1st Women's March January 21, 2017. 3rd Women's March January 19, 2019
Comments
-
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
I have been an RN for a long time. This hasn't changed much. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said that “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” because more than a quarter of such babies survive when treated intensively. The report said nothing helps babies born at less than 22 weeks to survive.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes0 -
Great info, thanks! Technology is constantly evolving, so again viability may change in the future as it that term is solely based on current technology and I feel that technology should be pursued for those who would like the ability to continue with the life of their child if for some reason they are unable to continue carrying them in their uterus.oceaninmyeyes said:
I have been an RN for a long time. This hasn't changed much. A 2014 summary of a workshop that involved the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics said that “in general, those born at 23 weeks of gestation should be considered potentially viable” because more than a quarter of such babies survive when treated intensively. The report said nothing helps babies born at less than 22 weeks to survive.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
0 -
You keep leaving out "with current technology". I do not think that you can have a serious discussion because of your inherent bias against pro life advocates. That and having a later and later non-viable standard supports your bias towards your own abortion ethics.dignin said:
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
What point are you trying to make? You proved you don't know anything about what you are arguing about so now you're trying to move the goal post to hypotheticals and possible future technology.PJPOWER said:
You keep leaving out "with current technology".dignin said:
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
To get back on a more relevant subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEcvteQo9g 0 -
You've chosen to attack because my rhetoric challenges your already preconceived notions...stop replying then to me if you cannot carry on an actual discussion...I'm providing valid arguments and you are not responding to them because you do not have any of your own.dignin said:
What point are you trying to make? You proved you don't know anything about what you are arguing about so now you're trying to move the goal post to hypotheticals and possible future technology.PJPOWER said:
You keep leaving out "with current technology".dignin said:
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.
To get back on a more relevant subjecthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pEcvteQo9g0 -
I don't think dismissal is a very valid form of dialogue. see the exchange above between oceaninmyeyes and pjpower as an example of how things work better around here.dignin said:
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I am %100 comfortable with where I stand. If you haven't noticed a certain poster here is not interested in facts, only maybes and trying to de-legitimize the marches from last weekend....Trumps world now. I'm not interested, and I will call it out when I see it....they will cry victim. If you want to fall for that, go for it.HughFreakingDillon said:
I don't think dismissal is a very valid form of dialogue. see the exchange above between oceaninmyeyes and pjpower as an example of how things work better around here.dignin said:
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.0 -
I'm not falling for anything, but thanks for the concern.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
So questioning things is delegitimization? If anything, the fact that a conversation has been started is legitimation of the marches...right? Unless you have a "agree with me or fuck you" mentality.dignin said:
I am %100 comfortable with where I stand. If you haven't noticed a certain poster here is not interested in facts, only maybes and trying to de-legitimize the marches from last weekend....Trumps world now. I'm not interested, and I will call it out when I see it....they will cry victim. If you want to fall for that, go for it.HughFreakingDillon said:
I don't think dismissal is a very valid form of dialogue. see the exchange above between oceaninmyeyes and pjpower as an example of how things work better around here.dignin said:
I'm being serious here when I say that it's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the basics of when a fetus is viable and when it is not. Technology can only do so much. This is elementary stuff. Were not even getting into quality of life of a child born so young. They may live, but there chances of a healthy life are greatly diminished.PJPOWER said:
Viability is based on technology at the time. If a fetus was able to be medically kept alive outside of a uterus at 8 weeks, viability standards should change. Do we yet have the technology to keep a fetus alive at younger than 20 weeks? If so, and a fetus has a heart still beating once removed from a uterus, would it be considered murder to kill them or let them sit out and die? At that point, it is no longer "my body". All of these things need to be looked into and discussed more without biased judgmental rhetoric.dignin said:
Yes, I'm against the idea. It's not my decision to make, and many women are in a circumstance that I cannot fathom. Not my place to urge anyone to do anything that doesn't affect me.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
We're not deciding anything. We're having a discussion. Most here- including I- are in full support of a woman's choice. We are simply stating we would like that choice exercised earlier than later. 23-24 weeks is being tossed around. How about we discuss 8-12 weeks? This timeline offers goo versus the semblance of an infant- much more palatable.dignin said:23 weeks not viable, 24 weeks possible. Settled in law and science so it sounds about right to me. But carry on men, you decide when is a good time for you to take control over a womans body. I'm not gonna do it.
Are you against the idea regarding urging women moving a little quicker in the gestation period?
