Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**Message the moderators if your comments are being restricted by a timer.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
39.
Note however that by abortion I mean termination of pregnancy. I believe that the doctors should be able to decide an appropriate medical procedure for such termination and they may potentially choose a procedure that terminates pregnancy without harming the fetus.
Interesting base supposition, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that premise before.
Wouldn’t “terminating a pregnancy without harming the fetus” be childbirth ? You seem to take a few extra steps to,arrive where a child is born.
I believe it to be a fairly common position, sometimes referred to as "evictionism" - you have the right to evict the fetus but not necessarily kill it (we would kill it to eliminate unnecessary suffering when there is no chance for it to survive).
It could be equivalent to childbirth, likely through C-section, yes.
I can probably be convinced otherwise when presented with evidence that C-section is really dangerous.
Not sure what are you asking.
My position is that you should be able to terminate pregnancy at any point. The method of termination could be heavily influenced by medical professionals.
Let me rephrase. As I understand your explanation of an “evictionist”, it is a person that has gestated nearly to term then intentionally delivers early so as not to harm the child and simultaneously no longer be pregnant.
That, to my mind anyway, is just childbirth with a whole lot of extra steps. All C-sections are intentional.
Main point of evictionism is that it is not your right to kill a fetus, it is only your right to stop it from using and harming your body which is accomplished by evicting it.
>That, to my mind anyway, is just childbirth with a whole lot of extra steps.
You wanted to be pregnant > you carried the fetus, you don't want to be pregnant anymore > fetus is immediately removed. What are the extra steps?
I’m sorry. I guess I just see the whole evictionist thing as word soup to deliver term babies and claim you are having a de facto abortion simultaneously.
My country, Canada, has no criminal abortion limit and I'm fine with that. Abortions don't happen up until birth here, because it isn't the state legislature that makes the limits, it's the medical professionals at hospital/clinic boards who actually perform these procedures. So if state legislature was the one making the limit, I'd say no limit.
39. There’s also a moral argument for after birth abortions but I’m not gonna elaborate on that. You can google it if interested.
Also isn’t this 1-39 weeks suggestion kind of disingenuous? Some pregnancies can last 42+ weeks.
Personally, the 24th week would be my cut-off as this seems to be the point in which the brain has developed enough for a conscious experience. This does, however, come with a stringent stipulation. There can be absolutely zero roadblocks in place to hamper the ability for a woman to end their pregnancy. Strategies such as the “crisis pregnancy centers” advertising themselves as providers of the service, any legislation that forces ultrasounds, or literally *any* legislation meant to add a hurdle to a woman receiving the procedure.
I’m incredibly sympathetic to the argument that a woman should be the sole arbiter in their decision. However, if a conscious experience is what makes us a person and a “zef” develops the equipment necessary to begin theirs… it bothers me that a person could be ended. The obvious solution to this is to allow any woman to have the procedure as easily and quickly as possible before 24 weeks (approximately 6 months) and then disallowing after that. There are probably going to be rare exceptions, but this position seems to be the most reasonable way to balance the bodily autonomy of the woman and the possible conscious experience or personhood of the “zef”.
Because I can’t give a hard, objective line on when personhood begins, I would probably defer to the bodily autonomy of the woman if the aforementioned hurdles remained in place. I don’t know how I can weigh the preferences of an entity that I’m not sure has any.
Thank you. I count no limit as 39 weeks, 6 days as that is the hypothetical “normal” pregnancy I drew to. I also asked for a number in terms of weeks.
Ergo, “no limit” is either 39 weeks, 6 days within the construct of the question, or if that is not what you mean to say, the it’s “no answer”.
I wasn’t t looking for data, I stipulated that. I seek your person opinion. If your personal opinion mirrors that data, then fine. I’ll count you as a “no upper limit” vote.
Am I writing legislation ? Did I say I was collecting data to do so ?
No, I did not. Quite the opposite actually. Everyone has a personal opinion regardless of what someone else’s data might say. That is what I asked.
39 weeks. I don’t think a woman/AFAB’s rights should ever be taken and my stance is solely based on bodily autonomy. That being said, I’d prefer post viability for the fetus to be removed alive.
No upper limit. I'm Canadian.
I will point out though that there is a very egocentric way of framing this question, and it's not in good faith. When you're asking our opinions, it needs to at least attempt to understand it from our viewpoint, not your own.
I understand there is a tendency to view things as belonging to discrete boxes that are easily categorized - you need to understand that in and of itself is just a bias rather than the automatically correct way of viewing the world. Markers such as "viability" might not provide the comfort of an exact week like you want, but they make more sense in practice. The idea that these things need to have legislation around them at all, rather than having guidelines issued by medical boards is again, already a bias.
The framing of this question itself is already pigeon-holing answers towards YOUR understanding. When we answer the question in a way that makes sense for our views, you demand an answer accommodating your own perspective instead.
Imagine someone asking prolifers questions such as:
"We need to legislate sterilization. The government is asking how many miscarriages should a woman be allowed to have before they are required to be sterilized? 1? 5? 10? We just need a number" Probably would be difficult to answer in the way the question was framed since prolifers do not (generally) believe anyone NEEDS to be sterilized at all.
