What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

My wife and I are pro-choice but…..24 weeks? (1 Viewer)

E

eoMMan

Footballguy
We both agree that’s kinda pushing it, guys.

For you other pro-choice guys, explain why 24 weeks is okay versus something like 15 weeks. I think 15 weeks gives plenty of time to know you’re pregnant without the fetus getting too developed.

Exceptions of course for when the mom’s health is at risk. Past 15 weeks is okay then, imo.

Thoughts?

 
If we're talking about the poll @ekbeats started a day or two ago, I chose 24 weeks because it seems more appropriate than the other options he included.  I could be talked into other delineations as an appropriate compromise.

To be clear, I'm not faulting ekbeats here; it's not like he should have listed 10 weeks, 11 weeks, 12 weeks, ..., all the way through birth as options.  That would be ridiculous.

 
Rich Conway said:
If we're talking about the poll @ekbeats started a day or two ago, I chose 24 weeks because it seems more appropriate than the other options he included.  I could be talked into other delineations as an appropriate compromise.

To be clear, I'm not faulting ekbeats here; it's not like he should have listed 10 weeks, 11 weeks, 12 weeks, ..., all the way through birth as options.  That would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Not so much because of the poll but I thought I heard on the news Florida was going to have it drop from 24 weeks to 15 weeks. My wife and I both looked at each and said “that seems reasonable “.

 
eoMMan said:
Not so much because of the poll but I thought I heard on the news Florida was going to have it drop from 24 weeks to 15 weeks. My wife and I both looked at each and said “that seems reasonable “.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the reasonableness of any specific delineation is at least partially dependent on other factors, including exceptions for health and the general availability/funding for the procedure.  For instance, if there's only one provider in a state the size of Texas, I'd want to see the timeline expanded, as it may take time for the person to arrange an appointment.

 
eoMMan said:
Not so much because of the poll but I thought I heard on the news Florida was going to have it drop from 24 weeks to 15 weeks. My wife and I both looked at each and said “that seems reasonable “.
Click to expand...


I would be more comfortable with 12 weeks, but  @FBG26 convinced me to 15 and I think that is a reasonable compromise.  15 weeks is still almost FOUR MONTHS in to the pregnancy - almost 50% of the way there - and I bet the majority of Americans would be on board with that.

 
BladeRunner said:
I would be more comfortable with 12 weeks, but  @FBG26 convinced me to 15 and I think that is a reasonable compromise.  15 weeks is still almost FOUR MONTHS in to the pregnancy - almost 50% of the way there - and I bet the majority of Americans would be on board with that.
Click to expand...
That seems fair to me as long as there is a carve out for medical extenuating circumstances. 

 
eoMMan said:
We both agree that’s kinda pushing it, guys.

For you other pro-choice guys, explain why 24 weeks is okay versus something like 15 weeks. I think 15 weeks gives plenty of time to know you’re pregnant without the fetus getting too developed.

Exceptions of course for when the mom’s health is at risk. Past 15 weeks is okay then, imo.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
24 or there abouts is the line of viability.     Before then is various stages of development where point to for signs of life and becoming more of a person.  

 
I don’t think anyone is a fan of later abortions, but many recognize extenuating circumstances may delay the decision.

There are a number of reasons why a woman may be considering abortion later in her pregnancy:

She may be unaware of her pregnancy or how far along it is.

She may have difficulty deciding how she wants to handle an unplanned pregnancy.

She may have health problems that develop or worsen during her pregnancy.

Serious health problems may be detected in the baby later in the pregnancy.

She may have difficulty making arrangements and raising money for an abortion.
Click to expand...
24 weeks is generally considered the time when a fetus stands a fighting chance to survive outside the womb, so it is used as a cut-off for some. Others say conception, when the heart beats or nervous system can sense pain. Still others make no deadline at all. But they’re all arbitrary.

 
Terminalxylem said:
I don’t think anyone is a fan of later abortions, but many recognize extenuating circumstances may delay the decision.

24 weeks is generally considered the time when a fetus stands a fighting chance to survive outside the womb, so it is used as a cut-off for some. Others say conception, when the heart beats or nervous system can sense pain. Still others make no deadline at all. But they’re all arbitrary.
Click to expand...


if 24 weeks is the line then we certainly need to not be right on that line and give plenty of space.  15 weeks seems like plenty of space.

