Is Abortion After 21 Weeks Murder? (1 Viewer)

[parasaurolophus]

Pretty sure kids aren't viable outside the womb until they are about 29 years old these days. 

 

[-OZ-]

 Murder here is a non-legal definition - simply defined as "the killing of another human being."

Not reading the full thread but you answered your own question by changing the real question. Of course, with your incorrect definition, it’s murder. But that’s not the real definition. 

 

[-OZ-]

Interesting.  So it's murder if a 21 week fetus is killed by someone else.  But it's ok if it's done by a Doctor and a woman kill it as part of an elective abortion?  On what planet does that make any sense?

Honestly, it makes sense in a completely pragmatic, amoral context. The mother wanting to bring the baby to term and either raise or give it up for adoption has a right to do so and is taking care of the future child. The mother choosing the abortion for whatever reason is presumably is doing so for practical reasons. 
take our morals out of it, and on a purely practical level, society is generally better off with legal, safely performed abortions chosen by the mother.  

 

[ekbeats]

Not reading the full thread but you answered your own question by changing the real question. Of course, with your incorrect definition, it’s murder. But that’s not the real definition. 

Yeah, I totally botched this thread.  Was trying to focus on the moral aspect rather than the legal, but didn’t communicate it well at all.  If nothing else it highlights how complex the issue is.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Pretty sure kids aren't viable outside the womb until they are about 29 years old these days. 

"There comes a time in every man's life when he must stand up and tell his mother he is an adult. That usually happens around 45."

 

[Stealthycat]

its killing an living unborn human ... what would the people voting no call it ? 

 

[gianmarco]

I'm not sure where 21 weeks is coming from, but viability is more like 23-24 weeks.  And even then, survival rates aren't great and a significant percentage have life-long complications. 

While the numbers have improved, and even 22 weeks is more of a consideration now, 21 is a big stretch.

 

[gianmarco]

Along those lines, I think the number is about 1% of all abortions happens after 20 or 21 weeks. 

And that percentage is almost entirely due to medical decisions due to health issues related to the mother, the fetus, or both. 

As such, that decision shouldn't have your or the government's involvement at all. 

 

[PhillipPhoto]

I'm not sure where 21 weeks is coming from, but viability is more like 23-24 weeks.  And even then, survival rates aren't great and a significant percentage have life-long complications. 

While the numbers have improved, and even 22 weeks is more of a consideration now, 21 is a big stretch.

Like the baby would be gasping for air kind of stretch?   

 

[gianmarco]

Like the baby would be gasping for air kind of stretch?   

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here or what you're getting at.

 

[PhillipPhoto]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask here or what you're getting at.

You're nailing down a time when it's viable saying it would be a stretch at X number of weeks.  What does that look like?  The baby comes out not breathing or does it take a couple breaths and then can't hang on?  Maybe a few do hang on at X number of weeks so they made the stretch even though the "survival rates aren't that great"?

 

[PhillipPhoto]

its killing an living unborn human ... what would the people voting no call it ? 

They call it an abortion. 

 

[PhillipPhoto]

Yeah, I totally botched this thread.  Was trying to focus on the moral aspect rather than the legal, but didn’t communicate it well at all.  If nothing else it highlights how complex the issue is.

I like it because I honestly don't know how to answer the question. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

its killing an living unborn human ... what would the people voting no call it ? 

How many times do you have to ask the same question?   The bolded is where people disagree with you, and have different lines from each other even as to when said human is living.  

 

[sho nuff]

Posted in the roe thread…why wait til 21 weeks…Louisiana going to criminalize it as homicide at the moment fertilization.

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1522044847254872064?s=21&t=WlNEFHqAFSM53Uu6PKn0_A

 

[Amused to Death]

Posted in the roe thread…why wait til 21 weeks…Louisiana going to criminalize it as homicide at the moment fertilization.

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1522044847254872064?s=21&t=WlNEFHqAFSM53Uu6PKn0_A

Which would criminalize the use of the Plan B pill (which only prevents a fertilized egg from developing).