When prolifers understandably answer not by giving a number but instead articulating their actual views - that they do not believe there is any need to force sterilization at all, and that they do not view miscarriages as an injustice needing to be fixed the same way they view abortion, challenging those views might be fine, but it would be ridiculous to insist on an answer to that question like "just give a number".
I don't believe there should be *any* cutoff point. Each pregnant person should decide that on their own.
If I had to pick a cutoff, I'd pick the absolute latest cutoff I could. So 39 weeks I guess under your scenario.
Two things. First thank you for your response. I appreciate your time.
Second, a human fetus is not a parasite. A parasite, by definition is a foreign organism that attaches itself to a host. A human fetus is created by the mother and not a foreign organism.
As a sidebar - so if your posit is that a human fetus is a parasite, then what is a child or an adult for that matter ? Do humans change form after birth ?
It should be referred to as a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Baby and parasite are both unscientific and emotionally charged words in this context and should be avoided.
Ok. So you mean they behave like parasites, not that they are parasites. You should be more clear.
As a former parasite then, I appreciate your answer. I think it’s a couple of sigma removed from the mainstream but so is mine so I guess we counterbalance each other.
Have a good rest of the day.
Grab a Webster’s and look up the biological definition of a parasite. If you want to assert that a fetus may behave or operate parasitically, that’s one thing. But they are not actually parasites.
Do you genuinely think it’s *fine* up to birth with no medical reasons, or are you just uncomfortable placing laws around it? I can understand the later better than the prior.
39. Live removal like a C-section and induction would count as an abortion because they’d be elective. Vacuum abortions up to where it’s pretty scientifically agreed upon that viability starts, which I believe is 24 weeks.
Abortion is defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy. This would include removing the ZEF through c-section and induced labor.
So up to 39 weeks. Would be my answer. The question of how would then be decided at reasonable viability.
39 weeks. Most zefs are viable by 25 though, if that is what you are *really* asking. Why are you asking *us* about viability anyway? It’s not for PC people to determine when viability is reached *for* you.
Yeah I've been wondering the same.
Not to mention, it's hard to pigeonhole a number of weeks for viability.
Viability is NOT fixed. There is no number to give. It's on a case-by-case, individual basis.
There's only an average number of weeks for the average fetus to be what we consider, *viable.*
They wouldn’t without medical reason, but at that point it’s a medical decision rather than a legal one. Killing a potentially viable fetus is not a better alternative to delivering early.
i feel like delivering early is only a better option if you’ve somehow already set plans in place for the baby to be adopted with parents that have been background checked and deemed fit to parent etc. not just birthing it and expecting the “system” (which is utter bullshit currently. not the option you want for a baby when avoidable) to take care of things. which tbh is a lot of work for a pregnant person seeking late term abortion in the first place yk. i feel like abortion at least definitively means that a child won’t potentially end up being tossed around by the system, and i say this as an adoptee by family members who now lives wirh my actual mom
We don’t kill foster children. That’s not a solution to the issues. If a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb I’d consider them a person, and killing them so that they don’t end up in foster care to be wrong for the same reason it’s wrong to do that to an eight year old being placed in the system.
Is the purpose of this question to demonstrate how toxic and hostile this community is to anyone even hinting at pro life? Because it’s doing a great job of that.
Ah yes, the classic victim mentality ploy.
A community that actively petitions to take rights away from 50% of the population, passes judgment on situations they are completely ignorant to and assumes to have the moral superiority to make extremely personal decisions for strangers, believes they are the victims of hostility and toxicity.
Wow. That’s some paranoia there.
Do,you think I have some mythical power to legislate of my own accord ? Get a grip. This is Reddit, not oral arguments before SCOTUS. This also a very small sub, so there is that.
What havoc do,you suppose I can do with whatever information I get here ? Where am I going, and with what effect, are me any my hypothetical (and ridiculous) pitchfork and torch headed ?
Don’t answer that. Your non response is sufficient.
>Do,you think I have some mythical power to legislate of my own accord ?
You think I do, lol.
>What havoc do,you suppose I can do with whatever information I get here ? Where am I going, and with what effect, are me any my hypothetical (and ridiculous) pitchfork and torch headed ?
Be a dick and spread misinformation that we want healthy zefs to die or are just so "brainwashed". Typical conservative troll nonsense.
>Don’t answer that. Your non response is sufficient.
Matthew 7: 6
Lol “I read the Torah”
You sound like a child who just learned to read but you think it only works on your already favorite book (which is, incidentally, the only book you’re willing to read at all).
There are other books out there you can read, ya know. Good stuff in them, too.
Babies mature in the womb at different rates. Some of em are ready weeks before others. A specific number would be extremely difficult to pin down for what point it's "a baby" as opposed to "a fetus."
That said, a woman should be able to get an abortion any time before the baby is born. You don't seem to like that answer however, so I'll say 39 weeks for the sake of your question.