24 weeks is 6 MONTHS into the pregnancy with only 3 months left to go.  That's 2/3 of the way home.   24 weeks is pushing it too far.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
24 or there abouts is the line of viability.     Before then is various stages of development where point to for signs of life and becoming more of a person.  
Click to expand...
You make it sound like we don't know what's going to happen. I wouldn't say it "point to for signs of life", rather its what we know a person will grow from without interference or neglect. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Teumessian Fox said:
You make it sound like we don't know what's going to happen. I wouldn't say it "points to signs of life", rather its what we know a person will become without interference or neglect. 
Click to expand...
Phrase it however you like, I think you understood my meaning and intent - 0 interest it a pissing match over words.   I would disagree that we know for certain it will be a living person - things can happen naturally too, but that's also not the point.     

People choose that line because it's the point that the fetus has a chance outside the womb and detatched from the mother.  

 
Terminalxylem said:
I don’t think anyone is a fan of later abortions, but many recognize extenuating circumstances may delay the decision.

24 weeks is generally considered the time when a fetus stands a fighting chance to survive outside the womb, so it is used as a cut-off for some. Others say conception, when the heart beats or nervous system can sense pain. Still others make no deadline at all. But they’re all arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Erring a bit on the "safe side" is good imo. Encourage people to make that decision as early as possible. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Phrase it however you like, I think you understood my meaning and intent - 0 interest it a pissing match over words.   I would disagree that we know for certain it will be a living person - things can happen naturally too, but that's also not the point.     

People choose that line because it's the point that the fetus has a chance outside the womb and detatched from the mother.  
Click to expand...
No pissing match here, just though your phrasing was kind of harsh. Sometimes it helps to hear how the other side hears your words. Or not...

 
Also I think the idea that it could/would become a living person is irrelevant. What matters is that it HAS BECOME a living person. 

 
eoMMan said:
We both agree that’s kinda pushing it, guys.

For you other pro-choice guys, explain why 24 weeks is okay versus something like 15 weeks. I think 15 weeks gives plenty of time to know you’re pregnant without the fetus getting too developed.

Exceptions of course for when the mom’s health is at risk. Past 15 weeks is okay then, imo.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
doesn't happen except in extreme circumstances.  right wing propaganda

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pro-death/choice.  Not an expert on when viability is, but after that date it would make sense to shift from abortion to paying the mother to complete the pregnancy and put the new born up for adoption.  Would be up for moving that date earlier if protection were in place to get the eventual baby into a good home and make sure the mother is great great care.

 
BassNBrew said:
I'm pro-death/choice.  Not an expert on when viability is, but after that date it would make sense to shift from abortion to paying the mother to complete the pregnancy and put the new born up for adoption.  Would be up for moving that date earlier if protection were in place to get the eventual baby into a good home and make sure the mother is great great care.
Click to expand...
With few exceptions abortions this late are for emergencies.  Either the mother or the fetus has something seriously going wrong.  Sure, there are the exceptions that prove the rule, but I wonder if those few exceptions would be less or more likely to participate in such a program?  (And in asking the question I am assuming that "legally" participation would not be supposed to be voluntary.)

 
I read yesterday (sorry, no link) that someone at Planned Parenthood said 80% of abortions happen before week 15 so that’s good I guess.

 
KarmaPolice said:
Phrase it however you like, I think you understood my meaning and intent - 0 interest it a pissing match over words.   I would disagree that we know for certain it will be a living person - things can happen naturally too, but that's also not the point.     

People choose that line because it's the point that the fetus has a chance outside the womb and detatched from the mother.  
Click to expand...


Link to a single women or man that ever gave birth to piece of broccoli

 
eoMMan said:
I read yesterday (sorry, no link) that someone at Planned Parenthood said 80% of abortions happen before week 15 so that’s good I guess.
Click to expand...


I heard the same thing. Not necessarily 80%, but a large majority happen before 15 weeks.  I'm mostly a pro-life person.  But yeah, at least have the decency to get it done sooner rather then later, 

 
eoMMan said:
Not so much because of the poll but I thought I heard on the news Florida was going to have it drop from 24 weeks to 15 weeks. My wife and I both looked at each and said “that seems reasonable “.
Click to expand...


Not to pick on you but since you are the OP I will.

