Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 3:21 pm

freeman3 wrote:With regard to the murder of a fetus Calcrim 520 states that a "fetus is an unborn human being that has progressed beyond the embryonic stage after major structures have been outlined, which typically occurs st 7 or 8 weeks after fertilization." So it's not just a clump of cells. There is a further reason to give a fetus more protection with regard to a third-party committing a criminal act against it as opposed to its interests vis-a-vis the mother with regard to abortion: the interests involved are different. With regard to abortion, the rights of the fetus are weighed against that of the mother and once it reaches viability its interests are deemed legally significant enough so that the mother can be constrained from an unfettered right to abortion. There is no weighing of interests with regard to a third-party killing the fetus, so protection at an earlier stage is possible.


This simply is not true. And, the Democratic position is no restriction at anytime for any abortion. There is no "balance."

You seem to be arguing with regard to the examples I set forth with regard to procreation rights that liberals are in favor of such things. If they were, why would they favor a legal interpretation that does not allow for them? So if liberals gain power and pass such laws would conservatives say, well, nothing we can do about it because there is no fundamental procreation rights?


Your scenarios are worthy of dystopian sci-fi novels and not much else. Sorry.

I think we have a fundamental right to make decisions related to reproduction. Apparently, you do not agree or else you would just say you agree instead of trying to blame liberals for actions that are not allowed under the right of privacy interpretation of the Constitution favored by liberals.


"Reproduction" does not include "ending a production."
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 7:21 am

fate
So, it's "settled science?"


The use of the term, trimester in describing the stages of fetal development? yes. Medical science settled on that years ago. SCOTUS wasn't involved.

Each trimester represent a hallmark in fetal development, and a full 38–40 weeks is considered as term birth (on time to allow full development of fetus).
First trimester (0–13 weeks) - baby's organ and body structure start to develop. Most birth defect may occur in this trimester.
Second trimester - baby now has functioning organ! Urine form, baby's sex becomes apparent, skeleton develop, baby begin to hear and fat start to accumulate.
Third trimester - baby eyes start to open, baby practice breathing, baby's eye can start to follow light. Rapid weight gain also occur.


fate
. The science is clear: babies in the womb have their own DNA, and everything else a human being has.

If they had "everything else a human being does", they could survive outside the womb on their own...
And, by the way, a new human genome forms within 12 hous of fertilization. (Its own DNA) BUT....
Of eggs that are available for fertilization, only 35% ever survive to become a 12 week fetus. Only 31% are born.
That means that nature is intervening and ending these pregnancies, despite there being unique DNA... . You call it life if it has unique DNA? If nature (or God?) is eradicating more than two thirds of what it starts with .... its clearly not life. [/u]

Roe V Wade is not about access to abortion, anyway. Its about access to safe abortions. Prior to abortion being legal women still got abortions. The law didn't really stop it happening all that much. But many women, especially poor women, ended up injured or even dead because they sought help from unqualified and unsafe providers.
Putting up laws against abortion has proven ineffective in reducing abortions, but effective in harming women.
The law protects a viable fetus. But so do medical practitioners. It is almost unheard of for an abortion to be done after 24 weeks, because doctors won't do it.
In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 8:26 am

rickyp wrote:fate
So, it's "settled science?"


The use of the term, trimester in describing the stages of fetal development? yes. Medical science settled on that years ago. SCOTUS wasn't involved.


Nice bit of editing. Not!

What I said:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, it's "settled science?"

How does "viability" fit into the trimester system?

How does DNA fit into the trimester system?

The trimester system is a human concoction, not science.

As viability continues to require less time, it renders the trimester system more of a relic.


I asked a series of questions related to my statement. You addressed none of them. How surprising.

In the eighth week, something happens:
. . . beginning at the 8th week of development, an unborn baby that is aborted feels pain during the abortion. The baby feels both psychological and real physical, organic pain. Let that sink in. Of course, whether or not abortion is a painful experience to the unborn child being aborted, the child is left no less dead as a result. In talking about the question of fetal pain, we must remember that it ultimately has no bearing on the morality of abortion.


