Question for all you Pro Life people

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 12:05 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Just wondering how many years in jail you would give this poor woman.  Glad the law is so well thought out.

I wouldn't give her any years. But I'm flattered you continue to make me the focus. 

I must mean a lot to you. 

[Vas Deferens]

(05-21-2019, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I wouldn't give her any years. But I'm flattered you continue to make me the focus. 

I must mean a lot to you. 

All Lives Matter

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2019, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It means a pregnancy cannot be terminated after 6 weeks and they use the same definition doctors do. The heart starts to beat during week 5. So I assume week 6 guideline is used to cover those that became pregnant late in the week. 

Are you using gestational age or fetal age?  Because there are two ways of measuring.

Let me guess; I'm trying to hard again by posting facts?

I would say it would depend upon what language was used in the bill.  I would bet the author(s) of the bill doesn't(don't) even know the difference between gestational age and fetal age.  I would also bet the method used to measure the age probably varies from state to state.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2019, 10:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I have a relatively unrelated question for pro-life people.

When they say a pregnancy cannot be terminated after it reaches 6 weeks, what does that mean?

Because my wife recently had a miscarriage. Our doctor said it was a miscarriage at 7 weeks. We were surprised that he said that because we had only known about it for a little over 2 weeks.

According to the doctor, they track the number of weeks based on your last period. For example, let's say a woman's last period started on April 20th and ended on April 26th. And it is now ~May 19th and her period did not occur on schedule.

Not all women are on an exact 28 day schedule, and stress or other factors can make a period a week late or maybe even later.

It's now May 28th. Her period has now been delayed by a week and a half and she is getting nervous. She takes a pregnancy test and finds out she's pregnant.

By a doctor's definition, to my understanding based on what this doctor told us, she is 5 and a half weeks pregnant. Is it a pro-life person's stance that she now has 3 days to get an abortion, otherwise she is now obligated, by proposed law, to carry that pregnancy to term?

Or does the 6 week bill follow a different timeline than doctors typically do?

People react to miscarriage differently.  But, I hope you and your wife are well.

https://reference.medscape.com/article/266317-overview#showall

Quote:The overall miscarriage rate is reported as 15-20%, which means 15-20% of recognized pregnancies result in miscarriage.

What you described is in many cases a miscarriage of a pregnancy so early it isn't recognized as a pregnancy which is why the true rate is actually greater than the reported rate.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-20-2019, 11:45 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I heard an interview the other day where an AL rep essentially said he was absolutely sure a doc could tell the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.  Guess what?   Not so easy.  

Hearing some home schooled southern christian talking about his knowledge of biology which he’s been told to specifically resist (evolution); quite telling.

The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion so looks like God is going to be serving a lot of time in jail in Alabama since he planned all of them.  Talk about your planned parenthood.

[CJD]

(05-21-2019, 02:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: People react to miscarriage differently.  But, I hope you and your wife are well.

https://reference.medscape.com/article/266317-overview#showall


What you described is in many cases a miscarriage of a pregnancy so early it isn't recognized as a pregnancy which is why the true rate is actually greater than the reported rate.

It was a set back, for sure. 

But my primary point was I have my doubts that the people drafting these bills actually have an understanding of the timeline for pregnancies. Saying you're 6 weeks pregnant does not mean the fetus has existed for 6 weeks. It's basically just a best guess because there's no way to pinpoint the date between the two period dates that the fertilization occurred.

Calling a 6 week pregnancy 6 weeks is merely a formality. My wife and I were tracking her ovulation cycle, so we have a pretty good idea (within a week) or when we believe fertilization occurred, but measured from that point she was probably only about 3 to 4 weeks pregnant when the miscarriage occurred. And we didn't even schedule a doctor's appointment until the 8th week mark because the doctor told us that they likely wouldn't even be able to find the heart beat until then.

So this whole 6 weeks = heart beat thing is not clear to me. Is that based on fetal age or gestational age? From my (brief) experience with it, it seems like the heart beat begins, at best, at 6 weeks fetal age. But the bill appears to be based on 6 weeks gestational age.

There are some Republicans who say that the 6 week time frame is more than enough time to get an abortion from the time the woman finds out to the 6 week mark. But even when we were trying, my wife and I only really found out around 5 weeks. If we weren't trying, my wife could have easily thought her period was just late that month, for whatever reason. 

For women not trying to get pregnant, 6 weeks seems like they have virtually no room for error. So the day after a missed period, they need to go get a pregnancy test and schedule that abortion, or else they're trapped for 40 weeks...

