• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Banning abortion after 20 weeks passed by the House

I don't see how infringing upon womens rights gives the Talibornagain such joy but there is it, enjoy your ****ty extremist right wing government America, you earned it.
 

Anti choice site. Nuff said.


If anesthesia is routinely administered during prenatal surgeries, why?

From the link I posted in response to the OP:

Anesthetics and analgesics are commonly used to alleviate pain and discomfort. Despite ongoing debate regarding fetal capacity for pain, fetal anesthesia and analgesia are still warranted for surgical procedures undertaken to promote fetal health. When long-term fetal well-being is a central consideration, evidence of fetal pain is unnecessary to justify fetal anesthesia and analgesia because they serve other purposes unrelated to pain reduction, including (1) inhibiting fetal movement during a procedure63- 65; (2) achieving uterine atony to improve surgical access to the fetus and to prevent contractions and placental separation66- 70; (3) preventing hormonal stress responses associated with poor surgical outcomes in neonates71,72; and (4) preventing possible adverse effects on long-term neurodevelopment and behavioral responses to pain.73- 75
 
Anti choice site. Nuff said.

Not really. The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, but I cite it all the time. Why would you automatically dismiss information provided by a pro-life site?

Never mind; I already know. It's killing the messenger/fallacy of circumstantial association.
 
Not really. The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, but I cite it all the time. Why would you automatically dismiss information provided by a pro-life site?

Never mind; I already know. It's killing the messenger/fallacy of circumstantial association.

And yet the AMA has looked at almost 2,000 fetal pain studies and concluded that a 20 week old fetus does not feel pain.


a comprehensive, nonpartisan, multidisciplinary review of almost 2,000 fetal pain studies concluded that “the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks”



I miscarried a malformed fetus at about 20 weeks gestation and wondering if my malformed little one suffered pain was a great concern to me so I have studied many peer reviewed articles of when the brain in the fetus is developed enough to feel pain.

From the following article:

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics,
describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that,the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.

https://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-consciousness-meter-do-we-really-want-that/
 
Last edited:
It won’t pass the Senate.

I hope it does not pass the Senate.

I said the following on the breaking news thread regarding this bill:


I miscarried a very deformed little one at 20 weeks.
Had my little one not miscarried and I had carried it longer it still never would lived.
I call it an it not out of disrespect but because my doctor told me that pathology told him even if I had carried it longer , it never would have lived. My doctor said it was just too malformed. It was so malformed that pathology could not even tell if it was a boy or a girl.

At least I know it never suffered any pain when it died within me since a fetus cannot feel any pain at 20 weeks.
 
I hope it does not pass the Senate.

I said the following on the breaking news thread regarding this bill:


I miscarried a very deformed little one at 20 weeks.
Had my little one not miscarried and I had carried it longer it still never would lived.
I call it an it not out of disrespect but because my doctor told me that pathology told him even if I had carried it longer , it never would have lived. My doctor said it was just too malformed. It was so malformed that pathology could not even tell if it was a boy or a girl.

At least I know it never suffered any pain when it died within me since a fetus cannot feel any pain at 20 weeks.

That’s got to be one of your life’s most sorrowful experience. I am so sorry.
 
Not really. The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, but I cite it all the time. Why would you automatically dismiss information provided by a pro-life site?

Because anti choice sites lie.
 
I hope it does not pass the Senate.

I said the following on the breaking news thread regarding this bill:


I miscarried a very deformed little one at 20 weeks.
Had my little one not miscarried and I had carried it longer it still never would lived.
I call it an it not out of disrespect but because my doctor told me that pathology told him even if I had carried it longer , it never would have lived. My doctor said it was just too malformed. It was so malformed that pathology could not even tell if it was a boy or a girl.

At least I know it never suffered any pain when it died within me since a fetus cannot feel any pain at 20 weeks.

Is this the missing link to your first quote (in bold)? https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...built-junk-science-and-right-wing-lies/218095

Or is it this? VM -- Fetal Pain Legislation, Oct 14 ... Virtual Mentor

Asking first because you didn't credit the borrowed source and second because the statement you quote credits an article from 2005, Lee SJ, Ralston HJP, Drey EA. Partridge JC, Rosen MA. "Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence." JAMA. 2005;294(8):947-954.

And a key word in the quote is "probably."

