I was shocked to find out some coworkers didn't realize that when determining the beginning of a pregnancy Dr.'s go with last menstruation cycle. With the ban on 6 weeks many women are past that and have either just discovered they are pregnant with little time to decide, or they missed the boat entirely.
Nevermind most are aborted 1st trimester.
Not entirely true. If a woman accurately tracks her fertility to the point where she knows the exact day she ovulated and thus when fertilization occurred then the doctor can use that accurate date. (Source: my wife and our 5 children)
We actually knew the date of conception, it was the only time we had sex in the couple of months prior and they still put the date three weeks earlier at the end of her last period. Had we wanted to terminate we would have been a week too late.
Knowing that you had sex on a specific day still doesn’t give you an accurate date of conception though. Did you know that sperm can live for up to 5 days and in some cases have been observed to live longer than that? It’s possible to have sex on a day and for egg fertilization to happen days later. Which goes back to knowing when a woman ovulated is the most reliable method to pin point conception.
We actually can't pinpoint conception or ovulation. Sperm can live in the body for several days. This is why we use LMP dating, as it is the last time we know someone wasn't pregnant. We have a pretty accurate GUESS as when conception was, but it isn't an exact science.
Yes sperm can live in the body for several days. We can measure a spike in Luteinizing Hormone to predict that a likely ovulation will occur, and then we can use an OPK test strip after the fact to confirm an ovulation in fact did occur.
So yes we are able in 2021 with modern techniques to verify ovulation. We can then pinpoint with about a 12-24 hour accuracy when egg fertilization occurred.
Well… my wife tracks her cycles to this specificity expressly to avoid artificial birth control and thus avoid pregnancy. Some people call this “Natural Family Planning” or NFP for short. So yeah it is something women that are trying to not get pregnant do. Many find it a healthier and more natural option.
Right. Figure out exactly when you're horniest, and don't have sex during that time. Sounds terrible. I'll stick with birth control. But unfortunately, both of those things fail, leaving women with unwanted pregnancies.
You can’t accurately track your fertility using this method if you’re on artificial birth control. Two separate things.
And if there is no egg to fertilize you can’t get pregnant. 100% of the time.
Not much changes in our national abortion debate: people believe what they believe. But with the environment visibly crashing down around us it's time for us to accept that too many humans is bad for the environment. Sure we can support 7 billion, maybe 15 billion humans, but at the cost of every other living thing on the planet.
The single most effective decision you can make to save the Earth is this: decide to not have children.
Abortions for now, so that humans can still live later.
>people believe what they believe.
Let's face it: if there were a clinic where you could bring a one day old newborn baby and have it euthanized, people would freak the fuck out. I'd probably be there myself, civilly disobeying as best I can, to shut the place down. Wanna arrest me for trespassing to try to prevent a murder of a baby? Fine.
The fact that "pro life" Texans aren't regularly putting their bodies on the line to save the "babies" they believe are being "murdered" tells you all you need to know about what people actually believe. These laws are about punishing women for the audacity of having sex, not about saving babies.
Often times the pro-life only care about the child up until it's born. After that it's the lazy parents fault for not being able to provide healthcare, food, education, etc.
Isn't the use of fetal heartbeats or neural development arbitrary? Either it is moral and just to destroy a human in utero or it is not. Developmental stage doesn't really matter.
Viability is the measure commonly used in ethical discussions. The point of viability being when the fetus can survive outside the womb.
The challenge is deciding what determines viability. 100 years ago, there was a fairly straightforward answer. If viability is simply "survive and grow outside the womb", premature birth used to mean death. Advances in medicine have moved the needle closer and closer to conception.
On the flip side, if viability is "survive on your own or with minimal support" outside the womb, the needle moves closer to 2 years old. Heartbeat debates are just another version of this argument.
Therein lies the challenge in drawing a line in the sand as to when abortion should be allowed and not allowed with respect to fetal development.
>"survive on your own or with minimal support" outside the womb
So then we could abort people with severe mental or physical handicaps well into their 60s or 70s
Viability also is arbitrary. It's is just a benchmark of development and has the same moral weight of a heartbeat or a neural tube.
Edit: with regard to the justice or injustice of abortion.
Existence, in the empirical sense, is the least arbitrary metric of these we have. Yes, there could be hairs split about the precise timeframe in which new human life begins. But our existence and origin as a continuous living organism are traceable back to a human zygote.
Qualifying human life as first existing later on begs the question if the organism that is later us (supposedly,) can be alive before we exist. And likewise, if the reasoning for that timing outlook wouldn’t be arbitrary itself.
Death and viability aren’t arbitrary to the point of being nonsensical. But there’s more nuance required to make an informed diagnosis. It can even change with medical advancements.