This just doesn't seem practical to me and it reeks of bad intentions. 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the bill.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-21-2019, 02:11 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion so looks like God is going to be serving a lot of time in jail in Alabama since he planned all of them.  Talk about your planned parenthood.

Wait, Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t really think all life is precious?

There couldn’t possibly be some other determining factors other than sheer faith involved, right?

How come that lady who preyed the tornado away doesn’t just put her index fingers on her temples and make the abortion man go away?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-21-2019, 07:45 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It was a set back, for sure. 

But my primary point was I have my doubts that the people drafting these bills actually have an understanding of the timeline for pregnancies. Saying you're 6 weeks pregnant does not mean the fetus has existed for 6 weeks. It's basically just a best guess because there's no way to pinpoint the date between the two period dates that the fertilization occurred.

Calling a 6 week pregnancy 6 weeks is merely a formality. My wife and I were tracking her ovulation cycle, so we have a pretty good idea (within a week) or when we believe fertilization occurred, but measured from that point she was probably only about 3 to 4 weeks pregnant when the miscarriage occurred. And we didn't even schedule a doctor's appointment until the 8th week mark because the doctor told us that they likely wouldn't even be able to find the heart beat until then.

So this whole 6 weeks = heart beat thing is not clear to me. Is that based on fetal age or gestational age? From my (brief) experience with it, it seems like the heart beat begins, at best, at 6 weeks fetal age. But the bill appears to be based on 6 weeks gestational age.

There are some Republicans who say that the 6 week time frame is more than enough time to get an abortion from the time the woman finds out to the 6 week mark. But even when we were trying, my wife and I only really found out around 5 weeks. If we weren't trying, my wife could have easily thought her period was just late that month, for whatever reason. 

For women not trying to get pregnant, 6 weeks seems like they have virtually no room for error. So the day after a missed period, they need to go get a pregnancy test and schedule that abortion, or else they're trapped for 40 weeks...

This just doesn't seem practical to me and it reeks of bad intentions. 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the bill.

The intent of these bills is to make it before the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[GMDino]

(05-21-2019, 07:45 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It was a set back, for sure. 

But my primary point was I have my doubts that the people drafting these bills actually have an understanding of the timeline for pregnancies. Saying you're 6 weeks pregnant does not mean the fetus has existed for 6 weeks. It's basically just a best guess because there's no way to pinpoint the date between the two period dates that the fertilization occurred.

Calling a 6 week pregnancy 6 weeks is merely a formality. My wife and I were tracking her ovulation cycle, so we have a pretty good idea (within a week) or when we believe fertilization occurred, but measured from that point she was probably only about 3 to 4 weeks pregnant when the miscarriage occurred. And we didn't even schedule a doctor's appointment until the 8th week mark because the doctor told us that they likely wouldn't even be able to find the heart beat until then.

So this whole 6 weeks = heart beat thing is not clear to me. Is that based on fetal age or gestational age? From my (brief) experience with it, it seems like the heart beat begins, at best, at 6 weeks fetal age. But the bill appears to be based on 6 weeks gestational age.

There are some Republicans who say that the 6 week time frame is more than enough time to get an abortion from the time the woman finds out to the 6 week mark. But even when we were trying, my wife and I only really found out around 5 weeks. If we weren't trying, my wife could have easily thought her period was just late that month, for whatever reason. 

For women not trying to get pregnant, 6 weeks seems like they have virtually no room for error. So the day after a missed period, they need to go get a pregnancy test and schedule that abortion, or else they're trapped for 40 weeks...

This just doesn't seem practical to me and it reeks of bad intentions. 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the bill.

There is no "heartbeat" as there is no "heart"...at least not at 5 weeks.  Or 6.  Or (maybe) 19.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=167987

Quote:Human fetuses have a regular heartbeat beginning at about 22 days of pregnancy, which is one reason why the researchers were surprised to find that there is little organization of human heart cells until 20 weeks of pregnancy.


"For a heart to be beating effectively, we thought you needed a smoothly changing orientation of the muscle cells through the walls of the heart chambers. Such an organization is seen in the hearts of all healthy adult mammals," Dr. Eleftheria Pervolaraki, a visiting research fellow at the University of Leeds' School of Biomedical Sciences, said in a university news release.



"Fetal hearts in other mammals such as pigs, which we have been using as models, show such an organization even early in gestation, with a smooth change in cell orientation going through the heart wall. But what we actually found is that such organization was not detectable in the human fetus before 20 weeks," she explained.

Again, not a vote FOR abortions, but if we are going to discuss it at least we should be honest.

