I think the idea that they are rare that late is what makes all of this so insane. If it never happens or very rarely happens, why not just say I don't support that. I am willing to concede points that don't matter all day.I'm pretty ignorant on this subject. There are partial birth abortions being performed on healthy fetuses in the 9th month of pregnancy? Do you have a link or cite for that?
Are these two--the Rep and the Dr.--just disagreeing over what counts as a "healthy" fetus/baby?
Here is the closest I've come so far to finding an answer:
Dear Donald Trump: I'm an OB-GYN. There are no 9-month abortions.
Here are the reasons women seek late-term abortions, and why a healthy fetus would never be terminated at term.www.vox.com
"So, considering the cost of abortions, the fact that fewer than 0.3 percent occur at or after 21 weeks for non-genetic reasons, that most abortions will be before 24 weeks, and the expense of the procedure, it is simply ludicrous to insinuate that this happens regularly — never mind at all. And a “nine-month abortion” of an otherwise healthy fetus? That is just untrue.
The only type of abortion that happens anywhere near nine months is for fetal anomalies
The only type of abortion that does happen after 24 weeks is for fetal anomalies. Most abortions for fetal anomalies happen before 24 weeks, but a very small percentage happen later than that. The abortions that take place later do so because it takes time to do the ultrasounds and genetic testing. Sometimes a fetal MRI may even be needed.
Sadly, some women are lied to by anti-abortion doctors in states with gestational age limits and get their genetic testing done on the late side because the doctor wants to try to take the possibility of an abortion off the table. I have personally heard of this happening.
However, even with the most on-the-ball OB-GYN, it can still be a race to get all the information and give a pregnant person time to think it over before 24 weeks. Sometimes the drastic nature of the problem isn’t fully realized until the pregnancy progresses. Other times a woman is carrying a fetus incompatible with life and thought she would go to term and let nature take its course, but then she realizes she just can’t. Who among us should judge those women?
When these procedures do happen, they could be an induction of labor, or some highly skilled providers can perform dilation and extraction procedures past 24 weeks. The closer to term (40 weeks), the more likely the procedure will be an induction of labor. So at 36 or 37 weeks, in most situations, the doctor will simply induce labor and after delivery not resuscitate the baby. However, there are rare medical situations where that might not be advisable, so the option of a dilation and extraction allows women in these situations to avoid a C-section.
The facts are that 98.6 percent of abortions happen before 21 weeks. Most of the terminations at or after 21 weeks are very wanted pregnancies with serious fetal anomalies. Some are for the health of the mother and a very small percentage are for personal reasons. Almost all women who have later abortions for personal reason would have had the procedure sooner if they could have, so the very laws proposed by politicians who aim to restrict abortion (mostly under the false pretense of safety) actually lead to delays.
Men can get pregnant
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Because they don't want to answer the next question: OK, it's bad to abort a nine month old fetus. What's the difference between that and an 8 month? And so on. They don't grant the fetus ANY moral status AT ALL.
That's an intellectually consistent position, even if probably not based on the science of human development or abhorrent to many.
Another (of many) would be to say a being isn't entitled to have moral status assigned to it until it is fully conscious of itself, like Goat posited before. That's a clean conceptual dividing line but runs into our very strong moral intuitions that a newborn should be accorded moral status.
Exactly, they want no restrictions at all up to the point of birth. So the point does matter whether there are many of these procedures happening now or not.
And the big dirty little secret they don't want to get into is that once you start drawing those lines, the bills being proposed in all of those red states were drawing the line at about the point where they could even attempt to make a distinction (a poor one from my POV, but one nontheless).
Listen, I know I am on the right extreme of this topic, but at least I am not arguing a few inches from infanticide.
Most everybody on the pro choice side was fine with Roe v Wade as it has been, even with allowable individual state-guided restrictions such as not after 18 weeks, or 21 weeks, or whatever, restrictions that the courts had ruled were not in conflict with Roe v. Wade.