8th week? Wow, so in the FIRST "trimester" a baby feels pain?

fate
. The science is clear: babies in the womb have their own DNA, and everything else a human being has.

If they had "everything else a human being does", they could survive outside the womb on their own...


Not true. A newborn cannot survive on their own. Are you suggesting it's fine to kill one? How about someone who has been seriously injured (but will recover)? Is it okay to kill them?

And, by the way, a new human genome forms within 12 hous of fertilization. (Its own DNA) BUT....
Of eggs that are available for fertilization, only 35% ever survive to become a 12 week fetus. Only 31% are born.
That means that nature is intervening and ending these pregnancies, despite there being unique DNA... .


Irrelevant. No one is intervening to exterminate that life.

You call it life if it has unique DNA? If nature (or God?) is eradicating more than two thirds of what it starts with .... its clearly not life. [/u]


That isn't an argument, at least not a coherent argument. If a disease kills more than 2/3 of those who get it, were they not "lives" to begin with?

There is a vast difference between "natural causes" and "human intervention."

Roe V Wade is not about access to abortion, anyway. Its about access to safe abortions. Prior to abortion being legal women still got abortions.


Based on that:

1. So, it created a "right" to "safely" end a human life. Brilliant.
2. What percentage of babies who are aborted experience "safety?"
3. It's really "about" being able to escape the consequences of one's actions. (Yes, this is where you get to talk about rape and incest. Go ahead. I'll make two points: 1) none of the babies murdered committed a rape or incest; 2) I'll ask the obvious question: what percentage of abortions are the result of rape or incest?)

The law didn't really stop it happening all that much. But many women, especially poor women, ended up injured or even dead because they sought help from unqualified and unsafe providers.
Putting up laws against abortion has proven ineffective in reducing abortions, but effective in harming women.


Roe is very effective in harming babies. Tens of millions have been "terminated" as a result. That's something liberals should be very proud of. Maybe you should wear a t-shirt or something? You know, "More than a Quarter of a Billion Babies Aborted since 1973. You can thank me and people like me."

The law protects a viable fetus. But so do medical practitioners. It is almost unheard of for an abortion to be done after 24 weeks, because doctors won't do it.
In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year


Even if true, it's a bit shocking that anyone would shrug at more than 1000 viable babies being murdered.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Mar 2017, 9:42 am

Merriam-Webster defines "baby" as being "an extremely young child; especially: infant." So you are misusing the word in an effort to be emotionally inflammatory.

I don't think anyone--least of all women who have aborted babies--would assert that abortion is not a moral issue. Of course it is. But who gets to decide what is moral here? As I have previously argued because pregnancy affects only one sex the issue of abortion is not suited to be decided politically, because political issues in a democracy should be decided by the whole electorate, not a sub-set of the electorate. Therefore, abortion rights should be protected as a fundamental because women are not able to protect their interests when half the electorate does not have personal experience of the issue, of which they do. That is not even considering the long-history of differential political power between men and women. And since women are still not equally represented in the top echelons of politics and government, then it would be a stretch to argue that women have as much power as men, even now.

Secondly, for much of human history most people lived in a fragile state with regard to having enough food, water, etc. Abortion is a modern concern. Do you think humans would have survived if they could not make hard choices about bringing extra mouths into the world that could not be fed? No, every culture if you go back far enough used infanticide or remedies to induce miscarriages. Thus, I think it would not have been evolutionarily adaptive to have women to get too bonded to fetuses or even infants prior to a certain time. Most cultures (maybe every one for all I know) have certain milestone dates for an infant shortly after birth. I just looked at the Korean one and it is a 100 days. Why do you suppose there are such celebrations after birth? Because at that date the child was accepted into the community and no longer subject to infanticide.

The point of this is that over much of human history until very recently infanticide and abortion were used. And, from a evolutionary perspective, those women who had more difficulty getting rid of children probably propagated fewer children than those that were. Which is to say that women have evolved over many eons of human history to make difficult decisions regarding terminating pregnancies to maximize reproductive success.