At 6 weeks there is no heart, no brain, no organs...there is the soup of cells that will become all that.  Hopefully.

And, again, I don't believe any of the people who write and vote for bills like the ones in question know or care.  They want votes and to please their sky daddy.  No matter what else they do in their private lives they have to pretend they are "good christians" in public.

[Vas Deferens]

how do we punish the morbidly overweight constituents of AL who are slowly aborting themselves.

Flying Spaghetti Monster says all life is precious.

[Benton]

As a friendly reminder, don't let things get personal. If you can't discuss the issue instead of other posters, pick one of the other topics to post on.

[GMDino]

(05-21-2019, 10:44 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: how do we punish the morbidly overweight constituents of AL who are slowly aborting themselves.  

Flying Spaghetti Monster says all life is precious.

Ramen.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-21-2019, 01:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ramen.

seitan ramen

[CJD]

I personally think Religion is a bad basis for modern laws, mainly because so much of society has changed in the last ~2000+ years and the way they treated people, especially women, back then shouldn't even be referenced in regards to today, let alone be used as a model.

But you can't really change the mind of a religious person by telling them that, so I try to find a common ground that both parties can relate to. It's hard though. Religion, by its very nature, is a character defining trait in any person who believes in it, so trying to explain to them why something that they base their lives off of may not be the best and most applicable thing to a situation that has real life day to day consequences on women in today's world almost invariably comes off as an attack on them as a person.

Makes for really difficult debate. You can't really prove or disprove religious beliefs, after all. They are based on faith, not logic or reason.

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2019, 08:04 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: First off, I made no reference to the passage and it was all about the picture.

However, the New Testament wasn't meant to correct everything from the OT, so how does this argue against the point of this thread:

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;


    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.


Answer:  It doesn't, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Two points.

First, I did not know you believed your soul is created in the depths of the earth.  That is very Wiccan of you.

Second, Even God agrees that the book of "Days ordained for me" does not start before the baby is born.

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 04:03 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I personally think Religion is a bad basis for modern laws, mainly because so much of society has changed in the last ~2000+ years and the way they treated people, especially women, back then shouldn't even be referenced in regards to today, let alone be used as a model.

But you can't really change the mind of a religious person by telling them that, so I try to find a common ground that both parties can relate to. It's hard though. Religion, by its very nature, is a character defining trait in any person who believes in it, so trying to explain to them why something that they base their lives off of may not be the best and most applicable thing to a situation that has real life day to day consequences on women in today's world almost invariably comes off as an attack on them as a person.

Makes for really difficult debate. You can't really prove or disprove religious beliefs, after all. They are based on faith, not logic or reason.

I agree and you should direct your concern to the OP. My position on abortion has 0 to do with religious beliefs. I do believe it is a sin to take one of God's creations simply for your convenience, but that's a personal belief and one I speak directly with God about. Because I too sin.

My overt stance has always been about taking an innocent life and the rights of the father. 

[Arturo Bandini]

It's funny to read people saying what God wants or not ( if fact, this is just what they want ).

If men are so mad about abortion, they should give the example and get a vasectomy.

BTW, it's easy for a man who just can have sex with a woman and go away the very next day impregnanting a woman who will keep the baby for the rest of her life.

How fair it is ?

[*bfine32*]

(05-21-2019, 06:08 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: It's funny to read people saying what God wants or not ( if fact, this is just what they want ).

If men are so mad about abortion, they should give the example and get a vasectomy.

BTW, it's easy for a man who just can have sex with a woman and go away the very next day  impregnanting a woman who will keep the baby for the rest of her life.

How fair it is ?

Yet the only ones bringing religion into the discussion are Pro Choicers. Do you know why that is? Because it's easier to argue against religion than it is the taking of a life.  

As to your question: Not fair at all, but guess what he's required by law to do if identified? He has no choice, 

[fredtoast]

(05-21-2019, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet the only ones bringing religion into the discussion are Pro Choicers. Do you know why that is? Because it's easier to argue against religion than it is the taking of a life.  

I didn't realize how poorly educated you were on this issue.

The reason we bring religion into the issue is because the religious right are obsessed with abortion.  Almost all of the Pro Life movement is tied to the church.

So maybe you should educate yourself  little more instead of looking stupid for accusing the Pro Choicers of making this about religion.

[Arturo Bandini]

(05-21-2019, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet the only ones bringing religion into the discussion are Pro Choicers. Do you know why that is? Because it's easier to argue against religion than it is the taking of a life.  

As to your question: Not fair at all, but guess what he's required by law to do if identified? He has no choice, 

One day someone may succeed to explain to me what God has to do with any religion.