What is the difference in your eyes between 15 and 24 weeks?  Viability of the fetus?

It seems like many (and this probably includes myself!) seem to feel like there's a switch that gets flipped at some point.  I'm not sure how logical that is even if it "feels" right.

 
Current KS law is 20 weeks with exceptions for life of the mother.  Good chance it is going to get much worse. 

 
eoMMan said:
I read yesterday (sorry, no link) that someone at Planned Parenthood said 80% of abortions happen before week 15 so that’s good I guess.
Click to expand...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

. In 2019, 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.7%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. During 2010–2019, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). In 2019, the highest proportion of abortions were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks’ gestation (49.0%), followed by early medical abortion at ≤9 weeks’ gestation (42.3%), surgical abortion at >13 weeks’ gestation (7.2%), and medical abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation (1.4%); all other methods were uncommon (<0.1%). Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions. In 2018, the most recent year for which PMSS data were reviewed for pregnancy-related deaths, two women died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion.
Click to expand...

 
I support no restrictions within the first trimester with considerations after for the health of the mother or fetus. I think the 24 week timeline might be related to when it is assumed a fetus can begin to feel pain.

 
I put this in the other thread today, but will post here as well.

From a medical standpoint, even 20 weeks is too limiting. I'll copy something from a post I read recently that explains some of this and why it matters:

One often overlooked component of the abortion rights debate is the impact on families whose child is diagnosed in utero with a complex fetal anomaly. Pregnancy termination in this setting makes up the majority of second trimester abortions. This is large part because organs are insufficiently developed to identify malformations prior to the 20 wk ultrasound, and it takes further studies to confirm and fully understand the severity of anomalies after the initial ultrasound. These are typically very desired pregnancies and devastating for families.

The impact of forcing families to continue pregnancy for many months knowing their child will not survive will be astronomical. It introduces medical risk for the mother, including surgical delivery for some mothers. There are so many examples of truly horrifying scenarios that most people just don’t know can occur during pregnancy, but do.

The financial impact alone will be large. Obstetrical management and Neonatal intensive care are incredibly expensive, even when palliative care is provided after delivery. 

The toll on the healthcare team is real. In a system already severely stressed and with healthcare workers leaving medicine in droves, this will undoubtedly exacerbate the problem. 

But what I’m most concerned about is the emotional impact on these families. Just recently I sat with a family while they watched their very cherished baby die of a lethal anomaly after birth. The process is often slow and agonizing and may occur over days and weeks. It is excruciating and sad for all involved. While many families may choose to have this time with their dying child, this should be their choice, not mandated by our government. Forcing this on families is cruel and will have many long term impacts on mental health. It makes a terrible situation much worse.

There are many other layers to the Supreme Court’s decision that we will start to understand in the coming months. Very complex and sensitive discussions about resuscitation at the limits of viability, for example. This court decision will be absolutely devastating for many families and I only hope that we can provide the support that will be required in the coming years.

 
This is my issue with the ruling last week. I believe there is a compromise here with the weeks that most in this country would find reasonable.  Of course those on the ends of the spectrum wouldn’t but that too has become our country’s problem, the need to appease the fringe at the expense of the majority.  I believe it will be that singular flaw that will ultimately lead to a major shift in what this country becomes (for better or worse). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
Not to pick on you but since you are the OP I will.

What is the difference in your eyes between 15 and 24 weeks?  Viability of the fetus?

It seems like many (and this probably includes myself!) seem to feel like there's a switch that gets flipped at some point.  I'm not sure how logical that is even if it "feels" right.
Click to expand...
Hard to say, to be honest. I have friends who have healthy kids (now healthy) that were born premature around 6 months. I guess I just view a 24 week fetus as much more developed than a 15 week fetus and something like a pregnancy should be a “#### or get off the pot” imo. Decide one way or the other. Don’t dilly dally (assuming all of the other conditions don’t apply like health and whatnot).

 
BladeRunner said:
I would be more comfortable with 12 weeks, but  @FBG26 convinced me to 15 and I think that is a reasonable compromise.  15 weeks is still almost FOUR MONTHS in to the pregnancy - almost 50% of the way there - and I bet the majority of Americans would be on board with that.
Click to expand...
Just to offer a different take. It is as close to 1/4 of the way there as it is to half. Average pregnancy is 40 weeks. 

