Roe vs Wade Overturned!

[scgal]

Sept 17, 2022 15:50:49 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Sept 17, 2022 15:33:02 GMT -5 scgal said:

I'm sure you are, but my dear Dr you like to flaunt it like you are the end all for medical discussion. So this is real simple if there is electrical brain waves detected is there a brain? The article was commenting about abortion being ok since there was no brain I was refuting that not viability just the article was wrong. 

Did you or did you not state there was brain activity. It is not my fault that you are inarticulate. Unfortunately, I am not a mind reader.

Dead people have a brain, yet they have no brain activity.

Own what you wrote. If you meant you can detect brain tissue, then you should state that. But I am just going by what you said. Brain tissue is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to bring alive.

Maybe your daughter can explain it to you

I do own it the article said brain not brain tissue but brain. 

[scgal]

Sept 17, 2022 16:24:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Sept 17, 2022 15:33:02 GMT -5 scgal said:

I'm sure you are, but my dear Dr you like to flaunt it like you are the end all for medical discussion. So this is real simple if there is electrical brain waves detected is there a brain? The article was commenting about abortion being ok since there was no brain I was refuting that not viability just the article was wrong. 

Brain waves does not indicate brain activity any more than cells beating in a Petri dish can function as a heart. I very clearly told you that cells do not FUNCTION until they can all work in concert. That doesn’t stop the cells from what is essentially practicing.

Again the article said brain. I'm not talking about viability or working just there is a brain. Nor am I  saying a brain dead child in the womb shouldn't be aborted especially if the mother can die from it

[chiver78]

Sept 17, 2022 16:24:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Sept 17, 2022 15:33:02 GMT -5 scgal said:

I'm sure you are, but my dear Dr you like to flaunt it like you are the end all for medical discussion. So this is real simple if there is electrical brain waves detected is there a brain? The article was commenting about abortion being ok since there was no brain I was refuting that not viability just the article was wrong. 

Brain waves does not indicate brain activity any more than cells beating in a Petri dish can function as a heart. I very clearly told you that cells do not FUNCTION until they can all work in concert. That doesn’t stop the cells from what is essentially practicing.

bless your patience. and pulmonarymd's. that's all I can say rn.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Sept 17, 2022 16:31:13 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 17, 2022 16:24:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Brain waves does not indicate brain activity any more than cells beating in a Petri dish can function as a heart. I very clearly told you that cells do not FUNCTION until they can all work in concert. That doesn’t stop the cells from what is essentially practicing.

Again the article said brain. I'm not talking about viability or working just there is a brain. Nor am I  saying a brain dead child in the womb shouldn't be aborted especially if the mother can die from it

But people like you read and believe this BS and spout off like you understand what it means.  Clearly, you don’t.  

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Sept 17, 2022 16:33:47 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Sept 17, 2022 16:24:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Brain waves does not indicate brain activity any more than cells beating in a Petri dish can function as a heart. I very clearly told you that cells do not FUNCTION until they can all work in concert. That doesn’t stop the cells from what is essentially practicing.

bless your patience. and pulmonarymd's. that's all I can say rn.

It’s getting slim.  

[pulmonarymd]

Sept 17, 2022 16:29:03 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 17, 2022 15:50:49 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Did you or did you not state there was brain activity. It is not my fault that you are inarticulate. Unfortunately, I am not a mind reader.

Dead people have a brain, yet they have no brain activity.

Own what you wrote. If you meant you can detect brain tissue, then you should state that. But I am just going by what you said. Brain tissue is a necessary but not sufficient requirement to bring alive.

Maybe your daughter can explain it to you

I do own it the article said brain not brain tissue but brain. 

You said brain waves. They are not the same thing. Can you not see why everyone is talking about what you said. Many of us on this board know a whole lot more than you do about this.

Maybe you should be more clear about what you are trying to say instead of doubling down on your claims. Clarity matters

[pulmonarymd]

Sept 17, 2022 16:31:13 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 17, 2022 16:24:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Brain waves does not indicate brain activity any more than cells beating in a Petri dish can function as a heart. I very clearly told you that cells do not FUNCTION until they can all work in concert. That doesn’t stop the cells from what is essentially practicing.

Again the article said brain. I'm not talking about viability or working just there is a brain. Nor am I  saying a brain dead child in the womb shouldn't be aborted especially if the mother can die from it

A person who has just died has a brain. What is your point?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Sept 17, 2022 16:31:13 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 17, 2022 16:24:57 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Brain waves does not indicate brain activity any more than cells beating in a Petri dish can function as a heart. I very clearly told you that cells do not FUNCTION until they can all work in concert. That doesn’t stop the cells from what is essentially practicing.

