No, your interpretation of it was to render a woman as such, my premise was to replace the position of the fetus, the need to transform it into an act of brutality on par with your policy was entirely of your own making.
No, what you did was to create a situation which would kill the woman and the child in a bid to make a ridiculous and fallacious point.
I get it, you don't agree with abortions after 24 weeks (which is the point of viability if you remember from the other thread when you faltered when you realised that they allowed Munoz to die when she was 24 weeks pregnant). Then don't have one.
Instead, you decided to have a sort of psychotic breakdown and asked what if you stuff the baby back in after it is born.. Totally ignoring the fact that a woman actually cannot abort a full term fetus - because 1) who would wait to abort it then for matters of convenience; 2) no doctor would perform such a procedure; 3) really, this needs to be asked again, who waits until they are past 35 weeks to abort for matters of convenience?
The dry foot model you are so insulted about to the point that you are about to push something the size of a baby is that it is based on reality. Not some sick twisted fantasy that resulted in a question asking 'what if you re-attach the umbilical cord and stuff the baby back in'.. Because you know, that's realistic. So with that question, you turned the woman into the equivalent of a dead turkey to be stuffed. Apparently you think it is acceptable to delve into the realm of stupidity in this way. You would be wrong on that score.
My biggest issue is that the “it” you speak of is something considered by most in our respective societies to have some conditional value. Secondly is that she failed to use adequate protection or terminate in a reasonable amount of time considering the circumstances.
1) "It" because it is not yet born, it is not a person.
2) You keep stating that women who are getting abortions in the 3rd trimester are women who failed to use adequate protection or failed to terminate earlier. And this is where you now delve into the realms of intellectual dishonesty, because you keep making this assertion and frankly stupid claim while you completely disregard the fact that the greater majority of these women who are getting abortions in the 3rd trimester for non-medical reasons is because 1) they were unable to access one earlier due to laws and constraints and availability and sometimes inflated costs involved in being able to access one. Some have to travel interstate, which means having to take time off work, having to pay for the travel costs, childcare for existing children.. Which is not always realistic for the majority of women. So they have to wait, and wait until such a time as they can actually get to a provider to have one. Did you even bother to read any of this when it was posted repeatedly, linked with numerous studies or have you decided to be so dishonest as to disregard and ignore this fact because you have your own agenda to push in this thread? I am genuinely curious.
3) Your repeated assertion that the woman is somehow irresponsible if she finds herself pregnant is an attitude steeped in sexism and yes, misogyny (happy now billvon?).
4) I don't think you even understand what your biggest issue is because you fell completely for a devil's advocate argument instead of one based on reality in the first thread (or 3rd thread about this subject).
You just can’t stop trying to dehumanize the fetus. I guess to acknowledge its humanity makes it harder to kill.
Please.
Pro-lifer's dehumanise the mother without a single thought to her humanity. Which is the actual problem. You are complaining about the dehumanisation of the fetus because you seem to be the kind of guy who thinks its the woman's fault if she gets pregnant and has to wait due to real life circumstances (such as over 90% of counties in the US not even having abortion providers for women in the first trimester, admitting privileges, restriction to the abortion pill, restrictions to the morning after pill availability, restrictions to and complete lack of education on sex, contraceptives and general health care for young disadvantaged women). Do you think these women don't consider any of this when they make their decision? Oh wait, of course you don't. Because in your opinion, if your argument is to be taken seriously, she's just some silly slag who is too irresponsible to do better.
Because in your mind a woman is the only thing of value in a pregnancy.
Yes, she is.
Because it is her life being affected by all of this, it is in her body and her life that is at possible risk.
The risk of abortion increases with each week of pregnancy.
Well duh. Thank you so much for pointing that out Captain Obvious.
As stated in the article, the average mortality rate for abortion for 21 weeks or greater is 9 deaths per 100,000. Using a median of 28 weeks to represent the average, and increasing the risk by .38/wk we get:
Gestation(wk)/Mortality Rate
28/9
29/12
30/17
31/24
32/33
33/45
34/62
35/86
From quite a few years ago.. 16 years ago? What I linked is from the last few years. Gee.. How far we have come medically..
The same risks associated with late term pregnancy are also associated with late term abortion. In the above example mortality from childbirth and abortion are equal in week 30.
Yes.
Now look at how many women
died due to complications with abortions in 2007:
Deaths of women associated with complications from abortions for 2008 are being investigated under CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2007, the most recent year for which data were available, six women were reported to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions. No reported deaths were associated with known illegal induced abortions.
Using national data from the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System (36), CDC identified nine deaths for 2007 that were potentially related to abortion. These deaths were identified either by some indication of abortion on the death certificate, by
reports from a health-care provider or public health agency, or from a media report. Investigation of these cases indicated that six of the nine deaths were related to legal abortion and none to illegal abortion (Table 25). One of the six deaths related to a legal
induced abortion occurred after a medical (nonsurgical) abortion; this case has been described previously (37). Of the three deaths that were determined not to be related to a legal induced abortion, two were determined to be causally unrelated to the pregnancy or the abortion, and one was associated with a pregnancy outcome other than induced abortion. Possible abortion-related deaths that occurred during 2008–2011 are under investigation.
That's for all abortions. Including late term.
Childbirth mortality rates in the US:
The United States is one of just eight countries to see a rise in maternal mortality over the past decade, said researchers for the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in a study published in The Lancet, a weekly medical journal. The others are Afghanistan, Greece, and several countries in Africa and Central America.
The researchers estimated that 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in the U.S. in 2013, a total of almost 800 deaths. That is more than double the maternal mortality rate in Saudi Arabia and Canada, and more than triple the rate in the United Kingdom.