So the argument that there was adamant uniform total opposition to any restrictions at all is just false. There is, however, adamant blanket opposition by very many on the anti-abortion side to any abortion whatsoever after fertilization, including some forms of contraception. "Anything that would prevent a fertilized egg from turning into a pregnancy and being born into a baby should be considered a homicide". Yes, that includes an IUD.
So the argument that there was adamant uniform total opposition to any restrictions at all is just false. There is, however, adamant blanket opposition by very many on the anti-abortion side to any abortion whatsoever after fertilization, including some forms of contraception. "Anything that would prevent a fertilized egg from turning into a pregnancy and being born into a baby should be considered a homicide". Yes, that includes an IUD.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I agree that it matters whether there are many of these procedures happening now. I would like to know the answer to my question about the Rep and the Dr. I liked the Rep's questioning up to that point--I think he was misleading or lying by saying "it happens" but I don't know. Seems to me, as prepared as he was, he would have had the stats/evidence ready to interject at that point if it occurred.
And it really does make sense to me that women aren't waking up one day at the end of pregnancy with a healthy baby and saying "nah, changed my mind. Let's abort." I'm comfortable saying only a psychopath would do that.
Last edited by a moderator:
November will be telling. Fla was a swing state. Desantis barely won in 18. If he wins comfortably and turns Fla red i suspect that'll be the springboard for 24 prez run
FLA is solidly red. We are talk about how it got there, but I don’t think you can argue about what it is now.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Advocating for the CDC to make policy decisions is not conservative. “Trust the Science” is not conservative when you mean that science sets policy.
It matters because we have laws and government programs that bestow benefits based on gender, among other things. Do we now need to have a gender spectrum to determine how one qualifies for such benefits? Is identifying enough? Does one need to be transitioning? And how is that defined?
And if we cannot define a gender, then are there others things we cannot define? Let's take age. Who says I am 50? Science? Peeshaw! I did online testing that said I have the body and mind of a 65 year old. So I am identifying as a 65 year old and want my Medicare and SS now!
I am being a bit absurd, I think. But we cannot ignore science to suit the whims of people. We cannot say a woman is a man. We cannot say a white is a black. We cannot say a 50 year old is a 65 year old. We cannot say a 5 foot person 6 foot. We cannot say a 300 pound person is 150 pounds. Words have meaning.
I get the sense that there is a belief that once Roe v Wade is dissolved and thrown back to the states, that blue states will simply honor the great compromise while red states will do what they please.
It's not going to work that way.
Blue states will likely expand abortion parameters because the core of their argument is the choice is between the woman and her doctor (if she has one) and it's an extremely difficult and personal one.
So yeah, some states will move that line around if there is no federal compromise.
Again, that's what happens.
If we can't agree to stop abortion by at least 24 weeks (which is way on the outside of my preferred envelope), then I vote we make abortion legal until 18 yrs of age.
I actually follow you here (I think).
To me part of the gender, well at least the pronoun issue is to fight against stereotypes that have disadvantages.
I think it's hard to argue that dudes get paid more, have more social status, social command and more favorable social conditions ('the little boy is pulling your daughters hair because he likes her' to 'Man he has banged so much pussy. What a stud!') even though intellectually they are falling behind. Current trends have women making up a higher percentage of post grad degrees.
Short story long, I could see a girl saying 'I don't want to do girlie shit. I want to play sports and go into business and dominate my field. I align with a male gender.'
That's what I believe is the thought process behind gender pronouns. It's trying to control how others see you since they currently come with stereotypes.
So in your example, it wouldn't shock me at all if age gets challenged and people start demanding a 'health score'.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Size seems to be pretty straightforward though.
Am I the only one who sees the inherent contradiction in this comment?
Real women want to play sports and dominate their field as women. Yielding to the male stereotype is contrary to what they profess to support.
I admittedly cannot follow what you are trying to say.