 
BassNBrew said:
I'm pro-death/choice.  Not an expert on when viability is, but after that date it would make sense to shift from abortion to paying the mother to complete the pregnancy and put the new born up for adoption.  Would be up for moving that date earlier if protection were in place to get the eventual baby into a good home and make sure the mother is great great care.
Click to expand...
Who would pay? The state? 

 
AAABatteries said:
Not to pick on you but since you are the OP I will.

What is the difference in your eyes between 15 and 24 weeks?  Viability of the fetus?

It seems like many (and this probably includes myself!) seem to feel like there's a switch that gets flipped at some point.  I'm not sure how logical that is even if it "feels" right.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think the "age of viability" is pretty sensible and about as logical as it gets. It's a safe bright line for me. I understand that number to be ~24 weeks or however it was defined in Casey. 

 
Zow said:
Honestly I think the "age of viability" is pretty sensible and about as logical as it gets. It's a safe bright line for me. I understand that number to be ~24 weeks or however it was defined in Casey. 
Click to expand...
But viability is based on location and technology and is ever changing. I think it was originally 28 weeks but due to technology, it's now around 22 or 23 weeks. A fetus would be viable at an earlier age in a top hospital than some small town or even impoverished country. 

A fetus that is now viable at 25 weeks is the same fetus that wasn't viable until 28 weeks years ago.

We all choose a number for our own decision. I think the point when an embryo becomes a fetus, at about 11 weeks, works for me. So, first trimester. Of course, health or mother and baby being an exception after.

 
What if science one day allows us to put an embryo in some kind of fluid and keep it alive? Would it be considered viable?

 
BassNBrew said:
People wanting to adopt and the states restricting abortion.
Click to expand...
This would be incredibly challenging to implement. 

ETA: I frankly appreciate and somewhat agree with the sentiment, but this would be a legal nightmare if implemented.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
This would be incredibly challenging to implement. 

ETA: I frankly appreciate and somewhat agree with the sentiment, but this would be a legal nightmare if implemented.
Click to expand...


yeah, I agree with you.  Just seems like the solution to forcing women to have kids they don't want isn't to saddle them with the kid they don't want.

 
Zow said:
Honestly I think the "age of viability" is pretty sensible and about as logical as it gets. It's a safe bright line for me. I understand that number to be ~24 weeks or however it was defined in Casey. 
Click to expand...


I didn't make it clear in my post but even though I was questioning the logic it's where I personally kind of land.  As I discussed with Tim in another thread - I don't feel like a woman has the right to end a life that is viable outside her womb.  However, I don't know enough about the difficulties of a C-section vs. abortion from a physical toll perspective.  I think both are relatively safe.  But even that becomes tricky - telling a woman she has to have a c-section vs. abortion since it is now 24 weeks when at 23 weeks she was fine to do it.  That's the part that seems maybe a tad illogical.

 
jamny said:
What if science one day allows us to put an embryo in some kind of fluid and keep it alive? Would it be considered viable?
Click to expand...


I've made this argument for years - where would people fall it technology allowed for seamless transfer of a fetus outside the womb.  That's an easier discussion IMO - the medical issues for women is where it gets all kinds of messy.  Or to be more accurate - even more messy.

 
BassNBrew said:
yeah, I agree with you.  Just seems like the solution to forcing women to have kids they don't want isn't to saddle them with the kid they don't want.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. And, unfortunately, the "cleanest" way to do that is probably to permit the abortion. 

 
dkp993 said:
This is my issue with the ruling last week. I believe there is a compromise here with the weeks that most in this country would find reasonable.  Of course those on the ends of the spectrum wouldn’t but that too has become our country’s problem, the need to appease the fringe at the expense of the majority.  I believe it will be that singular flaw that will ultimately lead to a major shift in what this country becomes (for better or worse). 
Click to expand...
Assuming that

  • For any line that is drawn there are medical exception
  • That doctors performing such abortions should be treated consistently as the unanimous "Pill Mill" decision yesterday  (I get that this isn't necessarily a safe assumption)
What is the purpose of the line?

