|
|
The state has a responsibility to the fetus once it achieves viability (roughly 50/50 chance to live outstide the womb with mechanical assistance). That is around 22-24 weeks.
In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb.
And there is room for that number to come down at technology improves.
What the ultrasound helps confirm the actual length of pregnancy to the State. And it also will confirm to the doctor that eveything is where it should be (no tubal pregnancy or similar).
Abortion is a 3 way decision.
The doctor ability to practice medicine.
The States responsibility to the fetus if it's viable.
The womans right to manage her pregnancy pretty much any way she wants before viability.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 24 2012 01:44 RCMDVA wrote:
The doctor ability to practice medicine.
The States responsibility to the fetus if it's viable.
The womans right to manage her pregnancy pretty much any way she wants before viability.
I don't believe the woman loses the right to manage her pregnancy at any point during gestation, and I disagree with the moral philosophy that this might ever be the case.
|
On August 24 2012 01:46 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 01:44 RCMDVA wrote:
The doctor ability to practice medicine.
The States responsibility to the fetus if it's viable.
The womans right to manage her pregnancy pretty much any way she wants before viability. I don't believe the woman loses the right to manage her pregnancy at any point during gestation, and I disagree with the moral philosophy that this might ever be the case.
We it's the law of the land, and has been for 40 years.
0-20 weeks -> Mom can do what she wants.
21-24 weeks -> sort of grey area based on State laws and Technology
25+ weeks -> Mom's options become very limited very quickly unless a life/health issue shows up. Skyrocketing blood pressure or whatever.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
On August 24 2012 01:57 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 01:46 Blazinghand wrote:On August 24 2012 01:44 RCMDVA wrote:
The doctor ability to practice medicine.
The States responsibility to the fetus if it's viable.
The womans right to manage her pregnancy pretty much any way she wants before viability. I don't believe the woman loses the right to manage her pregnancy at any point during gestation, and I disagree with the moral philosophy that this might ever be the case. We it's the law of the land, and has been for 40 years. 0-20 weeks -> Mom can do what she wants. 21-24 weeks -> sort of grey area based on State laws and Technology 25+ weeks -> Mom's options become very limited very quickly unless a life/health issue shows up. Skyrocketing blood pressure or whatever.
Just because something is the law of the land doesn't make it right. I can assure you that anti-choice people disagree with this law as well. The statement that I find that moral philosophy to be incongruent with mine stands. I'm not saying it's inherently wrong, or that it isn't the law, I'm just saying I disagree with that basic foundational idea. That is why I don't like the ultrasound thing.
You're welcome to disagree with my thoughts on it, and also to state that the law disagrees with my thoughts on it-- that's fine. I'm just explaining why I don't like the ultrasound thing.
|
On August 24 2012 01:44 RCMDVA wrote:The state has a responsibility to the fetus once it achieves viability (roughly 50/50 chance to live outstide the womb with mechanical assistance). That is around 22-24 weeks. Show nested quote +In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. And there is room for that number to come down at technology improves. What the ultrasound helps confirm the actual length of pregnancy to the State. And it also will confirm to the doctor that eveything is where it should be (no tubal pregnancy or similar). Abortion is a 3 way decision. The doctor ability to practice medicine. The States responsibility to the fetus if it's viable. The womans right to manage her pregnancy pretty much any way she wants before viability.
If the doctor requires the ultrasound, then the doctor will require an ultrasound. The ultrasound requirement is completely and utterly useless and cannot necessarily determine the length of the pregnancy.
This is politicians intervening with medical practices. I have no idea why you're defending this.
|
The ultrasound requirement is completely and utterly useless and cannot necessarily determine the length of the pregnancy.
What's the most accurate way to determine the length of pregnancy then?
Take the mothers word for it?
Take the doctors word for it?
Perform an ultrasound?
Perform a blood test?
If the States are saying genarally Not Viable <20 weeks< Viable Just how does the state make sure that the abortion is not performed after 20 weeks?
