It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roe v Wade, what a time for that talk. LOL!

page: 13
17
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Imperator2




This baby survived at 21 weeks and 1 day.


Maybe. Or maybe the 1st day of the mother's last period was miscalculated. Not all women have regular periods. Not all women keep track of their period dates.

These "weekly" guidelines aren't science. How can they be when they assume a woman to be pregnant at least 2 weeks before she conceived?
edit on 2-12-2021 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Castrate rapists.

Facially brand pedophiles.

a reply to: dawnstar



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 02:36 PM
link   
NM.

a reply to: dawnstar


edit on 2-12-2021 by Dalamax because: Removed for Irrelevance



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Heck guys will probably still be complaining that their insurance has to cover maternity care because they can't get pregnant.... it hasn't dawned on them that they probably all benefitted from the maternity care their moms recieved..


I wonder if you know how little sense that makes.



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

What doesn't make sense??

That guys complain about having to have insurance that covers maternity care.... Sorry, but they have.
Or that just about all of them have benefited from the maternity care their mom received...
Again, a truthfull statement.
unless your mother didn't receive any maternity care the nine months prior to your birth or during delivery... You benefited by that care.



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Imperator2




This baby survived at 21 weeks and 1 day.


Maybe. Or maybe the 1st day of the mother's last period was miscalculated. Not all women have regular periods. Not all women keep track of their period dates.

These "weekly" guidelines aren't science. How can they be when they assume a woman to be pregnant at least 2 weeks before she conceived?


Are you claiming that the information in the article that was vetted by the person writing it and the doctor providing the information is incorrect? Do you have any additional information to provide to prove their mistake?

Either way just consider the implications if it is 100% accurate - that would make all abortions after that point and before the current 'viability' point in actuality murder of a baby. Right??



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Imperator2

The information isn't based on a doctor's estimate of the fetus' state of development after the fact. It's based on what the woman said was the 1st day of her last period. She could be mistaken, based on what we know about the science of fetal survival at 21 weeks. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am saying it's not solid science.



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Imperator2

The information isn't based on a doctor's estimate of the fetus' state of development after the fact. It's based on what the woman said was the 1st day of her last period. She could be mistaken, based on what we know about the science of fetal survival at 21 weeks. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am saying it's not solid science.





Ok. I see what you are saying.

Have you given any thought to my question? I am curious to see if thinking about it in that way changes your view at all or if you hold firm at the currently decided viability point.

Side note - I know we have had a vigorous back and forth, but I do appreciate the discourse even if we get hot at points. Just throwing that out there.



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 06:02 PM
link   
There is no question that 7 weeks isn't the point of viability neither is the Mississippilaws cutoff point.
So, isn't this discussion rather moot or am I missing something?



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
If Republicans really thought abortion was murder, they would try passing laws to put THE WOMAN in prison for murdering their child. Talk the talk but to afraid to walk the walk. Republicans know women would vote against them in droves.


Republican's don't need to make laws defining murder, those laws are already on the books. Roe vs. Wade took away the definition of life away from babies still inside the womb. I suggest studying how laws are made and how government works.



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Imperator2




Have you given any thought to my question?


ETA; This one?



- I know we have had a vigorous back and forth, but I do appreciate the discourse even if we get hot at points. Just throwing that out there.


I support the state's rights to enact and enforce penalties for abortions past viability, unless the health of the mother is at risk. Usually, they can perform a C-Section and save both baby and mother, but sometimes, there's call to be made. I support the mother's right in those instances. Many Catholic hospitals have policies to make the call on behalf of the infant being born, and "abort" the mother.


edit on 2-12-2021 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2021 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Fowlerstoad
That horse has already left the barn when it comes to pregnancy.

Hospitals, doctors, judges have ignored the women's desires when it comes to the type of healthcare they are given, forcing c-sections on them.. oftentimes needlessly and at least on time actually killing the women and fetus...
...


Wrong... That only happens rarelly... You are attempting to continue the claim from the left these days that "a woman delivering a child is more dangerous than having an abortion." That's a lie. The truth is that abortions cause more damage in most instances than the woman delivering the child... If there was any truth to this lie, there wouldn't be over 7.9 billion people on the planet...

These days those of you in the abortion bandwagon most of the time spread lies and nothing but lies. Same thing that Sonia Sotomayor lied and compared a live human fetus to dead people... She went so far as to claim that "assuming the fetus is alive is just a religious belief..." That's an ignorant claim. A human fetus doesn't "become alive after having been delivered..." The unborn can die, but most of them are alive until the mother/father/abortionists kills them.

In fact the name human "fetus" specifically mentions a developing human, that is alive, and has developed from an embryo to a fetus at around 2 months.

But even human embryos before two months have already developed primitive organs/aka organs at an early stage.




Definition of embryo

1a : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems

especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
...

embryo

Anyway, Sotomayor not only LIED, but she doubled down on her lies claiming that seeing a human fetus as being alive is only a religious belief... Science, and in specific biology tells us a fetus is alive, and so are most humans and animals early in their stages as an embryo. They have living tissue, and a fetus has a heartbeat, the brain does function and all organs are alive as well.






edit on 2-12-2021 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join