W:276]14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

[soylentgreen]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

Which doctors ?


Would a doctor, paid enough, perform an abortion later than you're comfortble with


Once again, if it can be done, it will be done

Then creating a law has no purpose to it. You are arguing against your own idea that there should be a law when you argue that doctors will follow the money instead of what is right.

Then why post an opinion that doesn't matter ?

Would you, if you were a law maker, be comfortable with a woman terminating a healthy pregnancy, at any stage where it's possible?

Does her opinion overrule the rights of the unborn child each and every time?
Her doctor doesn't come into this since we're talking about HEALTHY pregnancies

The opinion does matter. But it is the woman who is pregnant opinion that matters.
Women cannot even now terminate on a whim after a certain time. Medical ethics do not allow it.
Women can only self terminate in the first few days by a pill. After that it requires a doctor and a medical procedure. So therefor it does require a doctor even if it is a healthy pregnancy.

It is since the number of victims to a man with a knife is much smaller than those victims to a man with a gun
Knife wounds are a lot more survivable than gun shot wounds and generally cause less damage.

It's far easier to kill with a gun. Take the Las Vegas shooter for example - what would be the net result if you replaced his guns with knives? Would the attack never have happened at all ?

Guns are not the only means of mass killings. There are cars, bombs or planes for example. And it is amusing that you argue the quantity of lives is far more important than the life of any individual. So if only one or two are killed that is acceptable losses for not dealing with the root causes of mass killings but instead simply try and remove just one ways of doing mass killings.

There're not problems, they're EXCUSES

How can the problem not be with the guns ?
Britons are not morally superior to Americans...but mass stabbings are far less common than mass shootings are in the USA (per capita)

Police shootings in the USA are far beyond instances of British police feeling the need to use lethal force (again per capita). Why do you think tha is?

That is because you are dealing with a different mind set. Americans are taught to be divisive. They are taught not to trust minorities. to be suspicious of blacks, to condemn women, disrespect gays, or muslims, hate the opposing political side Your politicians and people of power are well versed in the game of divide and conquer. And your average american gun owner has been fed the propaganda of it is their right to kill. You have mass killings because violence is seen as an answer to problems.

England however has a strong sense of unity starting from their own king arthur myth right up to churchills darkest hour speech. Their police unlike american police do not open carry guns. They unlike american police have to actually communicate with the people they are dealing with while the american police are simply drunk with their own belief that a gun gives them the right to kill.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

Then creating a law has no purpose to it. You are arguing against your own idea

But we want to STOP them following the money
It's why we have a law against insider trading to discourage unscrupulous stock brokers

I'm not sure why you feel that following to money or the promise of the money should be used in mitigation

...the opinion does matter. But it is the woman who is pregnant opinion that matters.
Women cannot even now terminate on a whim after a certain time. Medical ethics do not allow it.
Women can only self terminate in the first few days by a pill. After that it requires a doctor and a medical procedure. So therefor it does require a doctor even if it is a healthy pregnancy...

So you trust doctor's ethics....would you trust to professional stockbrokers to follow a code about stock trading or pass a law
Would you trust professional accountants not break tax law or professional engineers not to break buildings codes or would you keep those laws ?

Why are you so trusting of abortion doctors ?

...guns are not the only means of mass killings. There are cars, bombs or planes for example. And it is amusing that you argue the quantity of lives is far more important than the life of any individual....

1. Guns make it far easier to kill

2. Would you ban cars used to transportation or gun used for killing ?

3. Every life is important - even the lives of unborn infants, which you don't appear to have a concern about.
Around 40,000 people are killed per year by firearms. Is that no enough ? And yes I know that includes suicides and those killed by the police.
In the UK a law was passed after ONE instance of a semi-auto rifle being used in a mass shooting in 1987 and ONE instance of a mass shooting with hand guns in 1996.
Result: Since 1996 the UK has had ONE mass shooting since 1996 with a population about 20% that of the USA which suffers almost one mass shooting per DAY

...so if only one or two are killed that is acceptable losses for not dealing with the root causes of mass killings but instead simply try and remove just one ways of doing mass killings.