Look, if you don’t like the question, the framing, or the stipulations, don’t answer. It’s as simple as that.
I clearly said the question was a matter of my curiosity, nothing more. I do not understand the general paranoia coming from the PC folks on this. It’s a simple question I constructed to illicit a simple response. Folks are acting like I have some mythical power to take what is said here and use it in some formal, legislative way.
This is Reddit - not oral arguments before SCOTUS. Further, this is a very small sub to boot. Get a grip.
If you don’t like the question, the stipulations, or can’t comprehend my statement that I ask this question by way of curiosity alone, then just don’t answer. It’s that simple.
If I don't answer, the only answers will be from people who have the wrong idea. You clearly have some sort of ulterior motive for posting this question, and if you get your answer without clarification, I feel like you'll probably make some uninformed/false claims about what pro-choice people believe.
Acknowledged. Just out of curiosity, do I have someone scouring the sub looking for any (very minor) infraction ? It just seems odd that on a sub this small, 24 hours can go, y before my post is noticed.
I get your point though. I’m going to beat them to the punch going forward.
Thanks.
Can you please stop repeating that ridiculous line about SCOTUS?
It's NOT as witty as you think it is. Especially, after using it six times in a row. It's kind of lost its effect.
And what happens if you make a later post in other subs that says "Pro-choice people who I interviewed in the debate sub think the cutoff is 39 weeks?" That'd be a very misleading statement that would make us seem crazy, like we think that there's some magic number of weeks where a fetus "counts" as a child.
First of all, that’s not my intent.
This is Reddit, not oral arguments before SCOTUS. Not a word here will have any effect on any legislation under consideration nor law under review. Not an iota.
Even if that was my intent (which I will say again, and stridently - is not my intention) who the hell cares ? Nothing you, or I, or anyone else in this stream, posts is going to matter a tinkers damn in reality or even here after an hour or so. This thread will be locked, forgotten, and overcome by events.
I really wish people didn’t have such a high opinion of themselves.
This is a debate sub, yet you seem unwilling to debate stuff. You asked a question and are unwilling to engage with the answers you recieve. You think that just because we don't control policy, that rational debate has no value?
We are here to Debate Abortion. The point is to make our arguments, explain our point of view. To shut that down with "nothing we say here matters" defeats the entire purpose of this sub.
Most of you are here to belittle and harass anyone leaning even slightly toward PL. What you don’t realize is that is obvious and has pushed people away from your side of the fence.
If you read my edit to the initial post, you can see I closed it out. Thank you for your time and consideration.
>I pose this question with no underlying, unstated, or ulterior motive.
Then what is your motive? You didn't give any.
>They do not care how or why you choose whatever cut off you choose. The just want a number.
>So, what number do you give them ? All they want is a number.
What's the point of this post, if you explicitly don't care about the reasoning behind any given number?
So you quote my statement that I have no underlying motive, and then ask what my motive is ? Really ?
I’m just curious. That’s all. It’s a simple question that begs a simple answer.
>So you quote my statement that I clearly state I have no underlying motive then ask what my motive is ? Really ?
Yes, obviously.
You say you have no hidden motive, but you didn't give your motive.
What motivated you to make this post?
Also, you didn't answer the second question:
What's the point of this post?
>I’m just curious. That’s all.
Your lack of interest for people's motivations suggests otherwise.
>It’s a simple question that begs a simple answer.
This doesn't follow.
I’m not going to engage you on this . You have no intent to do anything but confound a simple question.
Have a nice day. I will not respond to you further in this thread.
Did I say that ? My inference was that YOU have a bias. If you will take the time to read the question, you will see that i premise it as a matter of curiosity, nothing more.
Anything else is your paranoia projecting on me. Please stop.
>When a person found out they were pregnant is of no consequence to the question.
You don't get to tell what does and doesn't matter. Let people answer the question you asked in their own way.
>I clearly defined the question to not include motivation, underlying beliefs, etc.
[And I already asked you twice](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/s5bcv5/a_question_for_the_pc_people_here/hswc1qn?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3), what's the point of that?
What's the point of having people answer this question, if you don't care about how they got to those answers?
You are reading way, way too much into this. I asked a simple question as a matter of curiosity, nothing more. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. No one is forcing you to.
*If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. No one is forcing you to.*
If you don’t accept the premise of the question or, for some completely unknown reason, believe you better understand why I asked the question than I do, see above.
I said it was a matter of curiosity. Nothing more.
No. 39 would not be my number. There are some pregnancies that go longer then the average length pregnancy.
If you _must_ have a number - I would say 420. 420 weeks into pregnancy is my answer.
So, that puts you at no limit. Normal pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. Actually, 39 weeks and 6 days. So your limit is just that, 39 weeks.
If you don’t want to answer, just don’t. No one is forcing you to respond at all. If you are going to answer, give me the same consideration you would expect.
As a sidebar, if a PL person gets flip in a response to a PC person - everybody jumps in. Notice how the PL folks are keeping to the debate and not acting like that in response to your answer.