ETA:  And from the opposite end, if one demands that abortions be always legal shouldn't one pragmatically push for these two assumptions first?  And not get hung up on the line?    (Which I get answers my question - the line allows the majority of the country to support the legislation.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I handle aborted fetuses of all ages all of the time. From unidentifiable “products of conception” that are typically less than 12 weeks, to full-term 39+ weeks. Released a 14-week fetal demise to a funeral home just today. And working on another one that was admitted over the weekend. They are all heart-breaking. The gestational age makes zero difference. At these later stages of development, nobody wants to have an abortion. But sometimes it happens, and sometimes it’s just the right and humane decision for the parties involved. It should be a decision between the individual/family/physician. 

 
the moops said:
 Average pregnancy is 40 weeks. 
Click to expand...
This isn't really directed at Moops, but this comment gave me another thought. The 40 weeks is counted from the first day of the woman's last period, but the egg doesn't even get released until 10-14 days later. So really the first two weeks she's not even pregnant yet. It's just the counting system. 

No really sure I have a point. If I have a point, I guess it's that at 8 weeks, you've really only been pregnant for 6 weeks, and probably only known you were pregnant for four weeks. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think MOST people can agree that voluntary abortion in the second half of pregnancy (IE: I just don't wanna have a kid) is a bad thing, and MOST people are absolutely fine with that being illegal.

Personally, I'm fairly comfortable with a line somewhere in the 12-18 week timeframe. The later it is, the less I like it, but much earlier then 12 weeks presents logistical challenges. BUt the folks who've posted in here (so far) aren't the issue. MANY evangelical Chirstians can't stand the thought of abortion under any but the MOST strenous of circumstances, and some can't tolerate it even then. And much sooner then 20 weeks needs a carve out for severely deformed, less viable fetuses....and most of these never abort folks don't want exceptions like that.

I'm an RN in an ICU, and my heart breaks frequently watching how folks treat their dying family. I watch people ALL THE TIME choose to make their family member suffer, often with the bail out that "God will heal them" (as if God really wants to heal a common 85 year old man who's already demented and living in a nursing home with a stage 3 sacral wound!). Most people wouldn't treat their dog as poorly as they do their mom or dad. Sick really. The same twisted thinking creeps into the abortion discussion.

IN this day and age, with as many as support abortion rights, most people in these states outlawing and severely curtailing abortion will be able to get transport and an appointment in another state. My bigger issues with overturning Roe are the terrible precedent of overturning "established" law, and with the fact that suddenly we have another topic (like gun control) where individual states are al doing their own thing...and THAT is no good for this country. I find it ironic that the same folks who love to spend big bucks on military and want to be seen as a world power and leader are celebrating the expansion of states powers and shrinking of the federal powers.....we're going backwards, and this can not and will not make us anything but weaker as a nation.

Perhaps that 230+ year old document just isn't as good today as it was then?

 
renesauz said:
My bigger issues with overturning Roe are the terrible precedent of overturning "established" law, and with the fact that suddenly we have another topic (like gun control) where individual states are al doing their own thing...and THAT is no good for this country.
Click to expand...


There's two ways to look at that.

The first way is your way. The second way is that Roe operated like a "Pause Button" that took away the power of state legislatures to decide for themselves on what was best for their constituents. What happens in Texas is not the same as what happens in New York is not the same in what happens in North Carolina.

You see overturning Roe as terrible precedent.

I see Roe, in the first place, as terrible precedent.

What's wrong with states "doing their own thing"?  Our Constitution provides for areas where states can do their own thing. Maybe the people of North Carolina tend to lean one way on things, whereas Texas will be the complete opposite.

Where a lot of tension arises is the GOP strategically, over the long term, put in massive resources, effort and personnel into winning individual state legislatures and built up the asset base/influence base to make overturning Roe happen. They didn't just sit around, they went out and tried to win as many elections as possible. They invested in areas so they could produce a SCOTUS candidate like Amy Coney Barrett.

The GOP took the long haul plan. Team Blue did the reactionary haphazard plan.

The other group that was immediately cast aside were the Pro Life Democrats. They lost their "voice" within the Party apparatus almost completely for 50 years. That was more fallout from Roe.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
467
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
Lyricist Nancy Pelosi Begs Pro-Choice Voters For $15 To Attain A Team Blue Majority That Already Exists (6/30/22 18:29 PST)
Replies
17
Views
624
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Schumer's Radical Abortion Gamble Of "Up To The Moment Of Birth" Will Backfire (5/11/22 00:52 PST)
Replies
19
Views
703
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top