Acceptable for you perhaps, not in the USA for anything but guns. Look how safe US lawmakers demand how cars are built with airbags and reversing cameras mandatory
If there's a fatal road accident on a tight bend, it will be changed and/or signs erected
If an imported children's toy causes ONE choking death it is banned
If ONE diner dies from food poisoning the restaurant concerned is closed

Not so for guns...which are owned for fun, it's not like there's a need for them, unlike cars

...that is because you are dealing with a different mind set. Americans are taught to be divisive. They are taught not to trust minorities

Who teaches Americans that
Are you sure the same lesson isn't "taught" in Canada, Australia, or the UK ?

...to be suspicious of blacks, to condemn women, disrespect gays, or muslims, hate the opposing political side....

Do you really buy into this nonsense ?
The USA leads to world in accepting gay rights, women rights and ethnic groups are mistrusted is all Western countries - and that includes New Zealand, or do you think hate crime exists solely in the USA ?

...your politicians and people of power are well versed in the game of divide and conquer.....

Like who ?

Have you ever heard of Margaret Thatcher ? American cynicism towards politicians is related to guns in WHAT way, why would that be a reason to keep guns ?

...and your average american gun owner has been fed the propaganda of it is their right to kill

Please provide evidence other than your own warped opinion and a link to propaganda for the "right to kill"

And that's your idea of an argument for keeping guns or a warped opposition to the USA ?

...you have mass killings because violence is seen as an answer to problems

Same motivation happened in the UK ONCE in 1987 and ONCE in 1996 and ONCE since then. Followed by immediate legislation back by the British people

...England however has a strong sense of unity starting from their own king arthur myth right up to churchills darkest hour speech

WTF are you talking about ? King Arthur ? Yeah right, there's also Sweeney Todd and Jack the Ripper !

Jesus !

...their police unlike american police do not open carry guns

You mean like police in Port Arthur, Tasmania ?

You really have NO idea what you're talking about...and ramble on like a wild infant with a seriously distorted view of the USA.


King bloody Arthur FFS - got to admit that's a new one - what next Robin hood ?

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

But we want to STOP them following the money
It's why we have a law against insider trading to discourage unscrupulous stock brokers

I'm not sure why you feel that following to money or the promise of the money should be used in mitigation

No, it is you who are using the excuse of following the money, not me. Doctors are already follow their imposed code of ethics for which they can be punished if they break. Your wanting to impose a secondary rule of law that serves no more assurance than the already existing code of ethics.

So you trust doctor's ethics....would you trust to professional stockbrokers to follow a code about stock trading or pass a law
Would you trust professional accountants not break tax law or professional engineers not to break buildings codes or would you keep those laws ?

Why are you so trusting of abortion doctors ?

It is not a matter of trust. It is a fact that the laws already exist within the profession itself.

1. Guns make it far easier to kill

2. Would you ban cars used to transportation or gun used for killing ?

3. Every life is important - even the lives of unborn infants, which you don't appear to have a concern about.
Around 40,000 people are killed per year by firearms. Is that no enough ? And yes I know that includes suicides and those killed by the police.
In the UK a law was passed after ONE instance of a semi-auto rifle being used in a mass shooting in 1987 and ONE instance of a mass shooting with hand guns in 1996.
Result: Since 1996 the UK has had ONE mass shooting since 1996 with a population about 20% that of the USA which suffers almost one mass shooting per DAY

Guns are nothing more than a means to kill. Banning guns works in places like britain, australia and new zealand because they are people who have not been indoctrinated with the belief that it is their right to kill, unlike americans. Until you get rid of the cause of violence being seen as a solution then getting rid of the most popular tool for violence will not achieve anything.

Acceptable for you perhaps, not in the USA for anything but guns. Look how safe US lawmakers demand how cars are built with airbags and reversing cameras mandatory
If there's a fatal road accident on a tight bend, it will be changed and/or signs erected
If an imported children's toy causes ONE choking death it is banned
If ONE diner dies from food poisoning the restaurant concerned is closed

Not so for guns...which are owned for fun, it's not like there's a need for them, unlike cars

I have had this argument many times with the gun pro. You are arguing for an intelligent use of guns. But americans also suffer from the belief that stupidity is a right. Again it is a situation of you cannot improve on the current status until you do something about the propaganda that encourages people to believe stupidity with guns is acceptable.

Who teaches Americans that
Are you sure the same lesson isn't "taught" in Canada, Australia, or the UK ?