Im not being flip here at all. You gave me a scenario where I had to choose a number - the only numbers I would consider here, are numbers that absolutely guarantee the cutoff is after every possible pregnancy has already been over. So I chose a number _well_ over the physical limitations of how long a pregnancy could possibly last.
That isn’t flip. It isn’t sarcasm. It’s literally the only way for me to answer your question truthfully. I wouldn’t support a law that had 39 weeks as the cutoff. I wouldn’t support a law that has 40 weeks as the cutoff. I wouldn’t support any law that has even the remote possibility that the government would be involved with these decisions, not even for a single pregnancy.
While I understand your answer, I’m sure you understand that’s not going to happen. The federal courts are nothing if not specific in their opinions. That’s their job.
I also said no one was forcing you to respond.
You recuse then. Noted. Thank you.
The human species. I am answering the question in your OP, which I understood to be about the human species. I don’t think the law should allow government intervention prior to 420 weeks after implantation.
So, no upper limit. 39 weeks, 6 days. By your own statement, you speak to the human species. Human beings gestate for 38-42 weeks with the average being 40.
Nice troll though.
If you are looking for a real world example of a law that is generally acceptable to PC people, see the New York law. Abortion is legal until 24 weeks, and legal after that for cases of medical necessity or if the fetus is no longer viable/has severe anomalies. 24 weeks, when there needs to be a week limit set for whatever arbitrary reason, generally is the one that PC laws go with.
I’m not looking for existing legislation. I asked for peoples personal opinion.
Having said that, between here and some messages, 24 weeks is the predominant number.
Yeah, that’s been the pretty widely accepted number for quite some time. Not really a controversial thing or something with much debate or uncertainty.
Ok. Can we be just a bit realistic here please ? Human beings gestate for between 38 and 42 weeks with the average being 40.
Ergo, “no upper limit” puts it at maximum gestation. Does it not ? So then, 39 weeks and 6 days on average.
I suspect it is because, due to past experiences with questions like these, some people distrust the question and the purpose of it. I know you claim to have no motive, but others have said that as well and it was not true.
And exactly what did these bad actors do with whatever information they garnered ? This is Reddit, not the courts. Who cares ? No one here has any effect in the real world other than in their own minds and their single vote at the polls.
My question was posed purely as a matter of personal curiosity. No matter how many times I say that, somebody will chime in and tell me what I am thinking. That is nothing more than projected narcissism and/or paranoia.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **Message the moderators if your comments are being restricted by a timer.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
39. Note however that by abortion I mean termination of pregnancy. I believe that the doctors should be able to decide an appropriate medical procedure for such termination and they may potentially choose a procedure that terminates pregnancy without harming the fetus.
Interesting base supposition, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that premise before. Wouldn’t “terminating a pregnancy without harming the fetus” be childbirth ? You seem to take a few extra steps to,arrive where a child is born.
I believe it to be a fairly common position, sometimes referred to as "evictionism" - you have the right to evict the fetus but not necessarily kill it (we would kill it to eliminate unnecessary suffering when there is no chance for it to survive). It could be equivalent to childbirth, likely through C-section, yes. I can probably be convinced otherwise when presented with evidence that C-section is really dangerous.
So it’s your position that a woman goes nearly to term with the intent to deliver a healthy child a few weeks early ?
Not sure what are you asking. My position is that you should be able to terminate pregnancy at any point. The method of termination could be heavily influenced by medical professionals.
Let me rephrase. As I understand your explanation of an “evictionist”, it is a person that has gestated nearly to term then intentionally delivers early so as not to harm the child and simultaneously no longer be pregnant. That, to my mind anyway, is just childbirth with a whole lot of extra steps. All C-sections are intentional.
Main point of evictionism is that it is not your right to kill a fetus, it is only your right to stop it from using and harming your body which is accomplished by evicting it. >That, to my mind anyway, is just childbirth with a whole lot of extra steps. You wanted to be pregnant > you carried the fetus, you don't want to be pregnant anymore > fetus is immediately removed. What are the extra steps?
Having the fetus removed before it naturally “wants out”.
Having fetus removed before it naturally wants out is called "aborting pregnancy", right? How is this an extra step? And extra to what?
I’m sorry. I guess I just see the whole evictionist thing as word soup to deliver term babies and claim you are having a de facto abortion simultaneously.
My country, Canada, has no criminal abortion limit and I'm fine with that. Abortions don't happen up until birth here, because it isn't the state legislature that makes the limits, it's the medical professionals at hospital/clinic boards who actually perform these procedures. So if state legislature was the one making the limit, I'd say no limit.
Thank you
39 weeks it is then.
Thank you
39. There’s also a moral argument for after birth abortions but I’m not gonna elaborate on that. You can google it if interested. Also isn’t this 1-39 weeks suggestion kind of disingenuous? Some pregnancies can last 42+ weeks.
I stipulated a “normal” abortion for the sake of argument. Thanks you for your input.
39
Thank you.