 

[Stealthycat]

How many times do you have to ask the same question?   The bolded is where people disagree with you, and have different lines from each other even as to when said human is living.  

you can't disagree unless you believe a woman can be pregnant with something not alive

if she is .. then there is NO PREGNANCY - this is biology 101 

you know this - the very fact that a pregnancy HAS to have a living unborn is why abortion happens - abortion is the procedure that kills the unborn. If they didn't kill the unborn, the pregnancy would continue - right or wrong ?

 

[gianmarco]

You're nailing down a time when it's viable saying it would be a stretch at X number of weeks.  What does that look like?  The baby comes out not breathing or does it take a couple breaths and then can't hang on?  Maybe a few do hang on at X number of weeks so they made the stretch even though the "survival rates aren't that great"?

Babies born that premature don't survive at all without resuscitation and continued care.  That's even at 24 weeks.  Those babies don't come out breathing on their own.  Without assistance with their breathing, they don't live beyond a few minutes. 

Once you get to 21 weeks, even with full resuscitation, lungs aren't formed well enough to be able to continue to live.

For most places, if a baby is delivered before 23 weeks (and some places 24 weeks), resuscitation won't even be started because it's not considered viable.  If a baby is delivered in a specialized location with state of the art NICU care and are prepared, it can go a little lower than that (maybe over 22 weeks) but not much. 

 

[PhillipPhoto]

Babies born that premature don't survive at all without resuscitation and continued care.  That's even at 24 weeks.  Those babies don't come out breathing on their own.  Without assistance with their breathing, they don't live beyond a few minutes. 

Once you get to 21 weeks, even with full resuscitation, lungs aren't formed well enough to be able to continue to live.

For most places, if a baby is delivered before 23 weeks (and some places 24 weeks), resuscitation won't even be started because it's not considered viable.  If a baby is delivered in a specialized location with state of the art NICU care and are prepared, it can go a little lower than that (maybe over 22 weeks) but not much. 

Thanks. So they come out with a heartbeat, just not strong enough to breath on their own yet.  Just trying to put a baby face to it.   

 

[KarmaPolice]

you can't disagree unless you believe a woman can be pregnant with something not alive

if she is .. then there is NO PREGNANCY - this is biology 101 

you know this - the very fact that a pregnancy HAS to have a living unborn is why abortion happens - abortion is the procedure that kills the unborn. If they didn't kill the unborn, the pregnancy would continue - right or wrong ?

You are the only one who uses these terms around here and then expect people to morph to your definitions to answer your questions.   

In a similar way we look at somebody in the hospital and declare them dead - that is the line people argue about when they believe the human is alive - hence all the debates around brainwaves, heartbeat, viability and people believing up until that point you are not killing a human.    People have different lines here, but that is what the debate is about for many people and why most of the limitations were between that 15 week and 23 week window.  

IMO most of the reasons of considering life before that is coming from a more religious point of view.    I have yet to come across anybody who think life begins at conception and isn't quite religious as well.   I am sure they are out there, but I would imagine it's a fairly rare position.   

 

[PhillipPhoto]

Posted in the roe thread…why wait til 21 weeks…Louisiana going to criminalize it as homicide at the moment fertilization.

https://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1522044847254872064?s=21&t=WlNEFHqAFSM53Uu6PKn0_A

This thread is a hypothetical, give your opinion on specifically at the point of viability.  The OP chose 21 weeks.  What Louisiana is doing isn't a choice nor have anything to do with the poll.

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks. So they come out with a heartbeat, just not strong enough to breath on their own yet.  Just trying to put a baby face to it.   

Heart may or may not be beating.  Without breathing (either on their own or with help), the heart rate slows/stops pretty quickly.  Usually, assisting with breathing is enough to get the heart going or maintain a good heart rate.  But, sometimes that's not enough either and then CPR is needed (and sometimes medications) to get the heart going.  And even then, it doesn't always happen.