Ultrasound is clearly the best choice for determing gestational age.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
I think you're missing out on another point, which is that setting up a law to determine how this should be done rather than letting the doctors use whatever method is best is bad. If the people who have MDs think a certain method is good or bad, they can use it. I don't know why legislators, who don't have MDs, should determine what medical procedures are required. I'd really prefer the doctors determine what's involved in a treatment & diagnosis rather than some politicians lol
|
On August 23 2012 19:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 01:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 22 2012 17:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 22 2012 02:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 21 2012 18:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2012 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 20 2012 21:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
I'm definitely not opposed to redirecting "poor quality government spending" to better uses. You say that this is the main thing you're advocating for, but it's not obvious from any of your writings that that's your view. The standard Republican view is to gut all spending (apart from tax cuts to the rich, of course).
The "making stuff up" comment was directed at your factoid that stimulus is ineffective when debt is high. I can't accuse you of making stuff up now that you have given a source (probably the most random and no-name source that's been linked this thread). However, I still don't agree with the content in your link. If it seems random and no-name it was mentioned on CNBC a few weeks back (randomly) and so I took a look at it then. It is also reflective of the views and opinions of quite a few guests they have had on the channel over the last couple years. It is not wise to ignore what market participants are telling you. Plenty are saying that the high level of government debt and deficits are leading to less investment - that's not a good thing and it needs to be noted. Now, while you're source is quite no-name, it does cite some more reputable studies (in the "Recent Academic Evidence" section) to come to the view quoted above, that being Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff. But your source has misinterpreted the finding of this paper, which is that recessions caused by debt overhangs are long, and that high debt (the magical 90% number) is correlated with slow economic growth. It even calls it a "corollary", because it's the implication they drew from the evidence. But it does not follow from the Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff paper that was cited, that even higher debt, in the form of stimulus, will cause even slower economic growth. This Hoisington paper confuses correlation with causation. The original source says that prolonged levels of high debt is correlated with slow economic growth. Now there has been some criticism of the Reinhart, Rogoff work, such as the 90% number being arbitrary and hand-picked, and also this from Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/notes-on-rogoff-wonkish/They are not arguing that stimulus is causing slow growth. The argument is that government stimulus is far less effective following a debt overhang than normal and that high levels of government debt (in general) leads to slower growth. Because of that higher and higher levels of stimulus will not lead to added growth (or very little of it) because the added growth from stimulus will be offset by the private sector reacting negatively towards it. We know that excessive debt is an issue for both households and businesses and leads to lower economic growth. Now, government debt is a bit different but not exceedingly so. Ultimately the cost of that debt will be paid for by households and businesses through higher taxes or lower government spending or a prolonged period of negative real rates. So it is not a huge leap in logic to say that a huge pile of government debt will have a similar impact as private debt. Maybe the 90% number isn't a good number. But according to usgovernmentspending.com we'll be at 122% of GDP this year. To a lot of people in the economy that's a scary number, and because of that many have already pared back their spending and investment plans... which has slowed growth. But, let's see what Reinhart and Rogoff actually have to say about stimulus: The U.S. must reduce its debt or suffer economic stagnation, they said in interviews with McClatchy, but in the short term they also favor more government stimulus to boost the economy, even if that raises the debt a bit more. "We may need another stimulus bill just to decompress from the previous one, a smaller one to cushion the landing," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and a co-author of the book. Added his fellow co-author, Carmen Reinhart, a University of Maryland economist: "I'm not one of those deficit hawks. ... I'm not saying you run out and pull the plug and have an adjustment that could derail what fragile recovery we do have." However, she cautioned, "the whole thing that we can disregard debt because we're the U.S. is really grasping at straws. Taxpayers need to understand the tradeoff, and that is, we're going to be paying for this in terms of lower growth in the future." Source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/08/17/99285/what-should-we-do-about-national.htmlAnd then there's this from Reinhart (again): This seems to be a very reasonable economic position: stimulus now, cut spending later. In fact, it's pretty much the position of Barrack