Yes, for a time. They don't inject dead blood cells when you get a transfusion, y'know.
Also, the vast majority of abortions (~90% or so) take place in the first trimester, and that aborted fetus has about as much long-term survival potential as the blood sample at that stage.
So sure seems like it's the exact same universe; you're inventing "standards" that apply to things that obviously are not people.
The Reality Says (Practice)
Generally, in the US, abortion is an option from very early pregnancy (somewhere between 4-6 weeks, depending on where you go) until about 24 weeks. Abortions are available later than 24 weeks only in rare cases for medical reasons. However, the earliest and latest into your pregnancy you can get an abortion depends on the laws in your state and what doctor, clinic, or Planned Parenthood health center you go to. In certain areas, it can be hard to find a health care provider who will do an abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...et-an-abortion
The Science Says.
Results
Extreme prematurity of 22 to 25 weeks' gestation is associated with an overall high mortality of ≥50%. High rates (17% to 59%) of severe neurodevelopmental disabilities occur among survivors on short-term follow-up. The rates of surviving unimpaired or minimally impaired are 6% to 20% for live-born infants at ≤25 weeks' gestation and <5% for infants born at 22 and 23 weeks' gestation. Long-term adverse outcomes after extreme prematurity include intellectual disability (5% to 36%), cerebral palsy (9% to 18%), blindness (0.7% to 9%), and deafness (2% to 4%). Milder degrees of disability involving cognition, behavior, and learning are increasingly recognized among older preterm children, teens, and young adults.
Conclusions
Infants who are born at ≤25 weeks' gestation, especially those born at 22 and 23 weeks' gestation, have a very low likelihood of surviving little or no impairment. Nearly half of surviving extremely premature infants have significant neurodevelopmental disabilities on short- and long-term follow-up. Instituting early intervention programs, providing family support, and establishing special educational school programs can pay high dividends and lead to brighter futures and, hence, help improve neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants.
https://www.pedneur.com/article/S088...658-4/fulltext
Last edited by Doctor Amadeus; 2019-05-31 at 04:28 AM.
Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis
I know I am NOT arguing otherwise. My point in posting it is because of the truly unaware, and which is that No there is no rush, or standard abortion that happens anywhere near where life is generally viable or successful, and that any kind of abortion after 25 weeks are already in exceedingly rarer cases than that.
The point over all is the argument about abortion and what is is should be clear both the science and the actual practice.
Milli Vanilli, Bigger than Elvis
I really don't see what you're trying to get at here, are you suggesting that if a fetus was a person every miscarriage would be investigated as a case of homicide? Most deaths aren't treated as homicides either. What is your point?
That the difficulty of policing a woman's pregnancy is evidence that an unborn child isn't regarded as a person?
Yes, assault is a very clear indication that a miscarriage should be investigated as a homicide but its not the only case of miscarriages being homicides, I provided a link earlier that had information on women being charged for murder due to substance abuse causing miscarriage.
Also, "the fact that there was a miscarriage" does get investigated when women allow their newborns to die to exposure.
Because no other superfluous laws exist, and laws are universal.My position always was, and remains, that a fetus is not considered to be a person, under the law. That it can be treated as a person for some homicide and assault law is irrelevant; those laws could not exist if the fetus were otherwise considered a person in the first place. They'd be superfluous. Their existence contradicts your claim.
It's enough of a human being that we decided killing one is murder, and murder is the unlawful killing of a person.Edit: And we seem to be losing the thread. This all started to try and defend the idea that people call abortion "murder" and that the fetus is a human being from conception. Those remain false statements, and nothing about fetal homicide laws (which aren't remotely universal to begin with) changes any of that.
That the fetus is "a human being from conception" is simply the contra argument to "a fetus is never considered a person"
Your legal definition of personhood is archaic uses centuries old common law "born alive", science has advanced much since then.
Clearly there is some point between conception and delivery where an egg->embryo->fetus becomes a person regardless of if they're legally considered to be so, and it doesn't occur when passing through the vagina.