Your politicians, your right wing white supremacists, your wealthy gun manufacturers, your nra, your news papers. It would be easier to ask who does not teach it in america.
And as you said those countries do not have the mass killings that america does. Americans are taught to fear and hate which makes them easier to control. Mccarthy showed your rulers the method of instalklling fear to control and your rulers have learned the lesson well.

Do you really buy into this nonsense ?
The USA leads to world in accepting gay rights, women rights and ethnic groups are mistrusted is all Western countries - and that includes New Zealand, or do you think hate crime exists solely in the USA ?

Yet for some strange reason in those other countries things such as gay rights or abortion are accepted and no one makes much of an issue over it. Yet in america they still fight and demand laws be changed over issues such as abortion or gay marriage.

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

Like who ?

Have you ever heard of Margaret Thatcher ? American cynicism towards politicians is related to guns in WHAT way, why would that be a reason to keep guns ?

My argument is not that it does not happen else where. Only that it does in fact happen in america. Your trump is an excellent example of someone who uses hate for others to control. His main tactic is to denigrate any who speak against him.

Please provide evidence other than your own warped opinion and a link to propaganda for the "right to kill"

And that's your idea of an argument for keeping guns or a warped opposition to the USA ?

Just go through any of the gun threads on this site. Not hard to find someone who believes it is their right to shoot a thief in the back.
My argument is not to keep guns. It is to point out how useless it is to ask for a gun ban in a country where guns have become part of the american psyche. That particular american pandoras box is not as easily closed just by demanding a ban.

Same motivation happened in the UK ONCE in 1987 and ONCE in 1996 and ONCE since then. Followed by immediate legislation back by the British people

And recently just in new zealand with an immediate ban on specific guns as well. But as i said, a different mind set from americans who have been taught that they have a right to kill.

WTF are you talking about ? King Arthur ? Yeah right, there's also Sweeney Todd and Jack the Ripper !

Jesus !

Yes, no place is perfect. But that does not change the argument i made. England has always seen themselves as a united kingdom where as america has always been taught they need guns to protect themselves from their own government.

You mean like police in Port Arthur, Tasmania ?

You really have NO idea what you're talking about...and ramble on like a wild infant with seriously distorted view of the USA.

a
King bloody Arthur FFS - got to admit that's a new one - what next Robin hood ?

context counts. As port arthur is in australia where the police do open carry. While i was making the point about england where the police do not open carry. Take a look at a world map occassionally it might help with your understanding of where tasmanisa is.

And no, robin hood was a tale about fighting oppression. Where as king arthur was a story about uniting all of england under one banner. You do know the legend of the one true king

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

it is you who are using the excuse of following the money

Yes, and our reasons for stopping it

...doctors are already follow their imposed code of ethics

And other professions don't or a doctor's oath can somehow prevent immoral/illegal practices?

for which they can be punished if they break

And disbarred lawyers can be imprisoned - should lawyers be immune from the law as they'll be punished by their profession

...it is not a matter of trust. It is a fact that the laws already exist within the profession

So defrocked priests shouldn't be imprisoned for raping young boys once their church has punished them ?
Why do you put such faith in self-regulation ?

...guns are nothing more than a means to kill. Banning guns works in places like britain, australia and nz because they are people who have not been indoctrinated with the belief that it is their right to kill

So ban them

American haven't been indoctrinated any more than the British (explain Michael Ryan & Thomas Hamilton)
The British just lack the means to kill

...americans also suffer from the belief that stupidity is a right

Another anti-American piece of stupidity, and even if it was the case, all the more reason to ban guns

...your politicians, your right wing white supremacists, your wealthy gun manufacturers...

Really, please provide an example of such a lesson and also detail what your right wing politicians, white supremists, media etc teach

...yet for some reason in those other countries things such as gay rights or abortion are accepted

"Weeks before a gunman killed 50 Muslims in Christchurch, a man had threatened to burn copies of the Koran outside NZ...in a long list of threatening behavior against religious minorities..."

Before mosque attacks, New Zealand failed to record hate crimes for years - Reuters


"The NZ attack that left dozens dead is shocking, but far from an isolated event amid the growing number of hate crimes against Muslims...the attack appears to be motivated by white supremacy and anti-immigrant ideology... "


What the New Zealand shootings tell us about the rise in hate crimes | PBS NewsHour


He who is without sin among you...