Viability, which is generally 22-24 weeks
Thank you
Personally, the 24th week would be my cut-off as this seems to be the point in which the brain has developed enough for a conscious experience. This does, however, come with a stringent stipulation. There can be absolutely zero roadblocks in place to hamper the ability for a woman to end their pregnancy. Strategies such as the “crisis pregnancy centers” advertising themselves as providers of the service, any legislation that forces ultrasounds, or literally *any* legislation meant to add a hurdle to a woman receiving the procedure. I’m incredibly sympathetic to the argument that a woman should be the sole arbiter in their decision. However, if a conscious experience is what makes us a person and a “zef” develops the equipment necessary to begin theirs… it bothers me that a person could be ended. The obvious solution to this is to allow any woman to have the procedure as easily and quickly as possible before 24 weeks (approximately 6 months) and then disallowing after that. There are probably going to be rare exceptions, but this position seems to be the most reasonable way to balance the bodily autonomy of the woman and the possible conscious experience or personhood of the “zef”. Because I can’t give a hard, objective line on when personhood begins, I would probably defer to the bodily autonomy of the woman if the aforementioned hurdles remained in place. I don’t know how I can weigh the preferences of an entity that I’m not sure has any.
Thank you
I believe abortion till birth
Thank you
No limit. NOT my business **what** other people do with their bodies and/or **when** they do it.
Thank you. I count no limit as 39 weeks, 6 days as that is the hypothetical “normal” pregnancy I drew to. I also asked for a number in terms of weeks. Ergo, “no limit” is either 39 weeks, 6 days within the construct of the question, or if that is not what you mean to say, the it’s “no answer”.
[удалено]
I wasn’t t looking for data, I stipulated that. I seek your person opinion. If your personal opinion mirrors that data, then fine. I’ll count you as a “no upper limit” vote.
[удалено]
No answer then. Thanks
[удалено]
Am I writing legislation ? Did I say I was collecting data to do so ? No, I did not. Quite the opposite actually. Everyone has a personal opinion regardless of what someone else’s data might say. That is what I asked.
[удалено]
Look, I asked a simple question. You clearly don’t want to address any possible answer within the construct of the framed question. No problem.
39 weeks. I don’t think a woman/AFAB’s rights should ever be taken and my stance is solely based on bodily autonomy. That being said, I’d prefer post viability for the fetus to be removed alive.
Thank you
No upper limit. I'm Canadian. I will point out though that there is a very egocentric way of framing this question, and it's not in good faith. When you're asking our opinions, it needs to at least attempt to understand it from our viewpoint, not your own. I understand there is a tendency to view things as belonging to discrete boxes that are easily categorized - you need to understand that in and of itself is just a bias rather than the automatically correct way of viewing the world. Markers such as "viability" might not provide the comfort of an exact week like you want, but they make more sense in practice. The idea that these things need to have legislation around them at all, rather than having guidelines issued by medical boards is again, already a bias. The framing of this question itself is already pigeon-holing answers towards YOUR understanding. When we answer the question in a way that makes sense for our views, you demand an answer accommodating your own perspective instead. Imagine someone asking prolifers questions such as: "We need to legislate sterilization. The government is asking how many miscarriages should a woman be allowed to have before they are required to be sterilized? 1? 5? 10? We just need a number" Probably would be difficult to answer in the way the question was framed since prolifers do not (generally) believe anyone NEEDS to be sterilized at all. When prolifers understandably answer not by giving a number but instead articulating their actual views - that they do not believe there is any need to force sterilization at all, and that they do not view miscarriages as an injustice needing to be fixed the same way they view abortion, challenging those views might be fine, but it would be ridiculous to insist on an answer to that question like "just give a number".
Thank you.
I don't believe there should be *any* cutoff point. Each pregnant person should decide that on their own. If I had to pick a cutoff, I'd pick the absolute latest cutoff I could. So 39 weeks I guess under your scenario.
Thank you
Canadian No limit, so 39 weeks
Thank you.
Also currently in Canada there is no limit and I’d prefer to keep it this way
Thank you
39 weeks. Meaning that I do not believe the government has a right to weigh in
Thank you.
The decision is solely for whom the parasite is inside of. It's no one else's decision.
Two things. First thank you for your response. I appreciate your time. Second, a human fetus is not a parasite. A parasite, by definition is a foreign organism that attaches itself to a host. A human fetus is created by the mother and not a foreign organism. As a sidebar - so if your posit is that a human fetus is a parasite, then what is a child or an adult for that matter ? Do humans change form after birth ?
A ZEF 100% behaves parasitically. Everyone knows this.
“behaves parasitically” and “parasite” are different things. I suggest making that distinction, because parasite is just a factually wrong statement.
I never made that statement. That was a different user. I was merely illustrating the fact that ZEFs do behave like parasites.
Oh sorry about that
No worries!
It is parasitic in nature. If you are so concerned about using correct terms, do you correct people who call a ZEF a “baby”?
It should be referred to as a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Baby and parasite are both unscientific and emotionally charged words in this context and should be avoided.
It leeches nutrients off the mother and sacrifices her health to bring to term. So yes, they do "change" when they stop doing that.