So here's the question: This month a mother was killed and her baby carved from her womb
Clearly that baby became a person the moment he was ripped from the womb by your standards, but answer this: If the mother was not killed and went on the carry the baby until she delivered, why should that fetus be any less of a person prior to delivery?
It's kind of a stupid argument because it relies on an impossible reaction to something that can't happen. But it does demonstrate the value and responsibility of making that choice. I don't think it's ever an argument to say that someone might not want to live. Most people by far prefer to live and if you don't want to live you always have the option to make that decision for yourself and end it once you are alive.
Don't get me wrong. I am not in any way, shape or form trying to condone or excuse their viewpoint. I think that it's utterly abhorrent. It's more about understanding it.
One of the biggest problems in the abortion debate is that the two sides simply cannot see eye-to-eye because they don't (or won't) try to understand the other's viewpoint.
Shooting down a conservative by telling them they are simply misogynist pigs (even if it's completely true) is unconstructive. They'll just dismiss your accusation by explaining how they don't hate women - with whatever twisted logic they have conjured up in their little minds in order to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Attacking their faith is also extremely counter-productive and serves simply to strengthen their resolve.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are unlikely to succeed in changing the views of most pro-lifers with regards to religion and consequently abortion. But the problem isn't actually with their views on religion or abortion at all. It's with their views with regards to respecting the rights of other people to hold different religious views than themselves.
Fundamentally the pro-life argument is based in religion. The real crime here is that you have a group of religious fundamentalists trying to impose their religious views on others. And while certain religious views are, and should be universal, and thus be implemented in law (eg murder is illegal) there does need to be a distinction made between those religious views which should be considered universal, and those which are subjective
Last edited by Raelbo; 2019-05-31 at 07:33 AM.
Because when you break it down, the difference between a foetus and a baby is simply the mother's will to allow the pregnancy to proceed to term. A foetus cannot become a baby on its own. It requires assistance from the mother. If a pregnant woman has declared that she is unwilling to proceed with the pregnancy, then that foetus has no real claim that it would have become a baby. But once a pregnant mother has made a choice that she is willing to give the foetus what it needs, then the claim becomes legitimate.
Imagine this scenario: Someone needs a new kidney. They will die if they don't get one. It just so happens that you have been identified as a compatible donor. If you don't give them your kidney, they will die. Does that make you a murderer if you choose not to donate?
Except that if you afford a foetus the status of "person" then surely they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as other people, including the right to life. Your position is therefore untenable. Either the foetus is a "person", in which case abortion = murder = a crime, or the foetus is not a "person" and abortion is acceptable.
edit: The exception of course is as I said above: once the mother commits to having the baby, then a foetus can, and should be considered a person, even if it would not otherwise.
Last edited by Raelbo; 2019-05-31 at 07:41 AM.
An argument you rarely see get mentioned is that abortion is good for population control. Controversial, but true nonetheless.
And we also decided the Blacks were not humans to deserve rights, then only partially human. Same for women, and now people in the LGBTQ community. Times change. People change. The anti abortion laws are not about saving lives one bit. If they were they would be coupled with Pre and post natal care laws for all who were pregnant to ensure mothers to be got the proper care and knowledge to carry and raise the child. Bills that provide for those in need with housing vouchers for the homeless, health insurance, food stamps, cash assistance and everything else poorer people of this nation need to raise and care for a child, which is why the vast majority of abortions happen. Most importantly, laws that provide for proper sex education and birth control including condoms. Because all the data shows places that provide proper sex ed and access to birth controls, abortion rates go way down.
But this is the reality:
The GOP and DiNOs in LA, don't care about women or their rights. They want to control them. They don't want women to be able to have access to birth control, but do you remember how quickly they passed laws to make Viagra a covered medicine. I mean, if they can't get boners, how are they going to impregnate their women and tell them they have to keep it?
- - - Updated - - -
And guess what? It typically is.