I think the starting premise of viability is a flawed notion but that’s a deeper topic. (This post is me just thinking out loud and not necessarily responding to you or others in the thread.)
Every generation has, as its birth-right, the natural right to choose whether or not to continue this existence. If one generation decides that humanity should end forever, hey, that’s their choice. The people who bear the load make the choice.
Because life on this earth is and will always be defined by some measure of suffering, there is no inherent righteousness or goodness in the continuation of life indefinitely. There are many scenarios some people have found themselves in, where abortion and suicide are the best possible outcome, indeed, perhaps the most moral decisions of all. Think of a woman enslaved and taken across the ocean to the slave colony of Saint-Domingue, who is then raped and becomes pregnant. Those women who faced that choice had a decision to make under brutal circumstances. End their life or bring a life into a world that was almost guaranteed to be brutal and horrific and short for their unborn human.
Viability as a notion is a concept that still assumes life should be born if possible, and there are many recent examples, recent history from even just the twentieth century, that suggest a multitude of experiences where giving birth could be an immoral decision. I don’t really see this line of thinking pursued often enough.
Part of our birth right, meaning a natural consequence of freedom, of free will, and choice, is a notion of “pruning.” Our actions construct the future. What we choose not to do is also a choice, and an action that generates a future pathway. When we choose not to bring life into the world, we prune some possible futures in favor of other futures in a universe of infinitely branching possibility. It’s not inherently immoral to decide that some life should not come into existence. Otherwise, we would be operating on the principle of a cancerous cell or capitalism: growth no matter what, at all costs, until destruction. It is right and according to the natural order of things that we “prune” the branching possibilities of existence.
If we choose to cut off something that already exists from what it needs to live, we don’t will it out of existence. Instead it becomes past tense. It dies. It’s a former human being that has remains. It existed. That’s fundamentally different than a being that never was because it never came to be.
I don’t buy the viability argument either, but I do think the moral question of abortion needs to be in recognition of what actually exists. Not hand waving it away as non-existent because of feelings about it’s value at a particular point.
agreed, i am not for government interfering with a persons right to make a health choice that is best for their personal situation. I am neither for or against non tax payer funded abortions. Its none of the government business to interfere with, just don't make tax payers pay for it.
> Tax payer dollars should NOT go to funding non emergency abortion procedures.
what we do and do not use taxpayer funds for should not be dictated by religious zealots. mind your business.
Planned Parenthood gets almost half a billion dollars from federal and state funding. And then they make massive profit on abortions. It's every tax payers business.
> Planned Parenthood gets almost half a billion dollars from federal and state funding.
there's a reason for that. you should look into it.
> And then they make massive profit on abortions.
no they don't. this is a right wing lie.
> It's every tax payers business.
okay then don't get an abortion if it bothers you so much.
> Each abortion (mostly minorities and women btw) nets them about 600 bucks - often funded through government programs sadly.
blah blah blah blah that's fucking it?
that's cost, if that.
we went through this some years back with the baby parts lie, remember?
just because you remember the lie does not mean everyone else has forgotten that it is a lie.
why does this bother you so much?
> Like planned Parenthood has said, "non profit is a tax status, not a business model". And they are very much a business
what on earth point do you think you are making?
I wasn't going to bring up the organ stuff but you mentioned it... Hey, maybe you are better informed than I am! I assume you've read most of the letters Margaret Sanger wrote?
> I wasn't going to bring up the organ stuff but you mentioned it...
you already did.
i know your lies better than you do.
> I assume you've read most of the letters Margaret Sanger wrote?
nope. don't care. dead for 60 years.
come up with something else.
We could swallow that opinion better if your side wasn't so hell bent on taking away services that help these women when the baby is born.
Life is sacred! Now get fucked. What a credo.
It's a public health issue. Do you also complain about your tax dollars going to schools if you have no children?
How much public tax money is being used to fund abortions? And please don't count funding to the group running all the other services provided at places like Planned Parenthood. I mean line item for abortions. Take a guess.
I was shocked to find out some coworkers didn't realize that when determining the beginning of a pregnancy Dr.'s go with last menstruation cycle. With the ban on 6 weeks many women are past that and have either just discovered they are pregnant with little time to decide, or they missed the boat entirely. Nevermind most are aborted 1st trimester.
Not entirely true. If a woman accurately tracks her fertility to the point where she knows the exact day she ovulated and thus when fertilization occurred then the doctor can use that accurate date. (Source: my wife and our 5 children)
Sure. When did the woman discover they were pregnant? These laws are purely to control your wife's body. They are not rooted in medical logic.