...it does in fact happen in america...Trump is an excellent example of someone who uses hate for others to control...

And that is a reason not to ban guns how ?
What's he said regarded as "hate speech" (Cue frantic internet search)

...not hard to find someone who believes it is their right to shoot a thief in the back

So it should be easy to find a quote - YOU made the assertion so YOU back it up with evidence

...my argument is not to keep guns. It is to point out how useless it is to ask for a gun ban in a country...

So you subscribe to excuse #3

...as i said, a different mind set from americans who have been taught that they have a right to kill

Prove your anti-American vitriol

...England has always seen themselves as a united kingdom

England is NOT a sovereign state and the UK most definitely does not see itself as a unified political entity. Scottish independence vote ?

...port arthur is in australia where the police do open carry....

All Australian police

...i was making the point about england where the police do not open carry

Many British police DO open carry


british airport police, guns - Google Search

...take a look at a world map occassionally it might help with your understanding of where tasmanisa is

Part of Australia where there was a mass shooting

Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia

...king arthur was a story about uniting all of england under one banner. You do know the legend of the one true king

Geoffrey of Monmouth never wrote that...you're quick to recommend a reference. How about you read about his Historia Regum Britanniae
And King Arthur was probably connected to Welsh legends

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

Which doctors ?


Would a doctor, paid enough, perform an abortion later than you're comfortble with


Once again, if it can be done, it will be done




Then why post an opinion that doesn't matter ?

Would you, if you were a law maker, be comfortable with a woman terminating a healthy pregnancy, at any stage where it's possible?
...

Rich...

I explained to you in post $425

Why clinic abortions past 22 weeks are so rare.

In clinic abortions the unborn must be dead before labor is induced or the unborn is extracted.

There are only 4 doctors in the US ( as of 2013 ) who are skilled enough to perform those abortions.

So no it cannot be done legally by other doctors. They have not been trained and are not skilled enough to perform those type of abortion procedures.

Hospitals will either induce an early labor when the fetus is non viable and (yes early induction of a non viable is an abortion ) from:

There is a false belief that induction of labor early for a lethal anomaly is not an abortion. It is.
...

Why can’t they just have a c-section?

First of all, a c-section for an early delivery of a non-viable fetus is still an abortion. #TheMoreYouKnow.

Abortions at or after 24 weeks are sometimes needed medically. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. – Dr. Jen Gunter



or if the pregnancy later than 22 weeks and woman’s life is threaded

with irreparable damage to a major bodily function the hospital performs a stat c -section and they hope the woman’s life is spared.

Each year over 300 US women die during pregnacy and childbirth and other over 200,000 have had near misses.

Many of those women do end up with irreparable damage to one of her major bodily function.

Surcharging as heart damage, stroke, paralysis from the neck down or kidney or liver damage.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

Rich...

I explained to you in post $425

Why clinic abortions past 22 weeks are so rare....

But they do happen

...there are only 4 doctors in the US ( as of 2013 ) who are skilled enough to perform those abortions....

...so no it cannot be done legally by other doctors...

Do you need a specific license to abort pregnancies or pregnancies over 22 weeks ?

If so is it federally issued or can each state license their own 22 week + abortionists ?



"...as of 2011 among those countries that allowed abortion without restriction as to reason, the gestational limits for such abortions on request were: 37 countries set a gestational limit of 12 weeks, 7 countries of 14 weeks, 4 did not set limits, 3 at viability, 3 at 10 weeks, one at 90 days, one at 8 weeks, one at 18 weeks, and one at 24 weeks. In addition, Abortion in Australia, and, to a certain extent, Abortion in the United States, is regulated at state/territory level, and laws vary by region..."


Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

But they do happen








Do you need a specific license to abort pregnancies or pregnancies over 22 weeks ?

If so is it federally issued or can each state license their own 22 week + abortionists ?



"...as of 2011 among those countries that allowed abortion without restriction as to reason, the gestational limits for such abortions on request were: 37 countries set a gestational limit of 12 weeks, 7 countries of 14 weeks, 4 did not set limits, 3 at viability, 3 at 10 weeks, one at 90 days, one at 8 weeks, one at 18 weeks, and one at 24 weeks. In addition, Abortion in Australia, and, to a certain extent, Abortion in the United States, is regulated at state/territory level, and laws vary by region..."


Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

There are only 3 states that have clinics that perform abortions past 20weeks.

As I said the by Law the unborn must no longer have a heartbeat before contractions or extraction of the unborn begins during a clinic abortionpast 22 weeks.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its classic Roe vs. Wade Decision, ruled that abortions are legal at any gestation to preserve the life or the health of the woman.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

There are only 3 states that have clinics that perform abortions past 20weeks...

By law or by chance ?

...as I said the by Law the unborn must no longer have a heartbeat before contractions or extraction of the unborn begins during a clinic abortionpast 22 weeks....

Which law or group of laws ?

Federal or individual state ?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

By law or by chance ?





Which law or group of laws ?

Federal or individual state ?

A Federal Law.

Doctors must make sure the fetus is dead in abortions past 22 weeks so a painless lethal injection is administered in fetuses who need to be aborted because of abnormalities.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

A Federal Law.

Doctors must make sure the fetus is dead in abortions past 22 weeks so a painless lethal injection is administered in fetuses who need to be aborted because of abnormalities.

So it's not really an abortion is it if the fetus is already dead ?

Do you happen to know the statute so I can look up what it says ?

 

[Terryj]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

When does a fetus become human ?

IMO it's when brain development begins. Before that it just a collection of cells.

Rich, "When does it become a human", Are you questioning if it will become something else other than an human?

 

[Rich2018]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Rich, "When does it become a human", Are you questioning if it will become something else other than an human?

No, I'm questing when a fetus becomes "human" and is therefore afforded the associated rights that go along with that.

I used to thing that a person becomes human at the point of birth. But now I question that.

 

[mrjurrs]

Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.

I would suggest that the entire basis for your question is false. Original intent has zero to do with the way the Constitution is interpreted today. Originalists cling to it, but the reality is that the SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means today.

 

[southwest88]

Up the wrong tree

No, I'm questing when a fetus becomes "human" and is therefore afforded the associated rights that go along with that.

I used to thing that a person becomes human at the point of birth. But now I question that.

No, wrong question. Roe v. Wade looked @ when the fetus becomes a person, in the legal sense. TMK, the humanity of the fetus was never in question, assuming that it develops normally. Personhood was determined to be achieved upon birth, or @ least upon the fetus' viability.

 

[AGENT J]

I would suggest that the entire basis for your question is false. Original intent has zero to do with the way the Constitution is interpreted today. Originalists cling to it, but the reality is that the SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means today.

Just an FYI, IronMerc has been banned since 10/11/19

Uninvited Guests

 

[mrjurrs]

I would suggest that the entire basis for your question is false. Original intent has zero to do with the way the Constitution is interpreted today. Originalists cling to it, but the reality is that the SCOTUS determines what the Constitution means today.

Thanks for the update, I wondered if anyone ever got tossed here.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

So it's not really an abortion is it if the fetus is already dead ?

It is an abortion if the fetus is already dead.

It is an an abortion if contractions or a c-section of a non viable fetus ( non viable means dead or dying ) even when the abortion By induction of labor or a c-section is carried out in the hospital.

When I miscarried at 20 gestation and went to ER they took a pregnancy test and told my husband ,and I our little had died in my womb.
They scheduled me to have a D and E ( dismememberment abortion ) the next day.

When they wheeled me to my hospital room that night and I was transferring from the gurney to my hospital bed our little one was expelled and I accidentally saw how malformed it was.

My doctor later told me our little one would never have been viable even if I had carried it longer.

He said pathology told him it was so malformed they could not even tell if it was a boy or girl.

Luckily for me my body naturally expelled it that night or I would have had to abortion I did not want. Unfortunately for me I accidentally saw how malformed it was and that Sight broke my heart.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

So it's not really an abortion is it if the fetus is already dead ?

Do you happen to know the statute so I can look up what it says ?

Of course is is an abortion if the fetus is already dead, but it is a legal abortion when the fetus is at or over the age where it may be viable.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&E remains legal as long as there is first a feticidal injection while the fetus is still completely inside of the mother's body.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

Of course is is an abortion if the fetus is already dead, but it is a legal abortion when the fetus is at or over the age where it may be viable.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&E remains legal as long as there is first a feticidal injection while the fetus is still completely inside of the mother's body.