Again the article said brain. I'm not talking about viability or working just there is a brain. Nor am I  saying a brain dead child in the womb shouldn't be aborted especially if the mother can die from it

Do you understand what viability means?  A cell in culture that is growing is viable, but until the cell and the surrounding cells learn to communicate, it is merely a viable cell practicing on being what it is differentiating to become.  Yes, I know….another big word that you don’t understand.  Google it.  Better yet, take a freshman biology class.  

The cell is alive, it is viable.  The cell is not yet capable of functioning as an organ.  The organ has not yet formed.   Brain is an organ, it is comprised of viable cells that are in some stage of differentiation, which will…..at some point…..learn to communicate with other cells to function as an organ.  By itself, it is a viable cell that has potential. That’s it.

[tallguy]

A person who has just died has a brain. What is your point?

Not only that but there is (or can be) measurable brain activity after death, is/can there not?  Clearly the mere presence of brain activity is not an indicator of life, either before birth or any other time.  Correct, or not?

[pulmonarymd]

Sept 17, 2022 16:59:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

A person who has just died has a brain. What is your point?

Not only that but there is (or can be) measurable brain activity after death, is/can there not?  Clearly the mere presence of brain activity is not an indicator of life, either before birth or any other time.  Correct, or not?

The criteria for brain death does not require a flat eeg, meaning there can be measurable brain activity, albeit, not on any way that will support being alive, let alone any type of coordinated brain activity.

Her whole point is impossible to understand, let alone nonsensical. But what do I know, I am only a google doctor according to her

[tallguy]

Sept 17, 2022 17:09:12 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Sept 17, 2022 16:59:09 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Not only that but there is (or can be) measurable brain activity after death, is/can there not?  Clearly the mere presence of brain activity is not an indicator of life, either before birth or any other time.  Correct, or not?

The criteria for brain death does not require a flat eeg, meaning there can be measurable brain activity, albeit, not on any way that will support being alive, let alone any type of coordinated brain activity.

Her whole point is impossible to understand, let alone nonsensical. But what do I know, I am only a google doctor according to her

Oh, believe me, I was not suffering under any delusion that she was actually correct in anything....   

[scgal]

Sept 11, 2022 19:38:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Maybe this should be a separate thread, but this is a wonderful Oped IMO.

www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/op-ed-fetal-personhood-has-a-whiff-of-medieval-theology/ar-AA11Hpv0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bb897da182d74728a481aead80ff4fe4

Is a pregnant body one person or two? If you believe the antiabortion movement, the answer is clear: A pregnant body is two distinct persons and one of those persons — the woman — does not have the right to take away the “life” of the other.”

But this argument rests on a presumption about what constitutes a person.

Is a tiny clump of cells a distinct human being? And what do we even mean by “distinct human being”?

In modern Western philosophy, particularly since Descartes, a person is conceived of as an entity with independent intellectual agency. “I think therefore I am,” he famously declared. Descartes, a Catholic, was putting into secular terms a way of categorizing that he’d adapted from the church, which has traditionally held that human being-ness is predicated on an individual self with free will, and thus the capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?


Here is the paragraph. Does it say the fetus does not have a brain? Yes or No. That is all I'm refuting that is it. 

[tallguy]

Sept 17, 2022 19:00:10 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 11, 2022 19:38:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Maybe this should be a separate thread, but this is a wonderful Oped IMO.

www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/op-ed-fetal-personhood-has-a-whiff-of-medieval-theology/ar-AA11Hpv0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bb897da182d74728a481aead80ff4fe4

Is a pregnant body one person or two? If you believe the antiabortion movement, the answer is clear: A pregnant body is two distinct persons and one of those persons — the woman — does not have the right to take away the “life” of the other.”

But this argument rests on a presumption about what constitutes a person.

Is a tiny clump of cells a distinct human being? And what do we even mean by “distinct human being”?

In modern Western philosophy, particularly since Descartes, a person is conceived of as an entity with independent intellectual agency. “I think therefore I am,” he famously declared. Descartes, a Catholic, was putting into secular terms a way of categorizing that he’d adapted from the church, which has traditionally held that human being-ness is predicated on an individual self with free will, and thus the capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?


Here is the paragraph. Does it say the fetus does not have a brain? Yes or No. That is all I'm refuting that is it. 