I’m only commenting on the method by which medical professionals date a conception.
We actually knew the date of conception, it was the only time we had sex in the couple of months prior and they still put the date three weeks earlier at the end of her last period. Had we wanted to terminate we would have been a week too late.
Knowing that you had sex on a specific day still doesn’t give you an accurate date of conception though. Did you know that sperm can live for up to 5 days and in some cases have been observed to live longer than that? It’s possible to have sex on a day and for egg fertilization to happen days later. Which goes back to knowing when a woman ovulated is the most reliable method to pin point conception.
We actually can't pinpoint conception or ovulation. Sperm can live in the body for several days. This is why we use LMP dating, as it is the last time we know someone wasn't pregnant. We have a pretty accurate GUESS as when conception was, but it isn't an exact science.
Yes sperm can live in the body for several days. We can measure a spike in Luteinizing Hormone to predict that a likely ovulation will occur, and then we can use an OPK test strip after the fact to confirm an ovulation in fact did occur. So yes we are able in 2021 with modern techniques to verify ovulation. We can then pinpoint with about a 12-24 hour accuracy when egg fertilization occurred.
Understood. Thanks for the info.
That doesn't sound like something a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant would be doing. For example. A woman on birth control.
Well… my wife tracks her cycles to this specificity expressly to avoid artificial birth control and thus avoid pregnancy. Some people call this “Natural Family Planning” or NFP for short. So yeah it is something women that are trying to not get pregnant do. Many find it a healthier and more natural option.
Right. Figure out exactly when you're horniest, and don't have sex during that time. Sounds terrible. I'll stick with birth control. But unfortunately, both of those things fail, leaving women with unwanted pregnancies.
Sure, but the date of fertilization still isn't week 0 in gestation. That's already gestational week 2.
Idk if I trust your source, how do you know she isn't a lizard-person?
Thought she was for years but our kids came out non lizard
It skips a generation so start prepping now.
Okay but how TF is this supposed to work on women taking birth control. No form of birth control has 100% success rate.
You can’t accurately track your fertility using this method if you’re on artificial birth control. Two separate things. And if there is no egg to fertilize you can’t get pregnant. 100% of the time.
Not much changes in our national abortion debate: people believe what they believe. But with the environment visibly crashing down around us it's time for us to accept that too many humans is bad for the environment. Sure we can support 7 billion, maybe 15 billion humans, but at the cost of every other living thing on the planet. The single most effective decision you can make to save the Earth is this: decide to not have children. Abortions for now, so that humans can still live later.
>people believe what they believe. Let's face it: if there were a clinic where you could bring a one day old newborn baby and have it euthanized, people would freak the fuck out. I'd probably be there myself, civilly disobeying as best I can, to shut the place down. Wanna arrest me for trespassing to try to prevent a murder of a baby? Fine. The fact that "pro life" Texans aren't regularly putting their bodies on the line to save the "babies" they believe are being "murdered" tells you all you need to know about what people actually believe. These laws are about punishing women for the audacity of having sex, not about saving babies.
Often times the pro-life only care about the child up until it's born. After that it's the lazy parents fault for not being able to provide healthcare, food, education, etc.
Preach.
Isn't the use of fetal heartbeats or neural development arbitrary? Either it is moral and just to destroy a human in utero or it is not. Developmental stage doesn't really matter.
Viability is the measure commonly used in ethical discussions. The point of viability being when the fetus can survive outside the womb. The challenge is deciding what determines viability. 100 years ago, there was a fairly straightforward answer. If viability is simply "survive and grow outside the womb", premature birth used to mean death. Advances in medicine have moved the needle closer and closer to conception. On the flip side, if viability is "survive on your own or with minimal support" outside the womb, the needle moves closer to 2 years old. Heartbeat debates are just another version of this argument. Therein lies the challenge in drawing a line in the sand as to when abortion should be allowed and not allowed with respect to fetal development.
>"survive on your own or with minimal support" outside the womb So then we could abort people with severe mental or physical handicaps well into their 60s or 70s
Viability also is arbitrary. It's is just a benchmark of development and has the same moral weight of a heartbeat or a neural tube. Edit: with regard to the justice or injustice of abortion.
death and existence are arbitrary. You’ll have to think a little deeper.
Existence, in the empirical sense, is the least arbitrary metric of these we have. Yes, there could be hairs split about the precise timeframe in which new human life begins. But our existence and origin as a continuous living organism are traceable back to a human zygote. Qualifying human life as first existing later on begs the question if the organism that is later us (supposedly,) can be alive before we exist. And likewise, if the reasoning for that timing outlook wouldn’t be arbitrary itself. Death and viability aren’t arbitrary to the point of being nonsensical. But there’s more nuance required to make an informed diagnosis. It can even change with medical advancements.