If there is no life, it's not an abortion.

Cutting away a cancerous growth is removing more life.

Do you happen to know the statute so I can look up what it says ?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

If there is no life, it's not an abortion.

Cutting away a cancerous growth is removing more life.

Do you happen to know the statute so I can look up what it says ?

So you agree with a painless fatal injections to the fetus so they have NO [/B%]chance of being born alive.

That’s great then late term abortions are not considered abortions to you because the fetus was killed before the abortion.

fYI : all abortions past 20 weeks are listed in abortion stats even though the fetus was dead.
If a doctor had to start contracts or remove the dead fetus because it did not expel on its own it is an abortion.
If you have Twitter use. # TheMoreYouKnow

Otherwise Look up Supreme Court Ruling why late term abortion doctors must use injections to ensure fetus is dead before the abortion begins.

Hint :

The partial birth abortion ban and the Infant protection act of 2002 are the reasons why.


The government wanted to ensure that no more preemies would be born from a failed abortion attempt.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

So you agree with a painless fatal injections to the fetus so they have NO chance of being born alive.

I have no opinion on the best way to abort an unwanted fetus

...late term abortions are not considered abortions to you because the fetus was killed before the abortion...

"Late-term” abortions are generally understood to take place during or after the 21st to 24th week of gestation, which is late in the second trimester. That gestational period roughly corresponds to the point of “fetal viability” or when a fetus might be able to survive outside the womb with or without medical assistance. However, there is no precise medical or legal definition of “late-term,” and many doctors and scientists avoid that language, calling it imprecise and misleading. They say “late-term” may imply that these abortions are taking place when a woman has reached or passed a full-term pregnancy, which is defined as starting in the 37th week..."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...s-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/


I missed the bit where it said the fetus is already dead

...all abortions past 20 weeks are listed in abortion stats even though the fetus was dead....

FYI - see above

...if a doctor had to start contracts or remove the dead fetus because it did not expel on its own it is an abortion.

It may be classed as one, but removing a dead fetus is hardly aborting life. It's the removal of dead tissue

...look up Supreme Court Ruling why late term abortion doctors must use injections to ensure fetus is dead before the abortion begins...

What is the statute ?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

I have no opinion on the best way to abort an unwanted fetus


What is the statute ?

All aborted fetuses are dead before they are extracted.

If you want to know the statute than I will let you find it.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

All aborted fetuses are dead before they are extracted....

I really would hope so

In the same way I hope all humans are dead before they're buried or cremated

If you want to know the statute than I will let you find it.

So you don't know.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Rockets' red glare & all

I really would hope so

In the same way I hope all humans are dead before they're buried or cremated

Abortion by induction:

Abortion by Medical (Non-Surgical) Induction Abortion

This method is generally used after 16 weeks from the last menstrual period and before the viability of the unborn child, unless such abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent impairment to her health.

In a medically induced abortion, medicines will be used to start labor. Labor induction may require a hospital stay. For this procedure, the physician will:

Perform laboratory tests to confirm the pregnancy, test for Rh status, and test for anemia and red blood cell count.
Take a medical and obstetrical history, including a history of allergies and all current medications.
Examine the uterus and perform an ultrasound to confirm how far along the pregnancy is.
Educate the patient about the abortion process, side effects, and clear instructions for assessing emergency services.
Insert a speculum into the vagina, to hold it open. The physician cleans the vagina and cervix with an antiseptic solution. At this time, a numbing agent (local anesthetic) may be injected in the cervix.
Insert osmotic dilators (small tubes that absorb moisture from the tissues surrounding the cervix and swell) approximately 2 or more days before the surgical procedure to open the cervix, allowing access to the uterus.
Medicines to start early labor can be inserted into the vagina, or a vein (IV), or swallowed to start uterine contractions and soften the cervix, this can take 12 – 48 hours.
Inject medicine through the abdomen or vagina into the amniotic fluid, or the heart or umbilical cord of the fetus. This causes the death of the fetus.

Monitor the contractions and delivery of the fetus.
Monitor the expulsion of the placenta. May scrape the uterus with a curette to ensure there is no retained placenta.

Abortion by Labor Induction