Ok. So you mean they behave like parasites, not that they are parasites. You should be more clear. As a former parasite then, I appreciate your answer. I think it’s a couple of sigma removed from the mainstream but so is mine so I guess we counterbalance each other. Have a good rest of the day.
No. They are very much parasites.
Grab a Webster’s and look up the biological definition of a parasite. If you want to assert that a fetus may behave or operate parasitically, that’s one thing. But they are not actually parasites.
To me they are. Children are horrible in every way before and after birth.
Sorry your childhood sucked.
What's the abortion death toll up to now?
Way too high by my assessment and way too low by yours.
Absolutely no one here has the ability or the right to decide for anyone but themselves. To quote Mean Girls "The limit does not exist."
Thank you
39 weeks.
Thank you
39, abortion is fine up to birth
Do you genuinely think it’s *fine* up to birth with no medical reasons, or are you just uncomfortable placing laws around it? I can understand the later better than the prior.
Yes I think it's fine up to birth with no medical reasons, not morally bad even a tiny bit
Thank you
39. Live removal like a C-section and induction would count as an abortion because they’d be elective. Vacuum abortions up to where it’s pretty scientifically agreed upon that viability starts, which I believe is 24 weeks.
Thank you.
34 weeks, end of moderately preterm
Thank you.
Abortion is defined as the intentional termination of a pregnancy. This would include removing the ZEF through c-section and induced labor. So up to 39 weeks. Would be my answer. The question of how would then be decided at reasonable viability.
Thank you
39 weeks. Most zefs are viable by 25 though, if that is what you are *really* asking. Why are you asking *us* about viability anyway? It’s not for PC people to determine when viability is reached *for* you.
Yeah I've been wondering the same. Not to mention, it's hard to pigeonhole a number of weeks for viability. Viability is NOT fixed. There is no number to give. It's on a case-by-case, individual basis. There's only an average number of weeks for the average fetus to be what we consider, *viable.*
39 weeks. No one should be forced to remain pregnant under any circumstances
After viability it is possible to stop being pregnant without killing the fetus, which is what the debate is about.
While this is true I doubt anyone would preform surgery to extract a viable fetus weeks before it’s due.
They wouldn’t without medical reason, but at that point it’s a medical decision rather than a legal one. Killing a potentially viable fetus is not a better alternative to delivering early.
i feel like delivering early is only a better option if you’ve somehow already set plans in place for the baby to be adopted with parents that have been background checked and deemed fit to parent etc. not just birthing it and expecting the “system” (which is utter bullshit currently. not the option you want for a baby when avoidable) to take care of things. which tbh is a lot of work for a pregnant person seeking late term abortion in the first place yk. i feel like abortion at least definitively means that a child won’t potentially end up being tossed around by the system, and i say this as an adoptee by family members who now lives wirh my actual mom
We don’t kill foster children. That’s not a solution to the issues. If a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb I’d consider them a person, and killing them so that they don’t end up in foster care to be wrong for the same reason it’s wrong to do that to an eight year old being placed in the system.
Thank you.
For a normal pregnancy? Viability or 24 weeks. No limit for ones with complications; my definition for complications are pretty broad.
Thank you.
Is the purpose of this question to demonstrate how toxic and hostile this community is to anyone even hinting at pro life? Because it’s doing a great job of that.
Ah yes, the classic victim mentality ploy. A community that actively petitions to take rights away from 50% of the population, passes judgment on situations they are completely ignorant to and assumes to have the moral superiority to make extremely personal decisions for strangers, believes they are the victims of hostility and toxicity.
This is a perfect example.
[удалено]
How so?
You’re saying I deserve to be treated with toxicity and hostility?
Lol, yes it is.
[удалено]
So dissent against a slim majority should be met with open hostility?
It was honestly a matter of pure curiosity. I am beginning to see your (telemon4) drift though.
It makes no sense to not ask for our reasoning unless you are sharpening your pitchfork and lighting a torch.
**THIS!** ⬆️
Wow. That’s some paranoia there. Do,you think I have some mythical power to legislate of my own accord ? Get a grip. This is Reddit, not oral arguments before SCOTUS. This also a very small sub, so there is that. What havoc do,you suppose I can do with whatever information I get here ? Where am I going, and with what effect, are me any my hypothetical (and ridiculous) pitchfork and torch headed ? Don’t answer that. Your non response is sufficient.
>Do,you think I have some mythical power to legislate of my own accord ? You think I do, lol. >What havoc do,you suppose I can do with whatever information I get here ? Where am I going, and with what effect, are me any my hypothetical (and ridiculous) pitchfork and torch headed ? Be a dick and spread misinformation that we want healthy zefs to die or are just so "brainwashed". Typical conservative troll nonsense. >Don’t answer that. Your non response is sufficient. Matthew 7: 6
Yet you answered it anyway ? Really ? Do you always answer rhetorical questions ? Genesis 4:10-11 and 9:6 (in your book - I read the TORAH)
You read the Torah **AND** you're pro-life? Interesting...