So let's see if we can clarify....  You are trying to "win" a meaningless point that does not ultimately help your argument in any way?  Is that about it? 

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Sept 17, 2022 19:38:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 17, 2022 19:00:10 GMT -5 scgal said:

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?


Here is the paragraph. Does it say the fetus does not have a brain? Yes or No. That is all I'm refuting that is it. 

So let's see if we can clarify....  You are trying to "win" a meaningless point that does not ultimately help your argument in any way?  Is that about it? 

That’s my read.  Nice summary.

[Opti]

Sept 17, 2022 19:00:10 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 11, 2022 19:38:42 GMT -5 Opti said:

Maybe this should be a separate thread, but this is a wonderful Oped IMO.

www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/op-ed-fetal-personhood-has-a-whiff-of-medieval-theology/ar-AA11Hpv0?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=bb897da182d74728a481aead80ff4fe4

Is a pregnant body one person or two? If you believe the antiabortion movement, the answer is clear: A pregnant body is two distinct persons and one of those persons — the woman — does not have the right to take away the “life” of the other.”

But this argument rests on a presumption about what constitutes a person.

Is a tiny clump of cells a distinct human being? And what do we even mean by “distinct human being”?

In modern Western philosophy, particularly since Descartes, a person is conceived of as an entity with independent intellectual agency. “I think therefore I am,” he famously declared. Descartes, a Catholic, was putting into secular terms a way of categorizing that he’d adapted from the church, which has traditionally held that human being-ness is predicated on an individual self with free will, and thus the capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?

So, let’s get back to the fetus. A small bunch of cells clearly doesn’t have free will. It doesn’t have a will at all. It can’t make moral or intellectual choices. It doesn’t yet have a brain, let alone a mind. If, as Christianity and modern Western philosophy predicate, humanness requires mental agency, in what sense is a cluster of cells a human being?


Here is the paragraph. Does it say the fetus does not have a brain? Yes or No. That is all I'm refuting that is it. 

If you want to argue specifics, the key word here is yet. Since he writes 'a small bunch of cells' he's likely is addressing the first trimester or so. 

He is arguing about the nature of being human. Fetuses don't make moral or intellectual choices. 

[Opti]

Two interesting links to read for those interested. One is about a mom who had an abortion because her body tried to reject the pregnancy but kept failing to do so. Repeated bleeding and hemorrhaging made her go out of state because TN would not save her life.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-thought-my-mom-had-a-20-week-miscarriage-i-just-discovered-it-was-a-secret-abortion/ar-AA11W15m?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=29d23a1704d94e168cbb5e501c249864


www.huffpost.com/entry/stories-abortion-nurse_n_627281e6e4b04a9ff8a2d885

[azucena]

Most of us know that we're never going to change this poster's opinions. I applaud those of you who follow behind and correct the facts for future readers. But, I can't help but wonder if this community would be better served by all of us just putting her on ignore. A troll left without responses might go off and find another bridge.

[billisonboard]

Sept 18, 2022 7:52:17 GMT -5 azucena said:

Most of us know that we're never going to change this poster's opinions. I applaud those of you who follow behind and correct the facts for future readers. But, I can't help but wonder if this community would be better served by all of us just putting her on ignore. A troll left without responses might go off and find another bridge.

Not sure why you are here on this type of thread but I see them as existing for exactly what is happening (except for the personal attacks from both sides). There is a lot of misinformation out there on many subjects. Having it offered as fact and then countered is valuable for readers not fully informed on the topic. I have not liked wading there the personal bs on this one but all the brain stuff is interesting to me.

[teen persuasion]

Sept 17, 2022 21:40:20 GMT -5 Opti said:

Two interesting links to read for those interested. One is about a mom who had an abortion because her body tried to reject the pregnancy but kept failing to do so. Repeated bleeding and hemorrhaging made her go out of state because TN would not save her life.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-thought-my-mom-had-a-20-week-miscarriage-i-just-discovered-it-was-a-secret-abortion/ar-AA11W15m?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=29d23a1704d94e168cbb5e501c249864


www.huffpost.com/entry/stories-abortion-nurse_n_627281e6e4b04a9ff8a2d885

”You know it had genetic abnormalities, too?” she said out of nowhere. Actually, I didn’t know this, because she never talked about the baby she lost. ”My body kept trying to abort it, but it couldn’t. That’s why I kept hemorrhaging.” Her voice was faraway as she mentally traveled back to that time.