There's a reason babies go ~40 weeks before they are supposed to be born.  Organs just aren't developed enough to maintain life that early outside of pregnancy.  That's even with medical care doing everything possible. 

 

[PhillipPhoto]

How many times do you have to ask the same question?   The bolded is where people disagree with you, and have different lines from each other even as to when said human is living.  

If the abortion is in specialized location with state of the art NICU care and prepared so that the baby would survive is it living?

 

[Stealthycat]

You are the only one who uses these terms around here and then expect people to morph to your definitions to answer your questions.   

In a similar way we look at somebody in the hospital and declare them dead - that is the line people argue about when they believe the human is alive - hence all the debates around brainwaves, heartbeat, viability and people believing up until that point you are not killing a human.    People have different lines here, but that is what the debate is about for many people and why most of the limitations were between that 15 week and 23 week window.  

IMO most of the reasons of considering life before that is coming from a more religious point of view.    I have yet to come across anybody who think life begins at conception and isn't quite religious as well.   I am sure they are out there, but I would imagine it's a fairly rare position.   

you don't want to continue why a pregnancy has a living unborn ... its a very hard question to deny isn't it ?

if its not alive, then the woman doesn't need an abortion does she ? if its not alive, she's not pregnant

simple definition of a living human there - it really is that easy

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think there's a tangible difference between a birthed baby and an unborn baby of the same age. The difference is that, in the case of the birthed baby, the most onerous aspects of the pregnancy -- the pain and health risks associated with giving birth -- are already over. No matter how much or how little we value the life of a fetus, I think it makes more sense to allow a mother to terminate her child before the most dangerous, painful, and laborious part of the process than it does after that part. At least one side of the cost-benefit calculation looks pretty different even if the other side has stayed the same.

 

[ekbeats]

Along those lines, I think the number is about 1% of all abortions happens after 20 or 21 weeks. 

And that percentage is almost entirely due to medical decisions due to health issues related to the mother, the fetus, or both. 

As such, that decision shouldn't have your or the government's involvement at all. 

1% 0f 620,000 = 6,200.  The number is more important than the percentage, and that’s a huge number.  What kind of health issues specifically?    The fetus having a deformity?  What issues would the mother have that an abortion would solve?

 

[gianmarco]

1% 0f 620,000 = 6,200.  The number is more important than the percentage, and that’s a huge number.  What kind of health issues specifically?    The fetus having a deformity?  What issues would the mother have that an abortion would solve?

I could start to give you some examples, but I doubt it would be helpful.

You can read this.  It offers a pretty good explanation about a few reasons.  I'm happy to try and answer any questions about what is written if you'd like.  But, suffice to say, the vast majority  of abortions occurring after 20 weeks are medical decisions that don't require input from anyone other than the family and their medical team. 

 

[ekbeats]

I could start to give you some examples, but I doubt it would be helpful.

You can read this.  It offers a pretty good explanation about a few reasons.  I'm happy to try and answer any questions about what is written if you'd like.  But, suffice to say, the vast majority  of abortions occurring after 20 weeks are medical decisions that don't require input from anyone other than the family and their medical team. 

Thanks.  This article does a pretty good job presenting the opposite view.  I’m sure it’s biased, but it does link to an actual study about why women seek late term abortions, with interesting results.

 

[gianmarco]

Thanks.  This article does a pretty good job presenting the opposite view.  I’m sure it’s biased, but it does link to an actual study about why women seek late term abortions, with interesting results.

It is biased and it is not mostly based on an actual study. 

So I disagree that it does a pretty good job of presenting the opposite view. 

 

[ekbeats]

It is biased and it is not mostly based on an actual study. 

So I disagree that it does a pretty good job of presenting the opposite view. 

Here’s the study.  Looks pretty legitimate to me.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

If the abortion is in specialized location with state of the art NICU care and prepared so that the baby would survive is it living?