The study was the latest to underscore a steep rise in pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. since at least 1987, when the mortality rate was 7.2 per 100,000 births. The U.S. experienced a sharp spike in 2009 that the Centers for Disease Control attributed to the H1N1 influenza pandemic. The rate has dipped slightly since then, said Nicholas Kassebaum, the lead physician in the University of Washington study, but it remains stubbornly high.
The increase is in stark contrast to most other countries that have had notable decreases, including many in east Asia and Latin America, the report said. The United States now ranks 60 for maternal deaths on a list of 180 countries, down markedly from its rank of 22 in 1990. China, by contrast, is up to number 57.
I also included the actual study in the quoted part above.
Because state and federal law has a determined interest in the welfare of a viable fetus.
Over that of the mother.
Whether she is alive or dead. And some even tried to pass bills that would result in it being
illegal to even consider an abortion.
Do you even understand what happens when you have competing rights of a person when one resides inside another?
And do you understand that women are being denied their basic and fundamental human rights as a result of complete strangers having such an interest in the contents of her womb? You don't think such decisions should be made by the woman, the person directly involved with the issue? Or do you prefer that politicians have such avid interests in women's reproductive organs to the point where they are literally killing women for the "baby"?
Yet it’s your contention that if such late term procedures were deemed safer they should be done.
If it is necessary, perhaps. But once again, what woman waits until she's close to birth before changing her mind and which doctors would perform it? You have had ample evidence now to explain how and why the hypothetical you are having a fit about cannot and does not exist in reality.
You have heard of paternity laws? You know, where the man is on the hook when a woman decides to give birth. That’s a major point of contraception from the male side. Unlike the man, women have the additional options of mid pregnancy abortion and giving the baby away.
Well how dare she have determination over what happens to her body.. Poor you.
Or she can abort before risking her life in childbirth and not being able to work and care for her family and any other children she may have because she would have to take time off work later on in the pregnancy and then for childbirth, have to pay the medical costs involved for having the baby, the emotional trauma involved in then giving it away and the guilt associated with it, then the time it would take her to recover from the childbirth. Forcing women to have the baby against her wishes also restricts her reproductive choices and can risk her being able to give birth when she chooses to - after all, if she had to stop everything in her life to give birth to an unwanted child, she will find it financially and emotionally difficult to be able to afford to have one when she would have wanted to have one.
Use contraception and abort mid pregnancy.
Pretty much.
Her rights are what her society confers to her. Presently in regards to abortion those rights are limited.
Ah so you wish to treat women as a special kind of human species, as opposed to men who do not have such limits put on you..
Good for you. My sister in law is black and she also wants to restrict third trimester abortions.
Well good for her. She can not have one. Does not mean she gets to impose her demands on other women. I don't want to restrict third trimester abortions any further. I do not demand women women have them. I expect that women be able to decide for themselves without complete strangers taking it upon themselves to impose their beliefs and their rights on her uterus.
And again with the 'I have black friends' routine..
I have, they don’t agree with you.
Well seeing how you are so dishonest in how you apply such questions, I'm not surprised. And great for them if they do not. They don't need to get one if they do not agree with it. Does not mean they get to impose their beliefs on my uterus. In short, whatever I may decide or any other woman decides for herself is none of your or your friend's business. It only concerns her and her treating physician and her family. No one else.
So that’s where they put the stuffing in Australia.
Is that supposed to make sense?
Works for me.
With hundreds of thousands still in residency.
See, ovarian personhood just makes you look like a bit of a dolt.
Actually no it doesn't. I can get one if I so choose and do so legally.
All the parties in the example I cited were male. Stop playing the victim.
Your argument still stands in the annals of misogyny and frankly, kind of stupid also.
If a fetus is determined to have conditional rights, why does it matter how it was conceived?
Well according to your merry band of friends you have on your side, they believe exemptions should exist for cases of rape or illness.
And frankly, personhood is not conditional. It cannot be. It is also why personhood measures will fail and continue to fail in the polls, because even most pro-lifer's don't agree with giving a fetus legal rights. I wonder why you would. But then again, the following point from you kind of explains why you believe as you do..
Ok, let’s leave it up to the men. Men can now require all sexual partners to submit to monthly pregnancy tests and be given the right to terminate as well. Problem solved.
You just keep improving, don't you?
They have a label for men who do what you are proposing. Domineering and controlling, demeaning women as being stupid or incapable of making reproductive choices to the point where men force women to subject themselves to pregnancy tests and removing all reproductive choices from them... And if you do that to your spouse or partner it also counts as domestic abuse.
Could you please explain why you are advocating domestic abuse towards women now?
Wow, aren’t we the sleuth. Who allows for bodily entrance and the deposition of sperm that may lead to a pregnancy? Who has the ability to use contraception to reduce the possibility of pregnancy? Who has it within their means to periodically check for pregnancy? Who has a six month period to terminate a pregnancy? Is it the woman, the man, or the other woman with the turkey baster? And what does any of this have to do with the culpability of a criminal assault?
So it's all the woman's fault.
Could you be more offensive and more of a misogynist? And here I thought Wellwisher had that market cornered. You just overtook him.
GeoffP said:
Well that's interesting, because Bells keeps demanding what protections would exist for women under a more liberal biologically-based deadline for abortion using examples from "extant law". But a biological rationale would certainly be a 'paradigm shift'. So her commentary is then 'flaccid'?
Bells, what is your comment to the above?
You have a reading and comprehension problem that is steeped in intellectual dishonesty.