One day last summer, as I watched my two kids playing under the bright pink blooms of the crepe myrtles in our backyard, I began bleeding. It was a very early miscarriage, nothing like what my mom had been through. But it still made me think of her and that conversation. I couldn’t know the extent of her much-worse tragedy, but I, too, was experiencing a third pregnancy that would never be. My miscarriage — this third baby that would not be — made me feel connected to her.



It wasn’t until last month, when Tennessee’s total abortion ban went into effect, that I finally understood my mom didn’t have a miscarriage. Technically, legally, she had an abortion.

Quotes from the first link.  Look at the language. 

Technically, a miscarriage IS an abortion.  We commonly use miscarriage to mean the spontaneous termination of a pregnancy, and abortion to mean medical intervention causing the termination of a pregnancy, but miscarriage is a layman's term.  The medical term is simply abortion.

Look again at the first quote: my body kept trying to ABORT it.

The govt at any level CANNOT make abortion illegal, or regulate it, because it is something that can occur spontaneously, and frequently does.  What was that rate at which pregnancies end early, many so early you may not even know you are pregnant?  I've had 2 miscarriages, termed incomplete abortions on my medical records.  I needed a D & C each time (because: incomplete).  There was no delay or questions asked then, even at a Catholic hospital.  My sister had one miscarriage.  My aunt had five, my maternal grandmother had at least one I know about, and my paternal grandmother had twins stillborn.  It is incredibly common.  I don't want my children to be at risk, because now we ARE waffling over this.

[Opti]

Sept 18, 2022 9:36:01 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Sept 17, 2022 21:40:20 GMT -5 Opti said:

Two interesting links to read for those interested. One is about a mom who had an abortion because her body tried to reject the pregnancy but kept failing to do so. Repeated bleeding and hemorrhaging made her go out of state because TN would not save her life.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-thought-my-mom-had-a-20-week-miscarriage-i-just-discovered-it-was-a-secret-abortion/ar-AA11W15m?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=29d23a1704d94e168cbb5e501c249864


www.huffpost.com/entry/stories-abortion-nurse_n_627281e6e4b04a9ff8a2d885

”You know it had genetic abnormalities, too?” she said out of nowhere. Actually, I didn’t know this, because she never talked about the baby she lost. ”My body kept trying to abort it, but it couldn’t. That’s why I kept hemorrhaging.” Her voice was faraway as she mentally traveled back to that time.

One day last summer, as I watched my two kids playing under the bright pink blooms of the crepe myrtles in our backyard, I began bleeding. It was a very early miscarriage, nothing like what my mom had been through. But it still made me think of her and that conversation. I couldn’t know the extent of her much-worse tragedy, but I, too, was experiencing a third pregnancy that would never be. My miscarriage — this third baby that would not be — made me feel connected to her.



It wasn’t until last month, when Tennessee’s total abortion ban went into effect, that I finally understood my mom didn’t have a miscarriage. Technically, legally, she had an abortion.

Quotes from the first link.  Look at the language. 

Technically, a miscarriage IS an abortion.  We commonly use miscarriage to mean the spontaneous termination of a pregnancy, and abortion to mean medical intervention causing the termination of a pregnancy, but miscarriage is a layman's term.  The medical term is simply abortion.

Look again at the first quote: my body kept trying to ABORT it.

The govt at any level CANNOT make abortion illegal, or regulate it, because it is something that can occur spontaneously, and frequently does.  What was that rate at which pregnancies end early, many so early you may not even know you are pregnant?  I've had 2 miscarriages, termed incomplete abortions on my medical records.  I needed a D & C each time (because: incomplete).  There was no delay or questions asked then, even at a Catholic hospital.  My sister had one miscarriage.  My aunt had five, my maternal grandmother had at least one I know about, and my paternal grandmother had twins stillborn.  It is incredibly common.  I don't want my children to be at risk, because now we ARE waffling over this.

I agree with you on word choice. I think the author like some prefers to use the term miscarriage for abortions that are not medically assisted. 

I believe miscarriage rate is around 20% of all pregnancies and these are all after that initial 4 weeks. that first 4 weeks I have seen estimates in the 50 to 75% range. 

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I think it is wonderful that the human body is smart enough to take care of many unhealthy pregnancies, but law makers are too dumb to let modern medicine step in to help when necessary. Why can't we use what we've learned about the human body? For the evangelists, God gave us this knowledge. Why do we ignore Her?