There are other issues involved here. One is the conservative squeamishness about contraception and sex in general. If you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies you need to make contraception as available as possible and you want discussion regarding sex to be as full and informative as possible. But then conservatives worry about promiscuity. Well, which are you more concerned about--the fetus that you profess to be concerned about or people's sexual decisions?

Finally, there is the whole life begins at conception argument. While people who are against abortion try to make the issue more emotional by describing the fetus's pain, they are also against morning after pills that would eliminate abortion at an extremely early stage. I think most reasonable people are more concerned about the morality of abortion the later the abortion occurs. Unless a person has been indoctrinated into the theory that life begins at conception, they would much prefer an early termination of abortion.

You also indicate that Ricky's point that 2/3 of pregnancies is not relevant because it is not from human agency. It is not an irrelevant point. How would human beings think about abortion if there were an extremely small number of miscarriages before the 12th week? Hmm..I am guessing people would be much more inclined to think that life begins at conception if a pregnancy almost inevitably leads to a birth without human intervention. Conversely, if almost two-thirds of pregnancies terminate naturally at an early stage, it is reasonable to not look at conception as being a unique turning point such that a pregnancy that cannot be altered by human intervention.

As described above, male conservative opponents of abortion are not in a very good position to try and control women's choices about abortion...unless they start doing a lot more to make unwanted pregnancies less likely and favor very early termination of pregnancies. Even then, there is the problem that men don't personally experience pregnancy so how they can fairly decide this issue? It is hard not to think there is something else going on here with the conservative obsession with this issue.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 11:43 am

fate
8th week? Wow, so in the FIRST "trimester" a baby feels pain?


No.

Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said it considers the case to be closed as to whether a fetus can feel pain at that stage in development.
"The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy.
What we can say about the fetal nervous system is that based on the best science we have" on the neurons that carry pain signals is that the "system isn't developed until the third trimester of pregnancy," Davis told Live Science.
Scientists' knowledge of the fetal nervous system was summed up in a 2005 review in the journal JAMA. The authors of that review outlined in detail the evidence on how this system develops, based on a number of previous studies on the anatomy of the fetus at various stages of development.
Davis, who was not involved with that review, noted that though it was published in 2005, the research is still valid, because the scientific community's understanding of fetal development is "pretty much stable." Indeed, since the publication of the review, "no research has contradicted its findings," said a recent statement from ACOG.


fate
What I said:


Was this.
No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system

At least what I originally responded to...
You are trying to state that Scotus "Created" science. And that's bull.
They recognized science with their decision. That's all. The rest of your comments after that just confirm your misconceptions.

Fate
Not true. A newborn cannot survive on their own.


Of course a newborn can survive on its own if carried to full term. Once out of the womb, They breathe. They cry.
Can they continue to survive without care? No.
But that's different then a fetus that is removed from the womb at only 20 weeks. As soon as they leave the womb they are no longer potential life, or life. No matter what care you give them ....

Fate
Roe is very effective in harming babies

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus that has not developed to at least 26 or 27 weeks cannot be born and survive. In fact, as the numbers show, 2/3 of what you seem to consider "babies" are naturally aborted before 24 weeks....
How do you explain nature doing that Fate? WHy is nature killing all these babies then?

Fate
Even if true, it's a bit shocking that anyone would shrug at more than 1000 viable babies being murdered.

Most late term abortions are done because the fetus is non-viable.... Dead, that is.... My daughter, who studies fetal medicine, tells me that there are only a couple of doctors in North America who would even consider aborting a viable fetus after 24 weeks...

Fate
Irrelevant. No one is intervening to exterminate that life
.
What do you think this is?
Birth control you can use to prevent pregnancy up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected sex Two kinds of emergency contraception — morning-after pill and ParaGard (copper) IUD insertion
-
Did you not get sex education at school?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Mar 2017, 1:23 pm

In looking at my post again I realize that my point that it makes sense to believe that women evolved over millions of years of hominid evolution to make correct decisions about when to keep or not keep fetuses/babies was incomplete. What I would add is that fundamental rights should include things that are intrinsic to being a human being. I am a vegetarian--I know, I know a liberal vegetarian, what a cliche--and if I were king of Veggieville and announced that no meat would be allowed, I would expect that meat eaters would make the argument that they have a fundamental right to eat meat because eating meat is an evolutionary adaptation of human beings. Eating meat, it could be argued, is intrinsic to being human and no government should intrude on something that is intrinsic to being human.