Obama. Note that the first link is from 2010, these days I believe Rogoff has become a typical "cut everything, now, now, now!!" Republican. Sure they praise the stimulus back during the recession and at first into the recovery. But that was years ago. We're now talking about continued stimulus, and even added stimulus years after growth resumed and government debt has piled up to higher levels. We're getting to the point where perpetual stimulus is being called for as has happened in Japan over the past few decades. I think Obama's plan is to spend more now, and cut more later. He wants additional stimulus like the American Jobs Act. I don't think the cost of new stimulus like that is worth the benefits. We might get a bit more growth now, but it will just set us up for a new fiscal cliff in the future and then need a new stimulus plan to offset it. Now, maybe additional stimulus is the best plan out there. But there's no 100% certainty to that. There's a risk that the added stimulus won't be very effective and will just make the future more painful. In light of that risk the prudent thing to do is redirect the garbage spending. They are arguing that when there's high debt (for the record: Bush's fault), then stimulus, which increases debt would "perpetuate the period of slow economic growth". And this is a misinterpretation of the cited work of Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff, which finds that high debt is correlated with slow growth. This does not imply that even higher debt will cause even slower growth. In fact, where in the Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff paper does it say that stimulus is bad when debt is high? It doesn't. It's a invalid inference made my this no-name paper. It fails to understand the most simplistic mantra of statistical inference: correlation does not imply causation. In the very last paragraph of the Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff paper it says: Finally, this paper should not be interpreted as a manifesto for rapid public debt deleveraging in an environment of extremely weak growth and high unemployment. However, our read of the evidence certainly casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt is a non-issue simply because markets are presently happy to absorb it. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18015.pdf?new_window=1Why was this statement ignored? The finding that high debt is correlated with low growth doesn't imply that even higher debt will cause even lower growth. If the government doesn't spend, then who will? Why would the private sector spend when there is a lack of aggregate demand? I generally don't dispute that in the long run, high debt is bad for growth. High government debt isn't cost-free. But this is a correlation, it can run both ways, maybe low growth causes high debt. In the short run, trying to cut government spending now would be doing exactly what Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff cautions us to not do. The idea that when government spending is cut, people would be inspired by the confidence fairy to spend more is exactly the flawed logic behind Europe's disastrous austerity. Cutting spending in a recession further depresses the economy, making it even harder to pay down government debt in the long run. Having high debt is not a sustainable long run policy, but in the short run, it is self-defeating to make the recession worse by cutting spending which makes the debt problem worse. Also, that quote from Reinhart in the Washington Times, essentially saying that stimulus saved the economy, wasn't from many years ago. It's from November 2011, which is quite recent. Where does she say that stimulus is a waste of money? The fact that people are somehow spooked out of investing my high government debt is laughable. Government debt should only factor into investment decisions to the extend that rational agents anticipate higher future taxes because the government would need to pay down the debt later. The argument that this stops stimulus from working is known as Ricardian Equivalence. Krugman got into a long debate with Chicago economists on why this is completely wrong: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/a-note-on-the-ricardian-equivalence-argument-against-stimulus-slightly-wonkish/They've since backed down from the claim. Rogoff argued for a stimulus going into and during the recession. But Rogoff also argued that after the recession (where we are now) more prudence was in order. As it becomes increasingly evident that the recovery will remain subdued in Europe and the US, there is a growing chorus for indefinitely sustaining aggressive post-crisis fiscal stimulus. Governments that instead propose gradually reducing deficits and ultimately stabilising debt to income levels - such as both Germany and the UK - are accused of pig-headed fiscal conservatism. Had they only a better grasp of Keynesian truisms, we are told, these countries' leaders would realise that their penury risks throwing already weak economies into double-dip recessions, or even a sustained depression. There is no question that huge uncertainty hangs over the global economy, but is the case against commonsense fiscal conservatism so compelling? I don't see it. source (requires subscription) As to the Krugman article - yes, buying a home on credit will result in a large net increase in spending. But in following years spending will be lessened due to repaying the mortgage. In policy terms, yes, deficit spending can boost overall spending but the after affect is sluggish growth. Just as the mortgage results in a crimp in household spending, the government debt acts as a drag on growth. If the response to the