You've mentioned your "little ones" many, many, many times. Do you suppose that as malformed as this fetus was, so malformed that gender couldn't be determined, that it also lacked pain sensors because of its tragic lack of development?
 
That’s got to be one of your life’s most sorrowful experience. I am so sorry.

Thank you , Maggie for your kind words.
It was very sad.
 
Is this the missing link to your first quote (in bold)? https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...built-junk-science-and-right-wing-lies/218095

Or is it this? VM -- Fetal Pain Legislation, Oct 14 ... Virtual Mentor

Asking first because you didn't credit the borrowed source and second because the statement you quote credits an article from 2005, Lee SJ, Ralston HJP, Drey EA. Partridge JC, Rosen MA. "Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence." JAMA. 2005;294(8):947-954.

And a key word in the quote is "probably."

You've mentioned your "little ones" many, many, many times. Do you suppose that as malformed as this fetus was, so malformed that gender couldn't be determined, that it also lacked pain sensors because of its tragic lack of development?

I already credited the Quote front the Journal of AMA ethics in my previous Post.

Post # 41 ...sorry you missed it . Almost 2,000 pain studies were reviewed.

As smoke mirrors reported on the other breaking news thread. A fetus that young cannot feel pain.

The brain is not developed , the lungs are not developed , and most do not even have skin yet.

There's quite a few problems with putting this limit here.

Firstly, we find that in practice these situational exceptions don't work, because they sometimes require the woman to go to court, and that can easily take longer than the entire length of a pregnancy. So, in effect, there is no exception, and these women will sometimes be forced to birth at tremendous risk to both their mental health and personal safety (given that we live in a country that thinks rapists should be eligible for child custody). On the rare occasion a woman ever presents for an elective abortion this late, due to something like rape or incest, it is usually because she's been being abused and held captive and couldn't get out sooner, and I don't think we have a right to abuse these women even further. But this is very rare. I'll tell you what's much more common...

Most fatal and otherwise very serious fetal defects cannot be preemptively detected by doctors until around 20 weeks. That is the main reason abortions occur after this point. Women who abort at, say, 21 weeks, are usually doing it for very serious medical reasons.j

Often, such health-related abortions aren't considered "emergency" situations. The woman might be safe, as of this particular moment in time. But then her choices are to just wait to go into preterm labor, hoping the deceased fetus doesn't start decomposing and poisoning her blood stream, or that she may wind up birthing a mortally defective baby who then spends a short few moments suffering before ultimately dying.

Basically, this is refusal to treat a woman until she is actively dying. Again, putting her life at risk for absolutely no reason. We could have treated her for what is a valid and serious medical problem when she was still healthy, and had a better chance of surviving the operation. Forcing doctors to wait until she's dying will basically create a situation like what we see in Ireland, where women sometimes die needlessly because doctors couldn't intervene until she was already succumbing to sepsis. That is insane. This is like if your doctors refused to treat you for cancer until your organs started failing.

Even if the woman manages to maintain her health, we are then telling her she must be forced to carry around when she knows is a fatal pregnancy for another 10 or 20 weeks, only to have a still birth. That is unbelievably cruel, along with being incredibly risky.

It makes no sense to force women into these situation. It puts their lives at risk, and sacrifices their mental health at the altar of what are ultimately symbolic "gains." Not to mention how cruel it is to mortally deformed babies who may experience nothing of life but a brief agony before they expire.

Further, it's unconsitutional. SCOTUS has ruled that the law has no right to interfere with a woman's right to abort a non-viable fetus. 20 weeks is definitely not viable. No fetus has ever survived under 22 weeks in all of medical history. But, just as it was in the 70's, the limit of when a baby has any reasonable chance of survival is still 24 weeks. I don't think that will change until we invent a womb substitute. 20-week fetuses have no lungs, no brain, and sometimes no skin. They are definitively incapable of life, and therefore this is an obvious violation of the Roe v. Wade ruling and womens' constitutional rights.

Smoke and mirrors quote ...Bolding mine:


My little one had no pain when it died within me because a fetus less than 26 weeks is incapable of feeling pain. It had not yet reached the fetal age it needed to be to develop the neural system needed for pain.
 
Last edited:
Let's bring up science and facts.
How could you possibly tell the difference?

The evidence is overwhelming that a fetus feels pain in the womb.
At what stage of development?