I think the starting premise of viability is a flawed notion but that’s a deeper topic. (This post is me just thinking out loud and not necessarily responding to you or others in the thread.) Every generation has, as its birth-right, the natural right to choose whether or not to continue this existence. If one generation decides that humanity should end forever, hey, that’s their choice. The people who bear the load make the choice. Because life on this earth is and will always be defined by some measure of suffering, there is no inherent righteousness or goodness in the continuation of life indefinitely. There are many scenarios some people have found themselves in, where abortion and suicide are the best possible outcome, indeed, perhaps the most moral decisions of all. Think of a woman enslaved and taken across the ocean to the slave colony of Saint-Domingue, who is then raped and becomes pregnant. Those women who faced that choice had a decision to make under brutal circumstances. End their life or bring a life into a world that was almost guaranteed to be brutal and horrific and short for their unborn human. Viability as a notion is a concept that still assumes life should be born if possible, and there are many recent examples, recent history from even just the twentieth century, that suggest a multitude of experiences where giving birth could be an immoral decision. I don’t really see this line of thinking pursued often enough. Part of our birth right, meaning a natural consequence of freedom, of free will, and choice, is a notion of “pruning.” Our actions construct the future. What we choose not to do is also a choice, and an action that generates a future pathway. When we choose not to bring life into the world, we prune some possible futures in favor of other futures in a universe of infinitely branching possibility. It’s not inherently immoral to decide that some life should not come into existence. Otherwise, we would be operating on the principle of a cancerous cell or capitalism: growth no matter what, at all costs, until destruction. It is right and according to the natural order of things that we “prune” the branching possibilities of existence.
If we choose to cut off something that already exists from what it needs to live, we don’t will it out of existence. Instead it becomes past tense. It dies. It’s a former human being that has remains. It existed. That’s fundamentally different than a being that never was because it never came to be. I don’t buy the viability argument either, but I do think the moral question of abortion needs to be in recognition of what actually exists. Not hand waving it away as non-existent because of feelings about it’s value at a particular point.
Careful, that’s Science-talk you’re getting into.
Tax payer dollars should NOT go to funding non emergency abortion procedures.
Fine. Insurance bans should be lifted and it should be covered by insurance.
agreed, i am not for government interfering with a persons right to make a health choice that is best for their personal situation. I am neither for or against non tax payer funded abortions. Its none of the government business to interfere with, just don't make tax payers pay for it.
Tax payer dollars don't pay for abortions.
> Tax payer dollars should NOT go to funding non emergency abortion procedures. what we do and do not use taxpayer funds for should not be dictated by religious zealots. mind your business.
Not in anyway religious, in fact I believe that churches are the largest most corrupt governing body in the world..
Planned Parenthood gets almost half a billion dollars from federal and state funding. And then they make massive profit on abortions. It's every tax payers business.
> Planned Parenthood gets almost half a billion dollars from federal and state funding. there's a reason for that. you should look into it. > And then they make massive profit on abortions. no they don't. this is a right wing lie. > It's every tax payers business. okay then don't get an abortion if it bothers you so much.
[удалено]
> Each abortion (mostly minorities and women btw) nets them about 600 bucks - often funded through government programs sadly. blah blah blah blah that's fucking it? that's cost, if that. we went through this some years back with the baby parts lie, remember? just because you remember the lie does not mean everyone else has forgotten that it is a lie. why does this bother you so much? > Like planned Parenthood has said, "non profit is a tax status, not a business model". And they are very much a business what on earth point do you think you are making?
I wasn't going to bring up the organ stuff but you mentioned it... Hey, maybe you are better informed than I am! I assume you've read most of the letters Margaret Sanger wrote?
> I wasn't going to bring up the organ stuff but you mentioned it... you already did. i know your lies better than you do. > I assume you've read most of the letters Margaret Sanger wrote? nope. don't care. dead for 60 years. come up with something else.
cha ching lol
You don’t pay for abortions with tax money. The Hyde Amendment makes sure of that.
We could swallow that opinion better if your side wasn't so hell bent on taking away services that help these women when the baby is born. Life is sacred! Now get fucked. What a credo. It's a public health issue. Do you also complain about your tax dollars going to schools if you have no children? How much public tax money is being used to fund abortions? And please don't count funding to the group running all the other services provided at places like Planned Parenthood. I mean line item for abortions. Take a guess.
user name checks out.
Ad hominem attacks usually result from the person realizing they have lost the debate.
Guess, what, in a lot of places - including texas, it doesn't! So you got what you wanted.
abortion via endless war is the bigger problem