As Ricky notes even when abortion is illegal at least some women will try to get them. If this is driven by hard-wired impulses derived from eons of human evolution, then that is another argument for granting women a fundamental right in this area.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 1:57 pm

freeman3 wrote:In looking at my post again I realize that my point that it makes sense to believe that women evolved over millions of years of hominid evolution to make correct decisions about when to keep or not keep fetuses/babies was incomplete. What I would add is that fundamental rights should include things that are intrinsic to being a human being. I am a vegetarian--I know, I know a liberal vegetarian, what a cliche--and if I were king of Veggieville and announced that no meat would be allowed, I would expect that meat eaters would make the argument that they have a fundamental right to eat meat because eating meat is an evolutionary adaptation of human beings. Eating meat, it could be argued, is intrinsic to being human and no government should intrude on something that is intrinsic to being human.

As Ricky notes even when abortion is illegal at least some women will try to get them. If this is driven by hard-wired impulses derived from eons of human evolution, then that is another argument for granting women a fundamental right in this area.


I'm not really following your drift. hominids also murdered and practiced genocide and cannibalism, and slavery and rape, and female mutilation ...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 2:02 pm

freeman3 wrote:Merriam-Webster defines "baby" as being "an extremely young child; especially: infant." So you are misusing the word in an effort to be emotionally inflammatory.


Nope.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE goes to the doctor for an "embryo check-up" or a "fetus checkup."

I don't think anyone--least of all women who have aborted babies--would assert that abortion is not a moral issue. Of course it is. But who gets to decide what is moral here? As I have previously argued because pregnancy affects only one sex the issue of abortion is not suited to be decided politically, because political issues in a democracy should be decided by the whole electorate, not a sub-set of the electorate. Therefore, abortion rights should be protected as a fundamental because women are not able to protect their interests when half the electorate does not have personal experience of the issue, of which they do.


Following that logic, men should write the laws on child support with virtually no input from women. After all, what are the stats? 95/5%?

A man should have zero say? Interesting. Then, under your theory, it seems reasonable he should be able to "opt out" of child support. "Your choice, your baby. Have a nice life."

That is not even considering the long-history of differential political power between men and women. And since women are still not equally represented in the top echelons of politics and government, then it would be a stretch to argue that women have as much power as men, even now.


Sure, after all, Hillary lost.

The rest of your argument holds water like a sieve.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 2:19 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
8th week? Wow, so in the FIRST "trimester" a baby feels pain?


No.


Really? Did you watch the video?

Have you ever watched a video of an abortion? I'll answer for you, "No. It's too barbaric."

Go ahead! Watch one! If it's such a "painless procedure."

fate
What I said:


Was this.
No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system

At least what I originally responded to...


Because you EDITED WHAT I SAID, YOU DISHONEST PERSON!!!! Cutting off the context lessened my meaning, which you then tried to obfuscate.

You are trying to state that Scotus "Created" science. And that's bull.
They recognized science with their decision. That's all. The rest of your comments after that just confirm your misconceptions.


Even taking what you said as fact, which I don't, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE SUPREME COURT GETS TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LAW.

Fate
Not true. A newborn cannot survive on their own.


Of course a newborn can survive on its own if carried to full term. Once out of the womb, They breathe. They cry.
Can they continue to survive without care? No.
But that's different then a fetus that is removed from the womb at only 20 weeks. As soon as they leave the womb they are no longer potential life, or life. No matter what care you give them ....


Which is before the second trimester is over. So, would you concede that second trimester abortions can be problematic? Why won't Democrats vote to ban abortions after 20 weeks unless the mother's physical health is imperiled?

And, as science/medicine continues to improve "viability" is a changing term.

Fate
Roe is very effective in harming babies

A fetus is not a baby.


Sure it is.

Imagine you had children. Now, imagine your wife/girlfriend loses a baby at 26 or 27 weeks. How do you (and she) respond? With a shrug?