I would say yes, and that is the point of viability that we are talking about.      Again, assuming the other things that I have mentioned are present - heartbeats, brainwaves, etc.   

If we got to the point where we could completely grow babies outside the womb in the future, I would still not consider it a living human at the 3 week mark or something like that, even if we could harvest them and it would grow/survive that way.  

 

[gianmarco]

Here’s the study.  Looks pretty legitimate to me.  

That study isn't saying what you think it is saying.

First of all, this is NOT a comprehensive look at all late-term abortions. This is specifically looking at women seeking care at abortion facilities. These women make up a small percentage of the overall number of late-term abortions being done because those women that are getting it done due to medical reasons are with their OB/GYN, not at a random clinic. So we are talking about a minority (elective) of a minority (late term) of abortions.

Now, as to whether or not these abortions should be offered beyond 20 weeks or beyond 24 weeks is a legitimate discussion. However, per that study, one of the biggest reasons that many are taking place so late are the barriers to getting one in the first place. So women without means, unemployed, financial reasons, having to travel due to laws against getting it done where they live are getting it done later BECAUSE of those barriers. If it was more accessible, not so restrictive early on in certain places, then these women would be getting it done before that 20 week mark.

Once we whittle it down to those few that just decide late, then this discussion becomes relevant. And that is such a small, small, number of total abortions that I don't think you'd have as much argument from most people about prohibiting those.

Using the study to say most late term abortions are simply by choice is completely flawed.

 

[ekbeats]

That study isn't saying what you think it is saying.

First of all, this is NOT a comprehensive look at all late-term abortions. This is specifically looking at women seeking care at abortion facilities. These women make up a small percentage of the overall number of late-term abortions being done because those women that are getting it done due to medical reasons are with their OB/GYN, not at a random clinic. So we are talking about a minority (elective) of a minority (late term) of abortions.

Now, as to whether or not these abortions should be offered beyond 20 weeks or beyond 24 weeks is a legitimate discussion. However, per that study, one of the biggest reasons that many are taking place so late are the barriers to getting one in the first place. So women without means, unemployed, financial reasons, having to travel due to laws against getting it done where they live are getting it done later BECAUSE of those barriers. If it was more accessible, not so restrictive early on in certain places, then these women would be getting it done before that 20 week mark.

Once we whittle it down to those few that just decide late, then this discussion becomes relevant. And that is such a small, small, number of total abortions that I don't think you'd have as much argument from most people about prohibiting those.

Using the study to say most late term abortions are simply by choice is completely flawed.

We’re on the same page.  I thought exactly as you did about health of the mother not being included in the data.  I’m not entirely sold on the health of the mother being a large percentage of  late term abortions.  I’ve yet to see any good data proving that.

 

[The Z Machine]

What do we mean by "viable" after 21 weeks exactly?  Had this discussions some 20 years ago with the actual doctor at Cincinnati Children's Hospital who produced the research that ended up being the process for "viability" at 21 weeks.  He was always careful to remind me that even though babies CAN survive, the success rate was under 5% and that survival in every single case required many medical supplies and machines.

Is it murder if a baby born at 21 weeks is denied those medical interventions by their parents or legal guardians?

I honestly don't know the answer. 

 

[The Commish]

Is it murder if a baby born at 21 weeks is denied those medical interventions by their parents or legal guardians?

I honestly don't know the answer. 

At minimum its neglect and/or child abuse. 

 

[ekbeats]

That study isn't saying what you think it is saying.

First of all, this is NOT a comprehensive look at all late-term abortions. This is specifically looking at women seeking care at abortion facilities. These women make up a small percentage of the overall number of late-term abortions being done because those women that are getting it done due to medical reasons are with their OB/GYN, not at a random clinic. So we are talking about a minority (elective) of a minority (late term) of abortions.

Now, as to whether or not these abortions should be offered beyond 20 weeks or beyond 24 weeks is a legitimate discussion. However, per that study, one of the biggest reasons that many are taking place so late are the barriers to getting one in the first place. So women without means, unemployed, financial reasons, having to travel due to laws against getting it done where they live are getting it done later BECAUSE of those barriers. If it was more accessible, not so restrictive early on in certain places, then these women would be getting it done before that 20 week mark.