[andi9899]

Sept 17, 2022 15:24:01 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 17, 2022 13:16:00 GMT -5 Opti said:

Odds are I am far more pro life than you are as I look at the entire life cycle, not just 9 months or less. Nor do I discount the impact to the woman involved and her family. This push by the GOP has already made maternal mortality the highest here compared to all industrialized nations. Apparently not satisfied with that, we now need to push our infant mortality up and make sure all those crackhead babies, fetal alcohol syndrome babies, and those hampered by bad diet and other conditions into the world to make you all feel better about yourselves. It's not like the GOP and their supporters are planning to increase funding to support this burden, oh no, they are still actively trying to make it harder to support the children born to the poor or with extreme medical conditions.

I think that's sick. The soul can always find a new body before birth in my spiritual opinion. More of the aborted babies than probably either of us realize are aborted by people who wanted them. I do not know all the reasons, but there is more out there than I knew. One woman became blind in one eye and was losing sight in another because of her pregnancy. The abortion did not return her sight but prevented her from becoming totally blind and worse. Sometimes things go wrong and having a dying or decaying fetus inside a woman can kill her or at times reduce her health enough she takes a long time to recover and may never return to her former state of health.

Plus, in a land of sexists, I do not want to incentivize rape and have the US home to more people with violence and anti-social tendencies in the gene pool. We have enough of that already. I don't find just because the heart or brain started forming, important enough to choose how some woman lives or possibly dies. I'm not that sick or cruel. I'm far more concerned about the unwanted or surprise babies that are killed or left to die. By the unwanted toddlers being murdered, beaten, starved or tossed off a bridge to drown.
Abortion early on to me is far superior to the suffering that occurs in those events. 

oh I'm sure you are I am far from pro life just anti abortion

So you're basically just pro controlling women? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However your beliefs don't get to dictate my life. Fuck off.

[scgal]

Sept 18, 2022 10:31:50 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

Sept 17, 2022 15:24:01 GMT -5 scgal said:

oh I'm sure you are I am far from pro life just anti abortion

So you're basically just pro controlling women? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However your beliefs don't get to dictate my life. Fuck off.

I don't want to control anyone. I don't think of a fetus as a bunch of cells and its certainly not just to kill a baby because it's inconvenient. There should be a ban unless medically necessary or to ask a court for special permission such as rape. What makes you so high and mighty to dictate a baby's life. 

[andi9899]

Sept 18, 2022 12:39:32 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 18, 2022 10:31:50 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

So you're basically just pro controlling women? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However your beliefs don't get to dictate my life. Fuck off.

I don't want to control anyone. I don't think of a fetus as a bunch of cells and its certainly not just to kill a baby because it's inconvenient. There should be a ban unless medically necessary or to ask a court for special permission such as rape. What makes you so high and mighty to dictate a baby's life. 

There should be no ban over women's bodies. Period. Government should never get to decide what happens to my body. That should be between me and my doctor. What makes you so high and mighty to dictate my life?

[Opti]

www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/17/2054621/-Republicans-Kill-Babies-not-clickbait

The title of this diary is not clickbait. It is the literal truth. Republican refusal to fund health care, nutritional programs and education, and refusal to enforce clean air and water regulations kill infants. Here is the statistical proof.

The infant mortality rate is defined by the World Health Organization as the number of deaths of children under one year of age, expressed per 1 000 live births.

Per WHO, the country with the lowest infant mortality rate is Iceland (2020 data) —1.54 deaths per 1,000 live births. Other countries good at keeping kids under 1 alive are Estonia — 1.65 deaths/1000 births, Slovenia— 1.76, Norway — 1.79, Japan — 1.82 and Singapore — 1.85

The US rate is (year 2020) 5.44 in 2020. This rate was 50th among the 195 countries and territories measured (Worldpopulationreview.com) and about the same as Uruguay (5.32) and Bolivia (5.14)

Breaking down the US by state, the best state for baby survival is Vermont, with only 18 deaths during the year 2020 (per CDC) The next states on the list are California (3.69), Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Oregon (4.02). Note that these states are governed largely by Democrats.

The worst states for baby survival are: Mississippi (8.27 — about the same as Turkey) Louisiana (7.53— about the same as Thailand) West Virginia (7.45 --about the same as Malaysia) Arkansas (7.33) and Alabama (7.18) Note that all are largely governed by Republicans.

[daisylu]

Sept 18, 2022 12:39:32 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 18, 2022 10:31:50 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

So you're basically just pro controlling women? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However your beliefs don't get to dictate my life. Fuck off.

I don't want to control anyone. I don't think of a fetus as a bunch of cells and its certainly not just to kill a baby because it's inconvenient. There should be a ban unless medically necessary or to ask a court for special permission such as rape. What makes you so high and mighty to dictate a baby's life. 

