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.

 

Democrat lawmaker says aborted fetal remains do not deserve a respectful burial

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There is no research to support the claim that fetuses experience pain at 20 weeks.

Zero, none, nada.

Quite correct. I actually don't understand why pain would even matter. I can't kill my neighbor if I do it painlessly. It's a red herring either way in my opinion. It's an argument designed to elicit an emotional response, which makes it a terrible argument.


100%




posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Past 20 weeks abortion and inducing birth are very similar procedures/risks.
I think you might be surprised just how many people think late term abortions are fine. There was a push earlier this year to make elective abortion legal until birth.

As shocking as it may be, 20-25% of the country believes elective abortion is acceptable right until birth. Their push to make elective abortions legal until birth caused a temporary shift making the country more pro-life than pro-choice earlier this year.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Past 20 weeks abortion and inducing birth are very similar procedures/risks.
I think you might be surprised just how many people think late term abortions are fine. There was a push earlier this year to make elective abortion legal until birth.

As shocking as it may be, 20-25% of the country believes elective abortion is acceptable right until birth. Their push to make elective abortions legal until birth caused a temporary shift making the country more pro-life than pro-choice earlier this year.


Again, I very much doubt that a majority of Americans think that late-term abortion is "fine." The phrasing in most polls that I've seen is along the lines of "legal under any circumstances." ETA: I might interpret that to mean that 25% of people believe that the procedure should be AVAILABLE up to 40 weeks, but certainly not preferable. Perhaps my belief is colored by my own horror at the thought of a late term abortion for any reason (even if I could understand that such was necessary). Whichever it is (and really not important to the discussion overall) it is certain that there are literally a handful of clinics nationwide that would do a third trimester abortion. I've only found one.

I think it would be fair to point out that any change in the pro-choice/pro-life percentages more than likely have to do with President Trump's horrifying appeal to emotion in his State of the Union.

In all significant ways, he lied in what he said.
edit on 2-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wish everyone was as reasonable as you. Medical necessity is not the driving force of late term abortions. It simply isn't.

A 2013 study published by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute found that fetal anomaly was not one of the primary drivers of late-term abortion. Rather, late-term abortions are usually of entirely healthy pregnancies where the woman was either unable to receive an earlier abortion (often due to a failure to recognize the pregnancy or a logistical delay) or changed her mind about keeping the child


The abortion of a perfectly healthy child over 20 weeks into development is more common than gun homicide.

www.thecrimson.com...


About 66 percent of adults said abortion should be banned after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, while 18 percent said abortion should be allowed any time until birth. Five percent said abortion should be banned altogether.

www.americamagazine.org...

You can notice when the mother's life is involved 66% think abortion should be allowed. 18% think it should be allowed for any reason until birth. Let that sink in. Only 5% think it should be banned altogether. That means almost 4x as many people think a 40 week old should be allowed to be killed for any reason than think a 5 week old should be killed to save a mother's life. I think both of those extremes are simply crazy .. but the extreme for allowing any abortion any time for any reason is FAR more likely to be held.

Almost half of all abortions done do not include data on gestational age. So the 1% figure is meaningless really, the actual number could be vastly higher.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: The2Billies

A miscarriage at 20 weeks is not an early miscarriage though.
But tell us, where should women send their bloody panties and used tampons to ensure that the bloody mess doesnt deserve a respectful disposal? Will we see a bunch of companies popping up to fulfill this need? How much will it cost the average women over her lifetime do you reckon?

Or heck, how about you just answer this one..
Why are you trying to pretend that the dem in the op was talking about late term abortions when it's pretty clear she is talking about miscarriages in the very early stages of the pregnancy?



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The article cited from the Harvard Crimson is an anti-abortion opinion piece.

Here's a link to the actual Guttmacher 2013 Study.



As part of a larger study, 272 women who received an abortion at or after 20 weeks’ gestation and 169 who received first-trimester abortions at 16 facilities across the country in 2008–2010 were interviewed one week after the procedure.


The claim that this study says anything more significant about abortion trends overall is simply untrue.

Also:



DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Guttmacher Institute.


All due respect, we may have gotten to the non-rational part of the discussion.

These two sources provided by you are not medically sound in their claims and the polling findings are ... different than your claims.
edit on 2-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

You mean it can't be both??



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't know what you are reading. Nowhere in there is medical necessity.


Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.


Guttmacher is a liberal leaning institute.


However, while the occasional politician or news reporter will still indicate that late-term abortions are most often performed in the case of “severe fetal anomalies” or to “save the woman’s life,” the trajectory of the peer-reviewed research literature has been obvious for decades: most late-term abortions are elective, done on healthy women with healthy fetuses, and for the same reasons given by women experiencing first trimester abortions.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The research is clear on the matter. Late term abortions are done for convenience and are usually not medically necessary.
edit on 2-11-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And. You are absolutely sure about that? There could never, ever be a case where the mothers health is so compromised that neither a csection or a natural birth is an option?
While I doubt that there are many cases like that, I've kind of learned to never say something is an impossibility...