sluggish growth is more debt then the consequence will repeat itself - more debt, less growth, leading to more debt and continued sluggish growth. That's the story of Japan over the past 30 years as government debt climbed from 60% of GDP to 230%. Moreover, what if we consider bad debt? If a bank lends out money to finance a home purchase and sees that the homeowner is having difficulty paying it back then the bank will increase its loan loss reserves and curtail new lending. Similarly if people see government spending as inefficient or unsustainable it will result in them curtailing their own lending, spending and investment. It may not be $1 for $1, but it will be more than nothing. Did the Bush tax cuts and resulting deficits result in a prosperous decade? Certainly not. The tax cuts may have helped stabilize the economy following the recession but it didn't make the economy very robust afterwards. Why? Were the tax cuts just not big enough? Yeah, that's the ticket... Now you've changed the subject from whether fiscal stimulus is effective when government has high debt to the cost of fiscal stimulus. The idea that people would withhold a small portion of spending due to anticipated future tax increases that is needed to pay off the debt incurred with fiscal stimulus is highly unrealistic. But even if we stick to the model, and assume this is true, you're assertion that people will spend less in the future because of this doesn't mean that fiscal stimulus is a bad idea. You're comparing 2 scenarios: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus with (b) no reduction in future spending due to not doing stimulus. Then you conclude that (b) is better than (a), therefore stimulus is bad. But this only shows that fiscal stimulus is useless in normal times (which it is), it completely misses the point. The alternative to (a) isn't (b). In the absence of stimulus, in a recession, (b) will not happen, future spending will decrease due to the collapse of aggregate demand as part of the recession. Here, (b) does not describe a recession absent stimulus, it describes an economy in normal times absent stimulus. Therefore, your analysis does not apply in the current economic environment. The two choices are more like: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus and (b) even more reduced future spending and prolonged recession due to not doing stimulus. There is also a costless version of fiscal stimulus that gets little mention. It's called balanced budget fiscal expansion, which is basically a euphemism for tax and spend: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/balanced-budget-expansion-debate-begins.html We are neither in normal times nor recessionary times. We're in between. I don't deny that a stimulus can help during a recession - though the one we had wasn't particularly effective - but we are not in a recession anymore. That's not to say that if we look at the economy as a whole things are fine and dandy - they certainly are not. But economic misery is not evenly spread out. Sure, California with a 10.7% unemployment rate could use a stimulus, but certainly not North Dakota with a 3% unemployment rate. Yet the ARRA continues to pour money into North Dakota and any new stimulus bill will do the same. The disparity isn't just regional either. Some industries, such as natural gas drilling, are doing phenomenally well while other industries, such as new home construction, continue to languish. Yet the reality of any current or planned stimulus is that it will blanket the economy. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer. If during a recession it is the only tool you have then by all means use it. But once the recession ends the sledgehammer should be returned to the tool shed and more precise tools need to be employed. But I thought you were for well-designed stimulus? Now you're just looking for every petty excuse to say no to stimulus. The US is technically not in a recession, but this is just a matter of semantics. Unemployment is high, inflation is low, GDP is far below potential, treasury yields are low, tax revenue is down, the Fed's rate is at the zero lower bound, etc, these are the situations in which stimulus is most effective. Going back to the example, the updated choices of (a) and (b) apply to the current situation, where a lack of action will prolong this period of high unemployment, subpar GDP growth, low inflation, and falling tax revenue, all of which make the debt problem worse. Low employment, at potential GDP growth, higher inflation, increasing tax revenue -- all of these things make the debt problem better. Fiscal stimulus is a sledgehammer? What? Fiscal stimulus can be as precise and well-targeted as you want. North Dakota has low unemployment -- fine, don't give them stimulus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why a stimulus package can't take money away from North Dakota and shift it to Nevada. 34 states have unemployment greater or equal to 7%. Also, saying that North Dakota has 3% unemployment because ARRA money keeps pouring into it is a (clearly accidental) admission that stimulus works.
The highest unemployment got in North Dakota was 4.2% in Mar of '09.
South Dakota peaked at 5.3%
Nebraska peaked at 4.9%
These are not unemployment rates warranting a fiscal stimulus (ARRA or otherwise).
There are currently 10 states with an unemployment rate below 6%. Yet we keep pumping huge amounts of stimulus into these states and the President wants even more pumped into them. Yes, theoretically you can target a stimulus quite well. But that's not what the stimulus was or is or ever will be so long as we maintain the mindset that government spending is a virtue in and of itself.