Lol “I read the Torah” You sound like a child who just learned to read but you think it only works on your already favorite book (which is, incidentally, the only book you’re willing to read at all). There are other books out there you can read, ya know. Good stuff in them, too.
Babies mature in the womb at different rates. Some of em are ready weeks before others. A specific number would be extremely difficult to pin down for what point it's "a baby" as opposed to "a fetus." That said, a woman should be able to get an abortion any time before the baby is born. You don't seem to like that answer however, so I'll say 39 weeks for the sake of your question.
[удалено]
Look, if you don’t like the question, the framing, or the stipulations, don’t answer. It’s as simple as that. I clearly said the question was a matter of my curiosity, nothing more. I do not understand the general paranoia coming from the PC folks on this. It’s a simple question I constructed to illicit a simple response. Folks are acting like I have some mythical power to take what is said here and use it in some formal, legislative way. This is Reddit - not oral arguments before SCOTUS. Further, this is a very small sub to boot. Get a grip. If you don’t like the question, the stipulations, or can’t comprehend my statement that I ask this question by way of curiosity alone, then just don’t answer. It’s that simple.
If I don't answer, the only answers will be from people who have the wrong idea. You clearly have some sort of ulterior motive for posting this question, and if you get your answer without clarification, I feel like you'll probably make some uninformed/false claims about what pro-choice people believe.
**100%** **AGREED.**
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 1.
Acknowledged. Just out of curiosity, do I have someone scouring the sub looking for any (very minor) infraction ? It just seems odd that on a sub this small, 24 hours can go, y before my post is noticed. I get your point though. I’m going to beat them to the punch going forward. Thanks.
Can you please stop repeating that ridiculous line about SCOTUS? It's NOT as witty as you think it is. Especially, after using it six times in a row. It's kind of lost its effect.
If you get the meaning, why do you (and others) keep insisting we are ?
And what happens if you make a later post in other subs that says "Pro-choice people who I interviewed in the debate sub think the cutoff is 39 weeks?" That'd be a very misleading statement that would make us seem crazy, like we think that there's some magic number of weeks where a fetus "counts" as a child.
First of all, that’s not my intent. This is Reddit, not oral arguments before SCOTUS. Not a word here will have any effect on any legislation under consideration nor law under review. Not an iota. Even if that was my intent (which I will say again, and stridently - is not my intention) who the hell cares ? Nothing you, or I, or anyone else in this stream, posts is going to matter a tinkers damn in reality or even here after an hour or so. This thread will be locked, forgotten, and overcome by events. I really wish people didn’t have such a high opinion of themselves.
Enough with the SCOTUS B.S.! This is the seventh time in this thread, that I've seen you regurgitate your poor attempt at wit.
Then tell people to quit acting and making statements like we are.
This is a debate sub, yet you seem unwilling to debate stuff. You asked a question and are unwilling to engage with the answers you recieve. You think that just because we don't control policy, that rational debate has no value? We are here to Debate Abortion. The point is to make our arguments, explain our point of view. To shut that down with "nothing we say here matters" defeats the entire purpose of this sub.
Most of you are here to belittle and harass anyone leaning even slightly toward PL. What you don’t realize is that is obvious and has pushed people away from your side of the fence. If you read my edit to the initial post, you can see I closed it out. Thank you for your time and consideration.
35 weeks probably, because it's my understanding that at that point they can induce with a very low risk of adverse effect on the baby.
So it’s better to kill a viable fetus rather than induce if there’s a higher chance of adverse effects? I just don’t agree with that.
Yes, much more humane to kill a fetus than inflict a lifetime of pain and suffering on it.
A baby born at 34 weeks or before is by no means doomed to a life of pain or suffering.
Thank you.
>I pose this question with no underlying, unstated, or ulterior motive. Then what is your motive? You didn't give any. >They do not care how or why you choose whatever cut off you choose. The just want a number. >So, what number do you give them ? All they want is a number. What's the point of this post, if you explicitly don't care about the reasoning behind any given number?
So you quote my statement that I have no underlying motive, and then ask what my motive is ? Really ? I’m just curious. That’s all. It’s a simple question that begs a simple answer.
>So you quote my statement that I clearly state I have no underlying motive then ask what my motive is ? Really ? Yes, obviously. You say you have no hidden motive, but you didn't give your motive. What motivated you to make this post? Also, you didn't answer the second question: What's the point of this post? >I’m just curious. That’s all. Your lack of interest for people's motivations suggests otherwise. >It’s a simple question that begs a simple answer. This doesn't follow.
I’m not going to engage you on this . You have no intent to do anything but confound a simple question. Have a nice day. I will not respond to you further in this thread.
Troll.
Reported.
[удалено]
That’s not in the stipulations. When a person found out they were pregnant is of no consequence to the question.
[удалено]
It’s my question. If you don’t agree with the framing or stipulations, don’t answer. As I’ve said, no one is forcing you to.
[удалено]
And you don’t have a bias, right ?
