[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Well, technically it means killing a baby, no?

I don't know if you have children, I do. I went to early screenings and when you see the human shape and even movements on the screen, it is hard to say otherwise. Again, that doesn't mean other important interests shouldn't be considered (health of the mother, etc.).

 

Extremely late term abortions without cause is not extremely rare; they are nonexistent.

Bringing this up is disingenuous.

 

This is not true.

 

You can not be more wrong.

 

What do you think it is?

 

There's a lot of misinformation out there.

Here are some actual facts.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...s-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

So in reality, fewer than 2% happen after 21 weeks. Most of those are for the safety of the mother. When there are life threatening circumstances in delivery doctors are working hard to save both the mother and the fetus. Nobody seriously argued to allow abortions moments before the baby breached.

@AroundTheWorld , you started a thread about political polarization. The type of spreading misinformation and straw-man arguments that you are doing here is a huge part of the polarization problem.

Of course everyone is free to keep labeling political opponents using broad brushes coated with inaccuracies and dishonesty as their paint of choice. That will always happen... But it doesn't have to. We could stop for a minute, and at least try and engage in a more honest debate of issues and facts. It could happen... but humans on an internet bbs.

 

A fetus is not a baby.

 

After a bit of googling, I realized that even the wording is apparently politically charged.

Here is a viewpoint that differs from yours.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...iowa-fetal-heartbeat-law-abortion/2286938002/

The science is conclusive: That fetus is a baby

The Register's Rekha Basu argues in a recent column that calling a fetus a "baby" is somehow a construct of religion and rhetoric, rather than "established science."

The scientific evidence, however, overwhelmingly concludes just the opposite: The preborn child in her mother's womb — she's not just a "fetus," she's a baby.

Many Iowans like me learned middle-school science through textbooks from publishers like McGraw-Hill. Today, those same science textbooks reveal near universal agreement that our human lives begin long before we're born, even before we're considered "viable" to survive outside the womb.

In McGraw-Hill's textbook, "Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th ed.," for example, biology professor Bruce M. Carlson of the University of Michigan, writes, "The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

In other words, you and I begin our lives not when we're born, but when we're conceived.

Another textbook, "Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed.," from publisher Wiley-Liss, asserts that fertilization is the "critical landmark" when a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed. Yet, the text explains, "life is a continuous process" throughout the pregnancy.

As Harvard University Medical School professor Micheline Matthews-Ross testified before a 1981 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception … and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of life" (New York Times, April 26, 1981).

In other words, Matthews-Ross was saying, a baby is a baby — from fertilization, to heartbeat, to birth. Yes, the baby of five weeks in the womb differs from the newborn, but so does the toddler differ from the teen. Scientifically, we pass through different stages as we grow, but we don't pass from person to non-person, or vice versa.

At that same 1981 government hearing, Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School asserted: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter — the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals."

After examining the evidence, the Senate subcommittee reported: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings." (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981)

The 37 years of scientific advancement since that subcommittee hearing have only confirmed its findings. Children survive premature birth today at younger and younger ages, demonstrating how arbitrary it is to argue life doesn't begin until a baby is "viable." And today's 3-D ultrasounds give us astonishing, heartwarming pictures, revealing that the little child in her mother's womb — she's a baby.

"[It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," testified professor Jerome LeJuene of the University of Descartes. "It is plain experimental evidence."

Even many abortion advocates have come to grips with this scientific reality. Naomi Wolf, a Clinton advisor and abortion supporter, wrote in The New Republic: "Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. … The death of a fetus is a real death."

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who co-founded the abortion advocacy group NARAL and personally presided over 60,000 abortions, later confessed in the film "The Silent Scream" that "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us."

And at a 2014 panel discussion presented by the National Abortion Federation, Dr. Lisa Harris of Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan put it even more plainly: "[Mothers] are not stupid. They know what’s in there. … It's violence. It's a person. It's killing."

Basu's column ignores this scientific reality, instead raising the tired, misleading straw man that the pro-life argument is inherently religious instead of scientific. But Iowa's Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders includes Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, evangelicals and more — people who would deeply disagree on religion. Yet there's one scientific premise we all agree upon: The unborn child in her mother's womb — she's a baby.

In his Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun also ignored the science, stating, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. … The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

The scientific community, however, is at virtual consensus as to when life begins. And it's precisely because Blackmun dodged that question in his 1973 Roe ruling that we're still arguing about abortion today.

You and I have heard all the arguments by now. But there's one fact — "established science" — that can't be argued away: That little child in her mother's womb — she's not just a "fetus," she's a baby.

 

You haven’t met my son’s mom. Some mothers are in fact stupid.

 

There are - sadly - mothers who kill their newborns. What makes you think that there aren't mothers who kill them just before they would be born?

 

Sentience. Brain scientists and pregnancy experts can determine a time during pregnancy for that. Not us.

After that then it's contextual. For example of the mother's life is at risk I'm valuing the sentient being that has years of memories, hopes, desires fears etc over the newly formed sentient being that doesn't have those yet.

 

Do we have more in-depth numbers in regards to this? I guess when I argue with pro-life individuals, I can never find the exact breakdown of how this <2% breaks down. Meaning, health issues, rape, incest, etc. Hell, I've read a few articles that some women just can't get access to an abortion which is why they end up having one so late.

I guess ultimately this <2% number has always been one of largest arguments I've heard from pro-lifers which has a very large effect for those that don't dig deeper and are educated via memes.

 

There might be and with existing laws they would be guilty of murder and it wouldn't be a legal medical procedure unless the mother's life was in danger.

 

about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

 

Are there documented cases about this? I mean, I guess anything can happen, but something of this nature would make conservative news immediately.

 

Banning abortions won't stop those types. Get real.

 

This guy asking for patient explanation of anything is the height of absurdity.

You never give an explanation or a reason for anything you post or comment about, and then you have the nerve to call somebody else out for disinformation?

Da ****?

90% of everything you post is disinformation.

Look in the mirror my guy.

 

Right, I'm talking about further break down of the less than 2% that happened after 21 weeks. I've researched it and never found any, just curious if you've ever come across something that provides reasoning for those cases after 21 weeks. I would assume it would be important research to keep track off.