That fetus may look viable at 20 weeks, but it's not.0 -
I would prefer to read information from a professional in the field.There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird0 -
-
Never claimed I was. One does not have to read this forum if one chooses not to. What's wrong with opening up more dialogue on the subject?dignin said:0 -
She was still wrong to do that though. Glad Cyndi Lauper called her out for that. Ferrara and Johansson took the high road. Madonna can learn a thing or two.Free said:
What's troubling is your lack of acknowledging your influence.BS44325 said:
Not sure. MSNBC and CNN I believe showed it live but they didn't see it then. Her comments were pretty much covered everywhere and have been all over the internet. I am not sure what point you are trying to prove but I would hope that you would support a women's right to think for herself. It seems that this concept troubles you?Free said:
... and what channel is this?BS44325 said:
I don't think it was the whole clip just the choice words. I guess you can make an argument about context but I don't think Madonna covered herself in glory no matter which way you slice it.HughFreakingDillon said:
I can't watch the video you posted while at work, but was it Madonna talking about blowing up the white house? did they see the FULL clip, where she says "yes, I have thought about it.....but I'm here to promote love...." and the actual message was that love trumps hate. I can see why everyone is jumping all over madonna for those comments, because all they saw was the first part about blowing up the WH.BS44325 said:
That's fair but for the record on this topic I gave them the marchers point of view...I play devils advocate with them all the time just to get them to think. Now certainly I didn't give them the marchers point of view with any level of intensity but I didn't show any disdain for the march either. This came from their own mouths and whether it was absorbed from me or their mother or someone at school is irrelevant...the march did not generate any real empathy in them and in some respects the clips they saw (summed up in the video I posted) pushed them away. The point being that while the march was very impressive in numbers it may not have achieve it's intended goal. It might in fact have done the opposite.tbergs said:
I get your point BS, but you do influence them by how you do or don't answer and discuss topics. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that because we all do it, intentional or not. If you had been supportive of the march from your own perspective you would answer their questions differently and in more detail because you want them to fully understand it, but if you don't agree or aren't quite sure, your answer is more vague and less informative for them to comprehend the reasons.BS44325 said:
Well I haven't said that they are smarter. I only have said that they have a different opinion. A free country allows for that. You claim to be all about hope and optimism and the need for a free media but when it comes to thought you are as facist as they come.Free said:
So you think that they're so much smarter than the marchers, in a different country, under a different rule... but they think the largest protest in US history should give him a chance, an admitted pussy grabber, and so much more. ( just look at what's happened since Friday). Clearly they don't understand. But go ahead, let them judge A huge diverse group of people and while you're at it, I'm sure your influence is there.BS44325 said:
Yes. It started when they saw some women carrying signs in Toronto. They said "why are they marching? They don't live in the states? Who cares?". To which I said "they are showing support for women in the states". To which they said "Trump won and he hasn't even done anything yet...they should give him a chance". I said "they are worried he will take away their right" and they thought that was just ridiculous. I gave them the view point of the marchers and they didn't buy it. Later they saw clips of madonna and ashley judd and they thought they were nuts.HughFreakingDillon said:
you said they were laughing at the marchers.BS44325 said:
They have a mother who competes in crossfit competitions in her spare time. They get plenty of empowerment. Sorry that they find foul-mouthed aging rock stars desparate for relevancy to be lame.Free said:
Way to go lifting them up and empowering them.BS44325 said:
Yes. It brought a tear to my eye. #prouddadFree said:
Your daughters are laughing at marchers and Madonna and rioters? clearly they are not into empowering themselves as women, and making fun of other women, for taking a stand? You must be proud. That mocking and belief of others came from somewhere.BS44325 said:
Why? I don't speak to them the way I write in here. They get a lot more of a progressive spin at school and when we discuss things I don't shoot down anything. We talk about how things are looked at from different angles but I am very careful to not make my preference seem like the right one. In terms of media I mainly have MSNBC on in the house which they don't even pay attention too. My daughters laughing at the march happened completely on their own when we happened to drive past a woman carrying a sign in Toronto. I hadn't to that point discussed the march with them at all. They saw clips of rioters the day before on their own and saw clips of Madonna later in the day. They were not impressed and I had zero to do with it.cottagesteeze said:
That is truly impossible. Not arguing for or against the discussion here, just calling out BS.BS44325 said:
Nope. Completely uncoached. I do not push my point of view on them at all.tbergs said:
Of course they were. You have shaped their viewpoints as a parent. That's what happens. In some cases children can escape the dark cloud of narrow mindedness, but not always.BS44325 said:
My daughters were laughing at the marchers and thought the speakers were insane.Ms. Haiku said:
Those kids would ask about the pink hats, and why you weren't marching.BS44325 said:
https://youtu.be/XaadfwY5bw4
Game, set, and match.
And if the media is highlighting the negative points for Madonna's speech? Rather than the entire speech which was about love? Hmmm0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help