|
On August 23 2012 22:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2012 22:41 BluePanther wrote:On August 23 2012 22:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 23 2012 21:56 BluePanther wrote:I'm well aware of that problem. But it's a red herring in the debt discussion. ![[image loading]](http://images.newstatesman.com/obama-graph.jpg) If you think Republicans give it shit about the debt, then you've been duped. The Republicans are the cause of the debt problem, they blew a surplus into a deficit, started 2 wars and pass the Bush tax cuts which is one of the most significant contributors to the deficit. And Romney and Ryan now want to take the Bush tax cuts even further. In what world is that deficit reducing? Continuing with my Ryan series, let’s look at what his budget (pdf) actually proposes (as opposed to vaguely promises) in its first decade. First, there are a set of tax cuts for higher income brackets and corporations. The Tax Policy Center (pdf) estimates the cost of these tax cuts, relative to current policy, at $4.3 trillion. Second, there are spending cuts. Of these, approximately $800 billion comes from converting Medicaid into a block grant that grows only with population and overall inflation – a big cut compared with projections that take into account rising health-care costs and an aging population (since the elderly and disabled account for most Medicaid expenses). Another $130 billion comes from doing something similar to food stamps. Then there are odds and ends – Pell grants, job training. Be generous and call all of this $1 trillion in specified cuts. On top of this we should add the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan denounces in Obamacare but nonetheless incorporates into his own plan. So if we look at the actual policy proposals, they look like this: Spending cuts: $1.7 trillion Tax cuts: $4.3 trillion This is, then, a plan that would increase the deficit by around $2.6 trillion. How, then, does Ryan get to call himself a fiscal hawk? By asserting that he will keep his tax cuts revenue-neutral by broadening the base in ways he refuses to specify, and that he will make further large cuts in spending, in ways he refuses to specify. And this is what passes inside the Beltway for serious thinking and a serious commitment to deficit reduction. Source: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/ryan-the-first-decade/ Oh great, another Bush hater. TARP, the 2008 Stimulus, and both wars received bilateral support. The first two I would even argue were Democrat ideas. Once again, the Democrats are just making things worse (notice how the graph goes down instead of up?). It's not ok to make the problem worse by pointing a finger and screaming "BUT HE STARTED IT!!!" Two wrongs don't make a right. Or did you miss that lesson in Kindergarten? I don't have time to address the rest right now. Gotta run to work. As you can see from the graph, TARP and the stimulus is peanuts compared to the Bush tax cuts and the 2 wars. In fact, by today TARP has made a profit. A lot of the increase in the deficit under Obama is due to falling tax revenues as a result of the GFC. Democrats are proposing to solve the problem by a jobs bill (stimulus), which will increase employment, GDP, improve the economy and hence increase tax revenue. They're also proposing cuts to spending and taxes on the rich. Romney is going to make it worse by blowing up the deficit with massive tax cuts in a plan that the TPC calls mathematically impossible.
TARP would be profitable if Obama had left it alone. Right now the estimated cost is $40B+ and I believe that does not count the multi-billion gift in NOL credits Obama gave the automakers.
|
Canada11268 Posts
Holy. Just skimming through and I was rather shocked at my tone. I was thinking I never post like that. But I guess you got the tags mixed up...
|
On August 24 2012 03:03 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +The ultrasound requirement is completely and utterly useless and cannot necessarily determine the length of the pregnancy.
What's the most accurate way to determine the length of pregnancy then? Take the mothers word for it? Take the doctors word for it? Perform an ultrasound? Perform a blood test? If the States are saying genarally Not Viable <20 weeks< Viable Just how does the state make sure that the abortion is not performed after 20 weeks? Ultrasound is clearly the best choice for determing gestational age.
This is not the purpose of mandatory ultrasound, and to argue that it is is silly and ridiculous. This is an entirely random argument that makes no sense.
See, this is why politicians can't be mandating medical practice. Because uninformed, stupid ideas are forced onto the decisions of medical professionals and their patients. Entirely unacceptable.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Okay, you guys have convinced me that forcing an ultrasound is a bad idea. Should definitely be up to the doctors.
|
On August 24 2012 04:39 Souma wrote:
Okay, you guys have convinced me that forcing an ultrasound is a bad idea. Should definitely be up to the doctors.
Holy crap.
No, I don't think you understand how the internet works. You're not allowed to change your opinion. Ever.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
It's okay, I'm still having a hard time trying to rationalize from a moral standpoint that life does not begin at conception, but if what it takes for abortion to be allowed is everyone's belief that it is just a mere clump of cells, I'm willing to silently fight with myself in a dark corner somewhere.
|
Is a state allowed to mandate that on-demand abortions can't be performed after 20/22/24 weeks? Yes.
Can clinics/doctors be required by law to report the gestational age of the aborted fetus? Yes.
What is the most accuate way to determine the gestational age of a fetus? An ultrasound.