Not if you're a human being.

In fact, as the numbers show, 2/3 of what you seem to consider "babies" are naturally aborted before 24 weeks....
How do you explain nature doing that Fate? WHy is nature killing all these babies then?


There are theological reasons. Medically, there are many potential reasons. However, they are babies whether you like it or not.

Here's another scenario: imagine your girlfriend/wife is 6 months pregnant. The Commies take over and forcibly abort your baby.

Do you shrug?

Was it only a "fetus?

Not if you're a human being.

Fate
Even if true, it's a bit shocking that anyone would shrug at more than 1000 viable babies being murdered.

Most late term abortions are done because the fetus is non-viable.... Dead, that is.... My daughter, who studies fetal medicine, tells me that there are only a couple of doctors in North America who would even consider aborting a viable fetus after 24 weeks...


They sure kill a lot of babies.

Did you not get sex education at school?


Yes, and I also learned to value life. You never have. That is a shame to you, your education, and your family.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 2:24 pm

freeman3 wrote:In looking at my post again I realize that my point that it makes sense to believe that women evolved over millions of years of hominid evolution to make correct decisions about when to keep or not keep fetuses/babies was incomplete.


Right. Every abortion is made by a woman under no pressure in ideal circumstances with complete, infallible logic.

Stop dragging your evolutionary religion into it.

And, spare me the "it's not religion" riposte. After all, when you theorize about making correct decisions concerning abortion being related to abortion, I have to call "bunk." You have no evidence and could produce none. It is a corollary of your absolute faith that everything derives from evolution.

As Ricky notes even when abortion is illegal at least some women will try to get them. If this is driven by hard-wired impulses derived from eons of human evolution, then that is another argument for granting women a fundamental right in this area.


Prove it in a court. Good luck.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Mar 2017, 3:03 pm

I would not expect an argument based on evolution to convince someone who does not believe in evolution...or global warming...or carbon dating. How old is the earth?

Yeah, I don't suppose pregnant women call their baby a fetus. You know what, I won't quibble over this.

And it's the women body that's why she gets to make the decisions regarding abortion. They pay a heavy price for the privilege. Financial obligations are not nearly on the same level as that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Mar 2017, 3:31 pm

freeman3 wrote:Financial obligations are not nearly on the same level as that.


You should talk to some men at Family Court.

I know a guy whose wife is remarried. They have two kids. Her combined income is 5x his. He pays thousands a month to her in child support.

But, I digress.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Mar 2017, 6:40 am

fate
No one, I repeat, NO ONE goes to the doctor for an "embryo check-up" or a "fetus checkup
."
No. Its called prenatal check up. adjective
before birth; during or relating to pregnancy.

fate
Really? Did you watch the video?

I provided you the opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) who said it considers the case to be closed as to whether a fetus can feel pain at that stage in development.
I consider them to be authorities. Why do you think they aren't authorities?

fate
Because you EDITED WHAT I SAID, YOU DISHONEST PERSON!!!! Cutting off the context lessened my meaning, which you then tried to obfuscate

BS. You said the "trimester system" was unscientific.See....
Did Roe "slow(ly) change" law re abortion? No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system


fate
Even taking what you said as fact, which I don't, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE SUPREME
COURT GETS TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LAW

Well, they got to make the decision about Roe v Wade. and they can bring anything they want into their deliberations, as they are private.
“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.
“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked. “That’s the law of the land,” Gorsuch answered. “I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.”


fate
And, as science/medicine continues to improve "viability" is a changing term.

Perhaps. Estimates of when conception occurs for any pregnancy are also often uncertain so exceptional stories of surviving fetus from less than 27 weeks are also subject to that uncertainty...

I don't think that abortion is a good thing fate. I'd prefer they didn't happen, because I'm not 100% certain about when life starts. But I'm not arrogant enough to think I have the right to take a personal decision away from any woman based on my very limited doubt. Nor do I think you or others who are as certain as you, should take that personal decision from women either. especially because the reason for your certainty is dependent on poor information and pure emotion.

