Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Deleted]

We are talking the intentional termination of a developing human and not the accidentell ones, atleast I thought so.

[Chrysia]

We are talking the intentional termination of a developing human and not the accidentell ones, atleast I thought so.

Your missing the point. You said it would have had a will, and that's not a guarantee. Most abortions occur very early in the pregnancy, so whether the fetus would ever have had a will is unknown.

[Azadina]

Yes but it is a human child in development, no? 99,99% of all human zygotes will grow into human beings, given the chance to do so?

Let's see the evidence for the claim.

[Deleted]

@Chrysia I'm sorry, I should have prefixed what I meant was in a general sense wherein it is a normal pregnancy without outstanding complications.
@Linadra, haha what really?

[Chrysia]

Let's see the evidence for the claim.

It's off by close to 50%, based on best estimates. The number of zygotes that pass with the first period after conception is difficult to tabulate.

- - - Updated - - -

@Chrysia I'm sorry, I should have prefixed what I meant was in a general sense wherein it is a normal pregnancy without outstanding complications.
@Linadra, haha what really?

There's nothing outstanding about most miscarriages. We don't have good information on what even causes most miscarriages.

[Ghostpanther]

Let's see the evidence for the claim.

All you have to do is look around. Maybe not 99.99% chance, but considering there are over 6 billion people on Earth now, the percentage is pretty damn high or we would go extinct. :P

[Deleted]

But I was pretty clear with the added "given the chance to do so" ergo, it survives this period that you have mentioned.

[Azadina]

@Linadra, haha what really?

What seemed to be the difficulty? You made a claim of 99.99%. Let's see the proof, not deflection.

[Ghostpanther]

1) 20 week bans have nothing to do with fetal viability. They're actually designed to undermine a fetal viability standard.

2) The actual numerical limit isn't as important as the legal principles that form the basis of those numerical limits.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks, meaning that at 24 weeks a fetus has a greater than 50% chance of surviving outside the womb (and this includes putting it in a neonatal ICU). This is the "third trimester" standard introduced in PP v Casey in 1992, which established that only at the limit of viability can the state intervene against the termination of a pregnancy to protect the liberty interests of the fetus. Before 24 weeks, the pregnant woman's liberty interests hold sway.

When the architects of the decision (which pretty much means former Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) set this standard, they did so under the assumption that medical science would continually advance to the point that the limit on viability would be further reduced into the second trimester. That hasn't happened. Nearly 25 years later, the limit of viability is still 24 weeks, as it turns out that there's not much doctors can do to keep a <6 month old fetus alive in an incubator. The fetus is still entirely dependent on the placenta to process nutrients and remove cellular waste; until around week 22 it hasn't even started to produce its own red blood cells.

What the 20 week limit does is replace the fetal viability standard of Casey with a new maternal health standard. At 20 weeks, fetal blood tests and sonograms will have ruled out any chromosomal or anatomical deformities that are the typical causes of miscarriages and maternal mortality. A pregnant woman who gets an abortion after 20 weeks does so because they went to the OB/GYN one day and got some truly terrible, soul crushing news; either the fetus is likely going to die in utero (and will put her life at risk from things like infection and septic shock), or has a high chance of causing severe internal damage if the pregnancy continues.

Why does this matter? Because replacing the fetal viability standard of Casey with this new maternal health standard actually puts the "liberty interests" of the fetus ahead of the woman's interests at every stage of pregnancy. It's no longer a matter of "does the fetus have a reasonable chance of surviving independently of the woman carrying it," but "does continuing the pregnancy undermine the ability of the woman to remain alive." Under this rubric, the state has far greater power to intervene against terminating a pregnancy, and its under this standard that various TRAP laws (targeted restrictions of abortion providers) have been put into effect in several states. Under a dishonest guise of "protecting the health of the mother," state governments have enacted draconian regulations to shut down abortion providers.

And that's the point; to make the choice of getting an abortion much more difficult in practical terms, not protecting anyone's actual health. Again, these 20 week limits have been implemented precisely because medical science hasn't reduced the limit of viability below 24 weeks, which was the assumption guiding Casey.

6 week limits, or so-called "fetal heartbeat" restrictions, are even worse. Instead of fetal viability or maternal health, these laws enshrine the "liberty interests" of the fetus as paramount under all circumstances, with the added bonus of setting an arbitrary "personhood" standard so close to the point of insemination that most women will surpass that limit before they even find out they're pregnant. Medically and legally, a pregnancy begins on the first day of a woman's last menstruation, and women who do not intend to get pregnant will likely not begin to suspect they are pregnant until they're subsequent menstruation is one or two weeks late. These laws are specifically designed to ban abortions in all circumstances.