What determination did Roe v. Wade say was of "Overriding Importance"? Gestational age.
Also in Roe v Wade
Among factors pertinent to life and health risks associated with abortion were three that "are recognized as important":
"a. the skill of the physician,
"b. the environment in which the abortion is performed, and above all
"c. the duration of pregnancy, as determined by uterine size and confirmed by menstrual history." Id., at 397.
Item C would say "Ultrasound" instead of "uterine size and confirmed by menstrual history" if that was written today.
|
On August 24 2012 03:03 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +The ultrasound requirement is completely and utterly useless and cannot necessarily determine the length of the pregnancy.
What's the most accurate way to determine the length of pregnancy then? Take the mothers word for it? Take the doctors word for it? Perform an ultrasound? Perform a blood test? If the States are saying genarally Not Viable <20 weeks< Viable Just how does the state make sure that the abortion is not performed after 20 weeks? Ultrasound is clearly the best choice for determing gestational age.
Erf - if the statement is that the ultrasound cannot determine the length of the pregnancy, then you should give us an argument as to how it can help determine the gestational age.
Just because the other 3 options you list are not viable does not make the sole remaining option viable...
Alternatively - the other person should explain why ultrasound is not viable as well...
|
I've never understood where people have the idea that "life begins at conception." Can someone explain this to me? Because it's an idea that has come about entirely randomly and nonsensically.
The bible actually says life begins at birth, which is later than most people think. So it's not from the bible.
Science if anything tells us that it does not have a nervous system, consciousness, or a brain until much much later into the pregnancy and cannot accurately be described as anything we consider a 'human life.'
So yea. I don't get it. Where did this idea come from exactly?
|
On August 24 2012 05:08 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 03:03 RCMDVA wrote:The ultrasound requirement is completely and utterly useless and cannot necessarily determine the length of the pregnancy.
What's the most accurate way to determine the length of pregnancy then? Take the mothers word for it? Take the doctors word for it? Perform an ultrasound? Perform a blood test? If the States are saying genarally Not Viable <20 weeks< Viable Just how does the state make sure that the abortion is not performed after 20 weeks? Ultrasound is clearly the best choice for determing gestational age. Erf - if the statement is that the ultrasound cannot determine the length of the pregnancy, then you should give us an argument as to how it can help determine the gestational age. Just because the other 3 options you list are not viable does not make the sole remaining option viable... Alternatively - the other person should explain why ultrasound is not viable as well...
Nah, I just think the doctor should determine its necessity, not the state.
|
On August 24 2012 05:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 05:08 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 03:03 RCMDVA wrote:The ultrasound requirement is completely and utterly useless and cannot necessarily determine the length of the pregnancy.
What's the most accurate way to determine the length of pregnancy then? Take the mothers word for it? Take the doctors word for it? Perform an ultrasound? Perform a blood test? If the States are saying genarally Not Viable <20 weeks< Viable Just how does the state make sure that the abortion is not performed after 20 weeks? Ultrasound is clearly the best choice for determing gestational age. Erf - if the statement is that the ultrasound cannot determine the length of the pregnancy, then you should give us an argument as to how it can help determine the gestational age. Just because the other 3 options you list are not viable does not make the sole remaining option viable... Alternatively - the other person should explain why ultrasound is not viable as well... Nah, I just think the doctor should determine its necessity, not the state.
Ah that's fine. If it can be used - the doctor should determine when and where. I'll completely agree with that.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 24 2012 05:11 DoubleReed wrote:
I've never understood where people have the idea that "life begins at conception." Can someone explain this to me? Because it's an idea that has come about entirely randomly and nonsensically.
The bible actually says life begins at birth, which is later than most people think. So it's not from the bible.
Science if anything tells us that it does not have a nervous system, consciousness, or a brain until much much later into the pregnancy and cannot accurately be described as anything we consider a 'human life.'
So yea. I don't get it. Where did this idea come from exactly?
For me it's neither religion nor science. It's the mere fact that once the egg is fertilized, it's going to inevitably (with the exception of complications) become a human being. While it may not be considered 'human life,' it eventually will be. Now while most pro-choice advocates would be satisfied with the knowledge that it is not actual human life, my conscience will always remind me otherwise. It will always remind me that it could have been an individual, standing on its own two feet, and affecting the world in ways that will never be known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
