Is 21 weeks still early enough for an abortion?

ForestBrain

http://www.21stcenturypaladin.com/?p=2163

catch22

that thing ain't human. it looks alien. creepy as hell.

kcherub

My friend's little girl was born at 24 weeks. She had some developmental delays, but is smart as a whip. Miracles happen.

DriftingByTheStorm

ForestBrain wrote:

http://www.21stcenturypaladin.com/?p=2163

life starts at birth.

don't over think it.
:cool:

ForestBrain

I believe life starts at conception. I also believe that people tell themselves it doesn't start until birth because it eases their conscience.

Brain of J.Lo

You know what? If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. It's that simple.

OffHeGoes29

What ever happen to contraceptives? I know there are accidences, but wrap that shit up, take the pill, be responsible. It might not be such a hot button issue if people think about the choices they make before all of this happens.

catch22

ForestBrain wrote:

I believe life starts at conception. I also believe that people tell themselves it doesn't start until birth because it eases their conscience.

not at all. like i said, that thing ain't human. if it was, they'd show more than the feet. but they know people would see the real thing and go "what the fuck is that freaky little blob of jelly out of john carpenter's 'the thing'" and the pro-life movement would be deader than a 6-week fetus born to a liberal democrat.

writersu

I think the general rule for first trimester abortions 12 weeks. After that I believe it is a bit more involved........

wow, though, what the hell are people thinking writing articles like that? it just feeds the crazy people into the whole issue.
and I think like this; when we have made decisions based on what we want as our rights, then fuck it, we are done with that. like ok, so are we going to say stupid shit like, "you know freeing all the black slaves was a crazy ass idea; screw Lincoln; we want are slaves back. all you black people get back here."

that is INSANE!! see? sounds the same to me.......as crazy...

right?

but hell, yeah those feet are alien like. and I don't get why the baby went home; I thought that preemies generally were in the Neonatal ICU to be watched. That baby doesn't look like it would survive long if it didn't. That is weird....I would be scared to take care of the little thing for fear I would miss something big and have it not make it........

idk, people, idk.........

OffHeGoes29

I always thought that this issue was flip flopped.

The left wants to kill babies and stop war

The right want to save babies and wage war

? How does this work ?

Anon

writersu wrote:

but hell, yeah those feet are alien like. and I don't get why the baby went home; I thought that preemies generally were in the Neonatal ICU to be watched. That baby doesn't look like it would survive long if it didn't. That is weird....I would be scared to take care of the little thing for fear I would miss something big and have it not make it........

idk, people, idk.........

There is no way in the world that a baby born at 21 weeks gestation would be going home. The article said she was born at 21 weeks 4 months ago and has now gone home.

Brain of J.Lo

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I always thought that this issue was flip flopped.

The left wants to kill babies and stop war

The right want to save babies and wage war

? How does this work ?

I just loooooove killin' babies!

:rolleyes:

DriftingByTheStorm

writersu wrote:

wow, though, what the hell are people thinking writing articles like that? it just feeds the crazy people into the whole issue.
and I think like this; when we have made decisions based on what we want as our rights, then fuck it, we are done with that. like ok, so are we going to say stupid shit like, "you know freeing all the black slaves was a crazy ass idea; screw Lincoln; we want are slaves back. all you black people get back here."

My opinion,
not indending to pass judgement,
would simply be that slaves (black or otherwise) and the unborn are both classes of people with out the ability to claim "rights".

said wrote:

when we have made decisions based on what we want as our rights, then fuck it

The unintended irony presented in the argument above is that when a woman has an abortion, the decision is based on what she wants as her rights (and certainly in some cases it is a decision she feels shamed or guilted in to making, sheesh). But it certainly isn't a decision made by the developing child.

OffHeGoes29

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I just loooooove killin' babies!

:rolleyes:

I know, its a real hypocrisy isn't it?

Thats why I'm for killing babies and waging war.

OffHeGoes29

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

My opinion,
not indending to pass judgement,
would simply be that slaves (black or otherwise) and the unborn are both classes of people with out the ability to claim "rights".



The unintended irony presented in the argument above is that when a woman has an abortion, the decision is based on what she wants as her rights (and certainly in some cases it is a decision she feels shamed or guilted in to making, sheesh). But it certainly isn't a decision made by the developing child.

Or the father

vduboise

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Or the father

For some, not all, of the women who choose to have abortions, the fathers could give a rats ass. Not saying that there are not potential fathers that would want to take care of the child. But for the most part, a lot of women are on their own. And they have to make the choices that would be best for them.

DriftingByTheStorm

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

I always thought that this issue was flip flopped.

The left wants to kill babies and stop war

The right want to save babies and wage war

? How does this work ?

Yeah, but the social and financial costs saved by killing babies, and preventing war allow the left to pay for their programs to help the disadvantaged and impoverished.