If this legislation bans late-term abortion on that scientific fact, I support it.
It is already banned.
 
Five months isn't long enough to decide? Most of Europe is three months. I'm okay with five months but not criminalization.

I consider moving towards the Euro deadline, never intending to ban or go earlier than three or four months (my position on the issue) to be "pro life mild".

Ecocentric and vegan, I'm actually pro life not merely pro fetus. Aside, I'm also pro gun otherwise I'm progressive on social issues.

SInce about 97% of all US abortions take place well before that, in general, yes.

But besides the unfortunate women that find their fetus's have severe medical issues, or the women themselves develop dangerous complications like high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney failure, etc. there is that (to me, odd) segment of women who really dont even know they are pregnant for a long time, even up to childbirth.

So it seems the other 3 or so % would still need the Constitutional protection for an elective abortion.
 
SInce about 97% of all US abortions take place well before that, in general, yes.

But besides the unfortunate women that find their fetus's have severe medical issues, or the women themselves develop dangerous complications like high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney failure, etc. there is that (to me, odd) segment of women who really dont even know they are pregnant for a long time, even up to childbirth.

So it seems the other 3 or so % would still need the Constitutional protection for an elective abortion.

I don't support criminalization.
 
Does that make a person feel better...to think that the fetus cannot feel pain?

That is the topic at hand. Newly proposed legislation that will take away some women's right to choose...based on the lie that pain should be the reason to stop abortions at 20 weeks.

When, even if they did feel pain, there are pain remediation methods to keep them from feeling any pain...just like for any medical procedure. Such as an anesthetic injection.

WHat is your perspective on this, specifically? Your elected officials offering lies in order to get legislation passed that will infringe on a woman's right to choose?
 
That is the topic at hand. Newly proposed legislation that will take away some women's right to choose...based on the lie that pain should be the reason to stop abortions at 20 weeks.

When, even if they did feel pain, there are pain remediation methods to keep them from feeling any pain...just like for any medical procedure. Such as an anesthetic injection.

WHat is your perspective on this, specifically? Your elected officials offering lies in order to get legislation passed that will infringe on a woman's right to choose?

I would say murder is the topic at hand...
 
You've mentioned your "little ones" many, many, many times. Do you suppose that as malformed as this fetus was, so malformed that gender couldn't be determined, that it also lacked pain sensors because of its tragic lack of development?

Just jumping in here but if it might have lacked pain sensors, if true then it couldnt feel pain. :shock:

So I miss the point (again, I am jumping in in the middle)
 
I don't support criminalization.

Lack of legal availability would lead to women getting lesser care, more dangerous to their health and possibly preventing childbearing in the future, not to mention it would increase the # of later term abortions and such providers may not care about causing pain to the unborn.

IMO, such a position demonstrates a disrespect for women, valuing the unborn over women.

They cannot be valued legally or IMO ethically either, equally. So each person needs to decide that for themself. I value women over the unborn but it doesnt mean I think the unborn have no value.
 
Last edited:
I would say murder is the topic at hand...

So you dont know enough to discuss the topic at hand?

Including that abortion is not murder. You could use the proper definition of murder too I see. Here's a hint: It's definitely not based on your opinion.
 
House passes 20-week abortion ban, with Trump White House support | Fox News

Let's bring up science and facts. The evidence is overwhelming that a fetus feels pain in the womb. If this legislation bans late-term abortion on that scientific fact, I support it.

1.) science facts and evidence to NOT support any claims of pain at 20 weeks so i cant take a bill seriously based on lies. I mean the premise of pain is week enough based on how procedures are done but then lying about it makes it worse.
2.) is this an attempt at a flat ban, like ZERO abortions after 20 weeks? no acceptations for the life of the mother, life of the fetus or sever deformities etc? Well "IF" thats the case even more reason to reject such a nonsensical bill.

Funny part is im on record many times saying id be ok with Rvw going down to 20wks if done PROPERLY based on facts and science and if there were of course still exceptions. This dishonest bill aint it.
 
So you dont know enough to discuss the topic at hand?

Including that abortion is not murder. You could use the proper definition of murder too I see. Here's a hint: It's definitely not based on your opinion.

And neither is it based on yours...since you've been offered a counter position you refuse to acknowledge...truth is science has no way of knowing for sure...but the fact remains, it IS taking a human life regardless...
 
Back
Top Bottom