Very good response, thanks. And just to be clear on my stance, if a doctor tells a woman there is a high chance of her losing her life if she does not have a abortion, then of course I think they should have the option to abort.

[Deleted]

Has there ever been a case where a human does not give birth to another human?

Since there is a lot of confusion here, I mean after a sexual interaction and a pregnancy to rule out potential insect parasites, etc

[Chrysia]

All you have to do is look around. Maybe not 99.99% chance, but considering there are over 6 billion people on Earth now, the percentage is pretty damn high or we would go extinct. :P

Not necessarily. We do a lot of fucking.

- - - Updated - - -

Has there ever been a case where a human does not give birth to another human?

Since there is a lot of confusion here, I mean after a sexual interaction and a pregnancy to rule out potential insect parasites, etc

Again, this is irrelevant. What the zygote may someday be is irrelevant to the woman's right not to have someone or something inhabit her uterus against her will.

[Illuminance]

Being a living being doesn't entitle one to rights. Not to sound insensitive, but cancer is genetically distinct from its host organism, but still recognizably human DNA. That's exactly what makes it so dangerous, because the body begins attacking itself to kill the cancer,

Not to be too pedantic, but while the first statement is true to an extent, that last statement isn't. Cancer is dangerous because of metastasis, uncontrolled growth, and causing organ failure. It's not dangerous due to an autoimmune response; in fact, one of the hallmarks of cancer is evading the host's immune system, since the immune system is one component that keeps cancer from developing in the first place.

The comparison between tumors and zygotes is disingenuous. I get that you'd want to shoot down incomplete arguments for human life, but if you just want to keep equating developing humans to "clumps of cells," there are tumors the size of newborns. One is a human being distinct from its parents, and the other is just an error in a human being's cellular programming.

[Ghostpanther]

Not necessarily. We do a lot of fucking.

- - - Updated - - -

Which does not guarantee a pregnancy will occur. :P But once it does, it is fairly high it will result in a birth in most of the cases I think.

[Mormolyce]

Ultimate solution: Do not engage in sexual activities.

Or stop being obtuse and accept abortion.

[Deleted]

A misscarriage is obviously an outstanding complication to a regular pregnancy, it's not unusual as you explained it, but it is the premature end of a pregnancy.

[Chrysia]

Which does not guarantee a pregnancy will occur. :P But once it does, it is fairly high it will result in a birth in most of the cases I think.

Again, the data is against you. Somewhere around 50% miscarriage rate is the best estimate, though it's hard to know for sure because many of these are literally the body just flushing the fertilized egg exactly as it would an unfertilized one for various reasons.

[Nadiru]

What I want to know is how, in an era where there are several dozen forms of contraceptive ranging from the preventative to the reactive to everything in between, for both dudes and girls, how people are still managing to accidentally get pregnant. It's not even a cost problem anymore because the ACA remains the law of the land and birth control access is guaranteed by it.

[zenkai]

What I want to know is how, in an era where there are several dozen forms of contraceptive ranging from the preventative to the reactive to everything in between, for both dudes and girls, how people are still managing to accidentally get pregnant. It's not even a cost problem anymore because the ACA remains the law of the land and birth control access is guaranteed by it.

There are a lot of dumb people out there.

[Chrysia]

What I want to know is how, in an era where there are several dozen forms of contraceptive ranging from the preventative to the reactive to everything in between, for both dudes and girls, how people are still managing to accidentally get pregnant. It's not even a cost problem anymore because the ACA remains the law of the land and birth control access is guaranteed by it.

No contraceptive method has a 100% efficacy rate.

[Shadowferal]

Then explain why when a pregnant women is murdered, it is considered a double homicide.

Wow, you really don't know much beyond your simple-minded beliefs.
Women are the ultimate arbiter in determining life. No one, not even a judge can say differently. She determines whether her fetus is her "baby" or not. And it has always been that way throughout much of history.

You know nothing about me, yet make assumptions.

I think it's safe to assume that you're a kid that knows very little...I mean it's obvious that you know almost nothing about law and biology, and you don't seem to know much women in general.
A zygote is little more than bacteria...and yet you'd punish a woman for murder should she take a pill to get rid of it. How stupid is that?
And then there's your post on the adoption system which is broke as fuck because your...ilk defunds it at every opportunity no matter that they say the same lame shit that a woman should bring it to term and put the baby in that system...