Where as the babies saved ensure that the right has enough cannon fodder to continue the international oppression of the disadvantaged and impoverished thereby providing for the national security and war economy necessary to fuel, expand, and maintain (albeit only temporarily) the "american dream" for not only the elite, but also for the entirety of middle class America (half of which considers itself "left").

So in summary,

Left: Kill babies sooner, save the poor, the disadvantaged, and the infirm.

Right: Send babies to die in far away places to protect the interests of the rich and middle class.



disclaimer:
[just playing devils advocate here people. i don't promote "left\right" dichotomies. they oversimplifiy, divide the people amongst themselves, and distract from more productive analyses. this breakdown is a poor attempt at humor or levity.]

catefrances

still early enough for an abortion?
personally i think its too late for an abortion. but tis not my call to make if im not the one pregnant.

_

ForestBrain wrote:

http://www.21stcenturypaladin.com/?p=2163

To answer your question, 1% of abortions happen at 21 weeks gestation or later. Most of them are wanted pregnancies where it was discovered late that the fetus or mother had a serious medical problem.

People seem to find this case particularly extraordinary because the baby was supposedly born 3 weeks before the 24-week mark. This is the point when fetuses are considered possibly viable and abortions are generally outlawed except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Only 0.08% of abortion happen at this point.

I looked into this a little bit further and found two interesting facts:

1. The claim is not that she was 21 weeks, but that she was 21 weeks and 6 days.

2. She was 21 weeks and 6 days counting from conception, which is not the method by which doctors usually count gestational age. (Apparently they counted it this way because they knew exactly when she conceived because the pregnancy was a result of in vitro fertilization.) Doctors usually count gestational age from the first day of the last menstrual period, which is 2 weeks before conception. This means that when comparing dates for viablity standards, she was 23 weeks and 6 days - only a few hours from being considered possibly viable by the medical community and off limits for abortion by most of the legal community.

I wish her well, but her story isn't that shocking after all.

know1

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

You know what? If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. It's that simple.

Similar to - if you don't want to murder someone, don't do it.

iamica

This is a decision that needs to be made by the pregnant woman, her doctor, and possibly the father (if he's even in the picture). It's nobody else's business, and certainly not the government's.

writersu

Pj_Gurl wrote:

There is no way in the world that a baby born at 21 weeks gestation would be going home. The article said she was born at 21 weeks 4 months ago and has now gone home.

ok, so two things I changed here........

one is that first trimester is not 36 weeks, realized that this am. sorry..

and then I didn't see that she was in the hospital for 4 months.

was the pix from now or before though?

decides2dream

ForestBrain wrote:

I believe life starts at conception. I also believe that people tell themselves it doesn't start until birth because it eases their conscience.

i agree that 'life' begins at conception....just not a thinking and feeling human life. the possibility of becoming a fully formed living human, is not a human life.


my beliefs keep my conscience quite clear, no need to ease it, at all.

scb wrote:

To answer your question, 1% of abortions happen at 21 weeks gestation or later. Most of them are wanted pregnancies where it was discovered late that the fetus or mother had a serious medical problem.

People seem to find this case particularly extraordinary because the baby was supposedly born 3 weeks before the 24-week mark. This is the point when fetuses are considered possibly viable and abortions are generally outlawed except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Only 0.08% of abortion happen at this point.

I looked into this a little bit further and found two interesting facts:

1. The claim is not that she was 21 weeks, but that she was 21 weeks and 6 days.

2. She was 21 weeks and 6 days counting from conception, which is not the method by which doctors usually count gestational age. (Apparently they counted it this way because they knew exactly when she conceived because the pregnancy was a result of in vitro fertilization.) Doctors usually count gestational age from the first day of the last menstrual period, which is 2 weeks before conception. This means that when comparing dates for viablity standards, she was 23 weeks and 6 days - only a few hours from being considered possibly viable by the medical community and off limits for abortion by most of the legal community.

I wish her well, but her story isn't that shocking after all.

way to ruin a sensationalist story. damn facts!


89% of abortions are performed under 12 weeks gestation. beyond that time, it is always a question of extenuating circumstances. usually high medical risk to the mother. it is NOT common, nor easy, to just go and get a later term abortion.


personally, i wish far more were concerned with life that already exists out in the world, caring for and protecting those...rather than focus on the unborn. and i don't simply mean human beings, but even there would be a good start. the whole idea of 'all life is precious'....really only seems to be about human life, and even then...not always treated as 'precious' in any case...so i personally don't subscribe to it. life is life...we are ALL unique, but it truly doesn't make us 'special'.....our own sense of self and self-importance is just that, our own. doesn't make it so in the world.