My point is we cannot say how we identify and have it be so, no matter how we feel, or what pronouns we want others to use. We must have definitions for words or words are meaningless, and we have chaos. P
Cannot ignore the science. I agree. I think if you research with a somewhat open mind you’ll find there’s science on both sides of the gender identity discussion. Your physical parts aren’t the only science involved. Your chemistry is part of the science as well.
Ok. But we have to have a definition of words. Otherwise, one could simply identify as a black female business owner to get a government contract.
Remember when Biden was going to give 5B in farm money to minority farmers? Can a white person identify as a black person to get the subsidy?
How do we enforce VAWA if woman is not defined? If a man identifies as a woman and rapes another woman, does that violate the act?
You asked why anyone cares? We care because we need to know what words mean to make decisions.
If you’ve got some science that shows white people are black, I’d look at it.
Violence against women…I don’t know it well enough to know if it matters the gender of the aggressor. The title suggests the part that matters is who the victim is.
And if we’re following the science I think it’s fair to say standards can be set regarding hormone levels and other scientific/chemistry data. let the scientists that study gender weigh in on it like we allow experts in other fields do.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Do you think scientists whose findings objectively show the opposite of the liberal narrative on gender would:
- Be allowed to keep their job
- Not be blackballed by mainstream media
- Not be labeled as kooks?
You can call bullshit all you want. Why didn’t your party on the committee call bullshit when their witness answered with this bullshit? Because they’re all good with it.
I’d like to be superintendent at my high school for just one day and I’d take care of the furry problem.
There have been white children born to black parents. And white children adopted by black parents. And black children adopted by white parents. How would you define them?
So when Bishop asks to define a woman, it may be grandstanding, but it's also relevant. We cannot discuss abortion rights until we have definitions.
Go look at your life insurance policy. There is a whole section on terms and their definitions. There's a reason for that.
Meaning of words need to clearly be defined. If Aimee says men can get pregnant because he was a woman but maintained the reproductive parts, then she has drawn a line. Now, a man can identify as a woman, keep the reproductive parts, and apply for government contracts, play in the WNBA, attend women's colleges, and more.
I am not trying to argue what a woman is. I am arguing the left wants no definition, because if one did exist, in their eyes, someone will be marginalized.
Who kicks and screams at things they don't like than you do?
Because they want to be outraged at trivial little things that rarely happen and don’t have any affect on their lives. A trans swimmer! Identifying a man or woman. But this is what the GOP does, with the help of Fox and their news outlets. Take social issues, blow them out of proportion, and scare or make everyone mad and paranoid.
Good lord, You realize you practically have a patent awarded to you on this? This would be a prime example right here of your work
I should have clarified the sports comment.
Point being, most good paying jobs and positions of leadership doesn't require a physicality advantage.
Being a woman comes with perceived disadvantages, roles that yesterday's society squeezed people into.
I don't doubt you are a brilliant lawyer that has had great success. I also don't doubt that if you had tits and a vagina you wouldn't of had the same career path even though your intellectual skills would be exactly the same.
If you did, then you did it while being accused of blowing your way to the success you had. You'd also would have been paid less.
Which is the rub.
Women can't compete with men when it comes to certain physically. So yeah, there probably won't be any female NFL players or too many ditch diggers.
Most high demand positions these days are driven by intellect and drive. Doesn't matter if you have a dick or a vag, but yet there is a social difference. We've talked about it before how women get put in positions of nurturing and men get put in positions of power.
I believe these kids are saying that's dumb and antiquated thinking. Eliminate it altogether or let me pick the pronoun.
I'm trying to make some point about how there are certain things that think absolutely can't be refuted but then someone makes a point that can refute it.
So in your example, you said you can't change your age. That's absolutely true. I'm 52 and will never be 25 ever again. However and argument could be made that 'real age' is much more appropriate, especially if it can be measured with accuracy.