You just did, You are trying to force a woman to give birth, do you know how that will turn out for a family who does not want a baby? Said baby will be neglected and traumatized. But you already said you anti abortion, not prolife which I actually give you credit for. But who will support the support the babies who are forced to exist? And do you understand how long it takes for a court to make a ruling? That's why RoevWade existed.

And yes I know better than engage.

[busymom]

And then there are the women who die due to complications: 

www.cbsnews.com/news/best-and-worst-states-to-give-birth-usa-today-investigation/


Notice anything familiar about the states where women are most likely to die? 


 
The 10 states with the highest maternal death rate include:   (hint--check out the GOP-run states...)


Louisiana

Georgia

Indiana

Arkansas

New Jersey

Missouri

Texas

District of Columbia

South Carolina

Tennessee

[Opti]

Sept 18, 2022 12:39:32 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 18, 2022 10:31:50 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

So you're basically just pro controlling women? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However your beliefs don't get to dictate my life. Fuck off.

I don't want to control anyone. I don't think of a fetus as a bunch of cells and its certainly not just to kill a baby because it's inconvenient. There should be a ban unless medically necessary or to ask a court for special permission such as rape. What makes you so high and mighty to dictate a baby's life. 

There are different levels of impact in a woman's life when she is pregnant when she or her partner does not want her to be. 

That’s even as a 2017 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found pregnant women account for 15% of female homicide victims between the ages of 18 and 44.

www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-nw-fetus-death-homicide-20220915-k7hzl77kcnhzjh4uqlavq72lba-story.html

This sadly happens like clockwork as well-

omaha.com/news/national/woman-accused-of...

Sep 12, 2022 · AP. NEW BOSTON, Texas (AP) — A Texas woman accused of killing a woman to steal her unborn baby to present as her own went on trial for capital murder Monday.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Sept 18, 2022 12:39:32 GMT -5 scgal said:

Sept 18, 2022 10:31:50 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

So you're basically just pro controlling women? If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However your beliefs don't get to dictate my life. Fuck off.

I don't want to control anyone. I don't think of a fetus as a bunch of cells and its certainly not just to kill a baby because it's inconvenient. There should be a ban unless medically necessary or to ask a court for special permission such as rape. What makes you so high and mighty to dictate a baby's life. 

So you think a woman should ask the flakiness of a court if she could abort from rape?  I agree with andi9899 .  

Are you ok with the court deciding you don’t need your spare kidney?  How about a pint of marrow or a chunk of liver?  Do you understand bodily autonomy means ALL bodily autonomy, not just pertaining to uterus?  How about them deciding you have lived long enough and you are no longer useful?  

[teen persuasion]

Sept 3, 2022 18:24:49 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Sept 3, 2022 15:10:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Of course not, which is why I don't use it.  The anti-abortion side DOES use it however.  In fact, it is the basis for their entire argument and position.  (It should not need to be clarified that we are talking about "human" life here.)

If you consider that from one article I read that nearly 70% of fertilized eggs never implant, or spontaneously abort, it is impossible to determine where the cleaving of an egg and sperm will result in a fetus….most likely, it will not.  This really doesn't help this theory.  

theconversation.com/most-human-embryos-naturally-die-after-conception-restrictive-abortion-laws-fail-to-take-this-embryo-loss-into-account-187904

I thought someone had posted that article about how many human embryos naturally die after conception; I had to dig back to find it.

In people, the most common outcome of reproduction by far is embryo loss due to random genetic errors. An estimated 70% to 75% of human conceptions fail to survive to birth.

So fetal death is incredibly frequent, "the most common outcome of reproduction by far."

Counterintuitively, there may even be benefits to the high rates of genetic errors that result in embryo loss. Early loss of aneuploid embryos can direct maternal resources to healthier single newborns...

Biological data on human embryos brings new questions to consider for abortion policies.



Although required in some states, early embryo loss is typically not documented in the medical record. This is because it occurs before the person knows they are pregnant and often coincides with the next menstrual period. Until relatively recently, researchers were unaware of the extremely high rate of early embryo loss in people, and “conception” was an imagined moment estimated from last menstruation.



How does naturally built-in, massive early embryo loss affect legal protections for human embryos?
...

Since so many pregnancies end naturally in their very earliest days, early embryo loss is exceedingly common, though most people won’t know they’ve experienced it. I believe that new laws ignoring this natural occurrence lead to a slippery slope that can put lives and livelihoods at risk.