FrankBauer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

life starts at birth.

don't over think it.
:cool:

damn, sucked into an abortion debate. but am just curious how you think about these different scenarios.

theres no "standard" for when life begins. as the OP was trying to show - viability vs. actual birth, which this distinction is vital to the abortion debate.

so people who strictly adhere to this statement that life begins at birth, how do you see these circumstances? a pregnant woman in her 37th week murdered - never be charged as a double homicide? or if a man punches his pregnant GF in the belly with the intention of killing the fetus, the baby spontaneously aborts, only be charged with assault and battery? or even the ridiculous scenario that was politicized a few weeks ago in this election - an abortion results in a viable baby. you must believe its the doctor's right to do everything they can to save the child?

i really feel that anyone who believes that human life begins at birth is misguided. can you make a case that human life begins at conception? maybe. you could probably do a better job arguing the latter, even though i think its pretty weak too.

catch22 wrote:

not at all. like i said, that thing ain't human. if it was, they'd show more than the feet. but they know people would see the real thing and go "what the fuck is that freaky little blob of jelly out of john carpenter's 'the thing'" and the pro-life movement would be deader than a 6-week fetus born to a liberal democrat.

i disagree. with so much technology now, 3D ultrasounds, our increasing understanding of embryology of developmental biology, its actually shifting this argument to the "right." viability is a big deal in this debate and now we have the equipment to save a baby born at 21 weeks, which is crazy.

if you are afraid of the alien look - have you ever seen a newborn? ugly as hell....or how about down syndrome babies - they are funny looking too. or how about the lady born with half a body (as seen the TLC channel)? all freaky, but human. have you seen a pro-life stand before? they are outside colleges everywhere showing these exact pictures of a baby at 20 weeks (even earlier sometimes). they use these freaky images to support their cause.

vduboise wrote:

For some, not all, of the women who choose to have abortions, the fathers could give a rats ass. Not saying that there are not potential fathers that would want to take care of the child. But for the most part, a lot of women are on their own. And they have to make the choices that would be best for them.

as for the father's role, i always thought this issue is all too often overlooked in the abortion debate. most women aren't on their own. if a woman chooses to have a child (with or without the father's choice in consideration), they are legally bound to help care for the welfare of the child. a father has no rights before the pregnancy, nor does he have much after.

FrankBauer

decides2dream wrote:

i agree that 'life' begins at conception....just not a thinking and feeling human life. the possibility of becoming a fully formed living human, is not a human life.

think you nailed it. i agree with you as well. life begins at conception, human life probably not until the development of the neocortex (which is in the late first trimester). the sanctity of life means very little in our society, the sanctity of human life means a little more.

decides2dream

FrankBauer wrote:

think you nailed it. i agree with you as well. life begins at conception, human life probably not until the development of the neocortex (which is in the late first trimester). the sanctity of life means very little in our society, the sanctity of human life means a little more.

agreed.



honestly, though, i don't quite *get* the whole 'sanctity of life' idea really. i look at the world, i don't see life as sacred, amongst any creatures. i really see no 'purpose' in it either. life IS...and then it isn't...and so it goes. i think sure, once someone/thing IS alive, is a thinking and feeling being.....best to treat that life with respect, but i don't believe in sanctity. we're all living creatures afterall....we all kill things to survive and thrive.....such is life, and death.

eyedclaar

I support post-birth abortions, so I'm probably the wrong one to ask. I mean the first time that little motherfucker talks back to me... oooh, starting over.

writersu

eyedclaar wrote:

I support post-birth abortions, so I'm probably the wrong one to ask. I mean the first time that little motherfucker talks back to me... oooh, starting over.

That is so funny; see, I tell my teenagers that I am going to drop them off at`the fire station.

Remember when someone said that a new mom who didn't want her baby ;(when all the moms that were troubled were leaving them in dumpsters, etc.)
that she could drop the baby off there instead of desperation.....

only my teenagers are too old for that option........

Brain of J.Lo

writersu wrote:

That is so funny; see, I tell my teenagers that I am going to drop them off at`the fire station.

Remember when someone said that a new mom who didn't want her baby ;(when all the moms that were troubled were leaving them in dumpsters, etc.)
that she could drop the baby off there instead of desperation.....

only my teenagers are too old for that option........

I actually heard a story of someone abandoning a teenager and another younger child at a hospital recently. :(

So it's still an option, apparently.

writersu

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

I actually heard a story of someone abandoning a teenager and another younger child at a hospital recently. :(

So it's still an option, apparently.

yeah, I think they start out so darn cute and sweet so they can keep our love later on when they are trying our patience.
my teens are so funny; and at times, they are really out there, trying my patience but I look at their faces and I see these little boys with little faces and voices that played Legos all day and did funny things and I just am in awe of them.

roar

ForestBrain wrote:

I believe life starts at conception. I also believe that people tell themselves it doesn't start until birth because it eases their conscience.

i agree. some do.