Say I'm applying for a job and they say I'm too old, but my 'real age' is 35 then I'm a much more attractive potential hire than if we just went by my physical age.
Anyway, I think the pronoun thing with the youngins is similar in thought.
It's a classic 'I ain't going to let the man label me! Fuk the man!!!'
You still aren't an attractive hire because we set numerical age as a cutoff for retirement. And you can bet that when "real age 50" who is numerical age 65 is ready to retire, all that "real age" shit will go right out the door. And there is no doctor that is going to argue that their 65 year old patient is actually 50 when that patient is telling them they are ready to retire.
Up above, you asked if their was science showing that white people are black. A simple DNA test should show you whether you have any African genetic markers. For quite a few white people in this country, Voila! they are now eligible for Affirmative Action programs. I mean, we get into then deciding how many drops of blood you have that make you one thing or another, but hey, that has never gone wrong in human history. Then again, w.r.t. this conversation. Science would tell you that a person with XX chromosomes, a uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and milk ducts that develop in their breasts is a woman. But you are arguing that they can "feel" like they are something else and be a man. So science doesn't really matter for this conversation.
Wasn't there a certain Senator who received benefits because her mother said she was part Native American? No proof to get the benefits, no science needed. Just was told a story.
A teammate of mine blew his acl. I kept telling him to request cadaver tissue from a black guy. Maybe get a minority business loan down the road. Who knows
Last edited:
Well, she probably had one relative 6 to 10 generations ago who was at least partially Native American. She took full advantage of that.
We should all go get DNA tests and find out what government benefits are owed to us. This is clown world. There are no definitions or rules anymore. It's all part of the plan.
- Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate overt and open, you can see it with your own eyes. All you can do, all Americans needs to do is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open up their eyes and they can see. There is no mystery. It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage and intelligence gathering looks more romantic, it sells more to the audience through the advertising, probably. That's why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond type of thrillers. But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion and the opinion of many defectors of my caliber, only about fifteen percent of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other eighty-five percent is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is, to change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent that despite an abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their family, their community and their country. It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being demoralization. It takes from fifteen to twenty years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate on generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxism, Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or contra-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. Most of the activity of the department was to compile huge amount, volume of information on individuals who were instrumental in creating public opinion. Publishers, editors, journalists, actors, educationalists, professors of political science, members of Parliament, representatives of business circles. Most of these people were divided roughly in two groups. Those who were told the Soviet foreign policy, they would be promoted to the positions of power through media and public opinion manipulation. Those who refuse the Soviet influence in their country would be character assassinated, or executed physically contra-revolution. Same was as in a small town named HEWA in South Vietnam. Several thousand so of Vietnamese were executed in one night when the city was captured by Vietcong for only two days. And American CIA could never figure out, how could possibly Communists know each individual, where he lives, where to get him, and would be arrested in one night, basically in some four hours before dawn, put on a van, taken out of the city limits and shot.
- They serve purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States, all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defender, they are instrumental in the process of the subversion, only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed anymore. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist Leninist has come to power obviously they get offended. They think that they will come to power. That will never happen of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.
We don't want to go down this road. Star Wars told us so.
F*ck George Lucas.
StatCrunch
And there is obviously no Soviet Union anymore directing towards a goal. They basically inserted a virus into the political left and we are now watching as all of that nonsense spins into absurdity.
I'm ok with people calling themselves whatever they want. Where the left goes too far is insisting everyone else accept their delusions and now they want anyone who disagrees with them punished. You want to pretend a man can get pregnant, fine. I refuse. You want to pretend a biological man has no advantage over biological women in a sport like swimming, fine. I refuse to accept that delusion. You want to pretend it's science, fine. In reality it's so far removed from science it's a pathetic joke. When someone says, "why do you care what your neighbor says?" my response is I don't care. But when my neighbor wants people fired, arrested, fined, cancelled for rejecting their mental illness as truth, then I care and so should everyone else.