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's a study of 272 women.

The Guttmacher Institute did NOT conduct the research and shame on you for trying to cast it as "liberal leaning" which is an appeal to emotion and irrelevant in terms of the data.

This "study" cited is anecdotal.

And the second "source" you link here is a single author work sponsored by a fetal rights think tank (Lozier Institute) which is in turn sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List, which is an organization whose stated goals are to end abortion.

Come on Occams you were doing so well ....



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And. You are absolutely sure about that? There could never, ever be a case where the mothers health is so compromised that neither a csection or a natural birth is an option?
While I doubt that there are many cases like that, I've kind of learned to never say something is an impossibility...


No, they're not sure about that. We have entered the appeal to emotion with fallacious sources part of the program.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Here's the mislabelled "2013 Guttmacher Study" Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?

From that publication (it's not really a study)



Indeed, we know very little about women who seek later abortions. Random samples of abortion clients capture few women at gestations past the middle of the second trimester. For this reason, the most commonly cited research on post–first‐trimester abortion focuses primarily on women in the early second trimester.


More importantly:



The average gestation at time of abortion was 22 weeks among the later abortion group and eight weeks among the first‐trimester group.


The study is being misrepresented. Here's the absolute killer fact to this line of argument:



Our study has several important limitations. Our data are limited by the exclusion of women who sought later abortions on grounds of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.


The "study" eliminated the vast majority of women who had abortions late term because of fetal anomaly or endangerment to the life of the mother.

Jesus Christ why must people misrepresent the facts so overtly.

edit on 2-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Why does every discussion always end up centering on that small percentage that are late term?
There are probably more women having miscarriages without ever knowing they were pregnant than there are late term abortions.
And no, women shouldn't be having to wonder every month if the discharge deserves some kind of ritualistic disposal. That would be too depressing for too many women.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you, I was wondering if it was that study popping back in again...



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
Why does every discussion always end up centering on that small percentage that are late term?
There are probably more women having miscarriages without ever knowing they were pregnant than there are late term abortions.
And no, women shouldn't be having to wonder every month if the discharge deserves some kind of ritualistic disposal. That would be too depressing for too many women.


Because medical science does not back up the sensationalist claims that "the movement" thrives on.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you, I was wondering if it was that study popping back in again...


Yep 272 women were studied who had not had abortions for fetal anomaly or to preserve their own health.

That data is then used to argue that most women do not have abortions late term because of fetal anomaly et. al.

Here's the real kicker that should be brought up in EVERY discussion of this type.

Almost every anti-abortion activist will allow for the possibility that there are some occasions that late term abortion is necessary.

However, remember, that all anti-abortion activists INSIST that fetuses are human beings. They are children in their terms.

Therefore, as opposed to you or me or someone who accepts medical science ... these people justify MURDERING babies "occasionally" if they think it's right.

Want to talk about psychopaths??? There it is.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And. You are absolutely sure about that? There could never, ever be a case where the mothers health is so compromised that neither a csection or a natural birth is an option?
While I doubt that there are many cases like that, I've kind of learned to never say something is an impossibility...

How are they going to remove a 30 week fetus other than birth or C-section? They are going to either do a C-section removal or a dilation extraction where they dilate the cervix and induce. They will usually have to turn the baby into a breech position and pull it out feet first. They will then puncture the fetus' head and suction out the contents, collapsing the skull and pulling it out. It carries all the same risks of a natural birth.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The Guttmacher Institute did NOT conduct the research and shame on you for trying to cast it as "liberal leaning" which is an appeal to emotion and irrelevant in terms of the data.

There is no shame, they are known for their reproductive rights stance. There is no appeal to emotion.

You are welcome to show me the research showing these abortions are almost all medically necessary. I have linked several sources, you just don't want to believe them.



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How many abortions are at week 30 or later?



posted on Nov, 2 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The Guttmacher Institute did NOT conduct the research and shame on you for trying to cast it as "liberal leaning" which is an appeal to emotion and irrelevant in terms of the data.

There is no shame, they are known for their reproductive rights stance. There is no appeal to emotion.

You are welcome to show me the research showing these abortions are almost all medically necessary. I have linked several sources, you just don't want to believe them.


Now you're dealing dishonestly and I'm getting bored. When you have some actual evidence that supports your absurd claim that most late-term abortions are not due to fetal abnormality or the mother's health, let me know.

Your claim, the burden of proof is on you. I've demonstrated CLEARLY that your sources are biased and non-scientific.
edit on 2-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join