Personally, I'd prefer that every pregnancy were planned or at least wanted. For that reason I believe sex education should be taught comprehensively before puberty .... and that all young people, and especially women have access to free birth control methods and counselling .

fate
There are theological reasons. Medically, there are many potential reasons. However, they are babies whether you like it or not
.

They are not babies. Which they have to be for your argument to have any legs.
When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists decides they should be called babies I'll concede to you. Until that time, stop with your "alternative facts."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Mar 2017, 8:51 am

rickyp wrote:fate
No one, I repeat, NO ONE goes to the doctor for an "embryo check-up" or a "fetus checkup
."
No. Its called prenatal check up. adjective
before birth; during or relating to pregnancy.


No. Wrong.

From the perspective of the parents, do they go to "prenatal check-ups?"

No. That's what the medical office calls them.

Or, maybe a complete jackass who wants to upset his wife would call them that.

fate
Really? Did you watch the video?

I provided you the opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) who said it considers the case to be closed as to whether a fetus can feel pain at that stage in development.


In other words, you want to remain ignorant of how babies inside the womb respond to pain.


Because you EDITED WHAT I SAID, YOU DISHONEST PERSON!!!! Cutting off the context lessened my meaning, which you then tried to obfuscate

BS. You said the "trimester system" was unscientific.See....


Well, let me be plain: YOU ARE A LIAR. Liars lie. They distort. They intentionally misrepresent what other people write and say. That's what you've done even after I SHOWED YOU WHAT YOU DID.

Well, they got to make the decision about Roe v Wade. and they can bring anything they want into their deliberations, as they are private.


Thus displaying your ignorance of what they are to do.

I don't think that abortion is a good thing fate.


Yes you do.

Personally, I'd prefer that every pregnancy were planned or at least wanted. For that reason I believe sex education should be taught comprehensively before puberty .... and that all young people, and especially women have access to free birth control methods and counselling .


People who know virtually everything about sex have abortions. Some have multiple abortions. If they were ignorant the first time, they certainly are not on subsequent occasions.

They are not babies. Which they have to be for your argument to have any legs.


Why are you bringing up the sale of body parts?

When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists decides they should be called babies I'll concede to you. Until that time, stop with your "alternative facts."


Sorry, but they are hardly apolitical--or all-knowing.

It's so simple that even you can understand it: barring a violent intervention, that human being in the womb is going to be a human being in the world.

Anyway, I'm done. You're just being dishonest and foolish.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 02 Apr 2017, 1:10 pm

fate
No. Wrong.
From the perspective of the parents, do they go to "prenatal check-ups?
"
Yes.
I know you call your self Doctor fate, but really... You are demonstrating your ignorance.
Here's what you get when you google "pre-natal check up".

Prenatal care: Health care that a pregnant woman receives from an obstetrician or a midwife. Services needed include dietary and lifestyle advice, weighing to ensure proper weight gain, and examination for problems of pregnancy such as edema and preeclampsia.


http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=11898

Prenatal Care
Women who suspect they may be pregnant should schedule a visit to their health care provider to begin prenatal care. Prenatal visits to a health care provider include a physical exam, weight checks, and providing a urine sample. Depending on the stage of the pregnancy, health care providers may also do blood tests and imaging tests, such as ultrasound exams. These visits also include discussions about the mother's health, the infant's health, and any questions about the pregnancy.

Preconception and prenatal care can help prevent complications and inform women about important steps they can take to protect their infant and ensure a healthy pregnancy
.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics ... -care.aspx

Prenatal care, also known as antenatal care is a type of preventive healthcare with the goal of providing regular check-ups that allow doctors or midwives to treat and prevent potential health problems throughout the course of the pregnancy while promoting healthy lifestyles that benefit both mother and child.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_care

Here's what you get when you google "baby check up."

https://www.thebump.com/a/new-baby-doct ... -checklist

Notice the difference?

Ricky
When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists decides they should be called babies I'll concede to you. Until that time, stop with your "alternative facts
."

Fate
Sorry, but they are hardly apolitical--or all-knowing

Well, as an authority on their field I'll take them over you.