Once we whittle it down to those few that just decide late, then this discussion becomes relevant. And that is such a small, small, number of total abortions that I don't think you'd have as much argument from most people about prohibiting those.

Using the study to say most late term abortions are simply by choice is completely flawed.

I've been looking into this more and thought I'd share some additional info I found.  The study I cited - Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks? - is from the Guttmacher Institute, and this organization is highly respected - probably the best in the country on the issue of abortion.  The Congressional Research Service, in its 2018 Report on Late Term Abortions, cites the Guttmacher study in the first paragraph and throughout the report.  As you correctly stated, the study doesn't focus on the medical necessity reasons for late term abortion, it only focuses on the non-medical reasons that people cite when seeking late term abortions (which in itself is noteworthy).  If I've learned nothing else when it comes to abortions, it's that the reporting and record keeping on abortions - particularly late term abortions - is woefully inadequate.  The Congressional Research Service Report cited above addresses the issue of medical-necessity as follows:

According to Diana Greene Foster, the lead investigator on the Turnaway study (described above) and a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, “[t]here aren’t good data on how often later abortions are for medical reasons.”14 Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly “make up a small minority of later abortion” and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize. Many of the women whose lives are at risk would be treated under emergency circumstances at a hospital rather than at a dedicated abortion clinic, making numbers more difficult to obtain, according to Dr. Foster.

 

[The Z Machine]

At minimum its neglect and/or child abuse. 

I'm not certain on that.  If that super premature baby is suffering and not progressing and their likelihood of survival effectively nil, but the breathing machines, and all the other modern medical equipment is keeping them alive, then doesn't the guardian have the right to stop those interventions?

 

[The Commish]

I'm not certain on that.  If that super premature baby is suffering and not progressing and their likelihood of survival effectively nil, but the breathing machines, and all the other modern medical equipment is keeping them alive, then doesn't the guardian have the right to stop those interventions?

Sorry....I misunderstood what you were saying and was assuming some things you just cleared up.  I'd say if they had a discussion with the doctors and it was determined the child would likely never come off those contraptions, then no.  If the discussion was "if we do x,y,z the baby is probably going to be fine, but it's going to be a long road" then I'd have a different answer.  I don't think those sorts of decisions are all that different than grownups determining what is to happen with their spouse or other family members.

 

[The Z Machine]

Sorry....I misunderstood what you were saying and was assuming some things you just cleared up.  I'd say if they had a discussion with the doctors and it was determined the child would likely never come off those contraptions, then no.  If the discussion was "if we do x,y,z the baby is probably going to be fine, but it's going to be a long road" then I'd have a different answer.  I don't think those sorts of decisions are all that different than grownups determining what is to happen with their spouse or other family members.

OK.  Glad my point came through. 

Now, what if a parent decided to pull that 16 or 21 week old fetus out of the womb and then decide about its viability at that point?  Could they refuse medical intervention on behalf of their now "born" child?

Should they be prosecuted for the initial act of removing that fetus from the womb?

 

[The Commish]

OK.  Glad my point came through. 

Now, what if a parent decided to pull that 16 or 21 week old fetus out of the womb and then decide about its viability at that point?  Could they refuse medical intervention on behalf of their now "born" child?

Should they be prosecuted for the initial act of removing that fetus from the womb?

I guess it depends on the reason, but it's a good question.  I think it likely comes down to what is "born".  There's nothing you've outlined here addressed in ANY of the laws I've seen written up, so I'd think it would likely be "legal" from that perspective.  Baby "born" via c-section then viability decided after the fact is something I've never considered.  

You pretty much illustrate here exactly what is wrong with the laser focus people have on "when is it really a life?"  I think focus on this question COMPLETELY and TOTALLY misses the point of the problem.  Always have.