is not a concrete definition.

You are creating a viewpoint just to argue with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[ericw.]

This will be my last reply on this. This all goes back to the point you are making using the term viable.

No. All NICU babies are not viable. That’s my point. They require significant medical interventions in some cases. Does that mean we shouldn’t save them because by your definition they aren’t viable? Of course not. Most of the time it goes well. Other times not so much. Viability is not a concrete definition.

You are creating a viewpoint just to argue with me.


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

I'll say it a THIRD time... Preemie babies in NICU have absolutely 0 relation to a fetus or the definition of a viable fetus. None at all. I don't know why you're obsessed with trying to bring up NICU patients. Medical professionals have legal obligation to save people who are not "viable", or in other words are unlikely to survive. It's totally irrelevant to the subject.

Separately, the definition of a "viable fetus" is not mine. I didn't define that term. It's the universally accepted definition in the medical industry across the board, not just in Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary, despite the strange attempt to discredit the #1 selling medical dictionary in the world.

You started out with "it's not my opinion, I'm just clarifying the laws" - and now you're suggesting that I'm arguing with your viewpoint. So is it your viewpoint or not your viewpoint because I thought we were simply clarifying how the law is interpreted in practical use today.

[RPMtech147]

I'll say it a THIRD time... Preemie babies in NICU have absolutely 0 relation to a fetus or the definition of a viable fetus. None at all. I don't know why you're obsessed with trying to bring up NICU patients. Medical professionals have legal obligation to save people who are not "viable", or in other words are unlikely to survive. It's totally irrelevant to the subject.

Separately, the definition of a "viable fetus" is not mine. I didn't define that term. It's the universally accepted definition in the medical industry across the board, not just in Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary, despite the strange attempt to discredit the #1 selling medical dictionary in the world.

You started out with "it's not my opinion, I'm just clarifying the laws" - and now you're suggesting that I'm arguing with your viewpoint. So is it your viewpoint or not your viewpoint because I thought we were simply clarifying how the law is interpreted in practical use today.

You can't argue with people that think it's OK to kill their unborn in the womb. Save your breath and keystrokes. Sorry. Welcome to 2022.



I shouldn't haven't started this thread...sorry again

[sepheroth86]

Question:

If I were to murder a pregnant woman and the baby/fetus also died, would I or would I not be charged with a double homicide?

[JPT]

Question:

If I were to murder a pregnant woman and the baby/fetus also died, would I or would I not be charged with a double homicide?

A pregnant woman has a fetus, she does not have a baby (people say unborn child/baby for ease). A baby requires birth.