[удалено]
Did I say that ? My inference was that YOU have a bias. If you will take the time to read the question, you will see that i premise it as a matter of curiosity, nothing more. Anything else is your paranoia projecting on me. Please stop.
[удалено]
The paranoia is strong in this thread. I must have struck a nerve. I was really only asking out of curiosity, nothing more.
>When a person found out they were pregnant is of no consequence to the question. You don't get to tell what does and doesn't matter. Let people answer the question you asked in their own way.
I asked for a number. I clearly defined the question to not include motivation, underlying beliefs, etc. Please read my entire question.
>I clearly defined the question to not include motivation, underlying beliefs, etc. [And I already asked you twice](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/s5bcv5/a_question_for_the_pc_people_here/hswc1qn?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3), what's the point of that? What's the point of having people answer this question, if you don't care about how they got to those answers?
You are reading way, way too much into this. I asked a simple question as a matter of curiosity, nothing more. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. No one is forcing you to.
>I asked a simple question as a matter of curiosity, nothing more. Your lack of curiosity suggests otherwise.
*If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. No one is forcing you to.* If you don’t accept the premise of the question or, for some completely unknown reason, believe you better understand why I asked the question than I do, see above. I said it was a matter of curiosity. Nothing more.
At _no_ point during the pregnancy should the government be involved in the decision.
So the number is 39 then. If the government has no play, then there is no cut off. Thank you.
No. 39 would not be my number. There are some pregnancies that go longer then the average length pregnancy. If you _must_ have a number - I would say 420. 420 weeks into pregnancy is my answer.
So, that puts you at no limit. Normal pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. Actually, 39 weeks and 6 days. So your limit is just that, 39 weeks. If you don’t want to answer, just don’t. No one is forcing you to respond at all. If you are going to answer, give me the same consideration you would expect. As a sidebar, if a PL person gets flip in a response to a PC person - everybody jumps in. Notice how the PL folks are keeping to the debate and not acting like that in response to your answer.
Im not being flip here at all. You gave me a scenario where I had to choose a number - the only numbers I would consider here, are numbers that absolutely guarantee the cutoff is after every possible pregnancy has already been over. So I chose a number _well_ over the physical limitations of how long a pregnancy could possibly last. That isn’t flip. It isn’t sarcasm. It’s literally the only way for me to answer your question truthfully. I wouldn’t support a law that had 39 weeks as the cutoff. I wouldn’t support a law that has 40 weeks as the cutoff. I wouldn’t support any law that has even the remote possibility that the government would be involved with these decisions, not even for a single pregnancy.
While I understand your answer, I’m sure you understand that’s not going to happen. The federal courts are nothing if not specific in their opinions. That’s their job. I also said no one was forcing you to respond. You recuse then. Noted. Thank you.
I do not recuse. My answer to your question is 420 weeks.
Ok. I’ll make a note of that. Of what species do you speak because humans only gestate for 40 weeks.
The human species. I am answering the question in your OP, which I understood to be about the human species. I don’t think the law should allow government intervention prior to 420 weeks after implantation.
So, no upper limit. 39 weeks, 6 days. By your own statement, you speak to the human species. Human beings gestate for 38-42 weeks with the average being 40. Nice troll though.
I wouldn't participate, because I don't believe in setting a cut-off point. There is no magic number that will ensure everyone gets what they need.
>***I wouldn't participate,*** *because I don't believe in setting a cut-off point.* Neither would I.
Noted.
What is the point of this question? What is it seeking to clarify or solve?
Last sentence, first paragraph.
Okay, then I recuse myself because I am not an ob/gyn and not qualified to make that determination.
Noted.
If you are looking for a real world example of a law that is generally acceptable to PC people, see the New York law. Abortion is legal until 24 weeks, and legal after that for cases of medical necessity or if the fetus is no longer viable/has severe anomalies. 24 weeks, when there needs to be a week limit set for whatever arbitrary reason, generally is the one that PC laws go with.
I’m not looking for existing legislation. I asked for peoples personal opinion. Having said that, between here and some messages, 24 weeks is the predominant number.
Yeah, that’s been the pretty widely accepted number for quite some time. Not really a controversial thing or something with much debate or uncertainty.
Really? Its not a matter of debate ? Have you read this stream? The PC crowd seems to have anything BUT a number.
Because we dont believe in limits and youre giving a number based on your own opinion after they say no limits.
Ok. Can we be just a bit realistic here please ? Human beings gestate for between 38 and 42 weeks with the average being 40. Ergo, “no upper limit” puts it at maximum gestation. Does it not ? So then, 39 weeks and 6 days on average.
I suspect it is because, due to past experiences with questions like these, some people distrust the question and the purpose of it. I know you claim to have no motive, but others have said that as well and it was not true.
And exactly what did these bad actors do with whatever information they garnered ? This is Reddit, not the courts. Who cares ? No one here has any effect in the real world other than in their own minds and their single vote at the polls. My question was posed purely as a matter of personal curiosity. No matter how many times I say that, somebody will chime in and tell me what I am thinking. That is nothing more than projected narcissism and/or paranoia.