|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 18:54:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 22, 2023 21:16:02 GMT
A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a foetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, about 10% to 25% will have a miscarriage. Drug and alcohol abuse, clotting disorders, exposure to environmental toxins, hormone problems, infection, overweight, physical problems with the mother's reproductive organs, problem with the body's immune response serious body-wide (systemic) diseases in the mother (such as uncontrolled diabetes) and smoking can all be contributory causes. Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called stillbirths. Miscarriage is a naturally occurring event, unlike medical or surgical abortions. Although having said that, while it is common for many people to think of miscarriage and abortion as entirely separate matters, doctors say that medically the distinction isn’t always so clear: for instance after people who miscarry, they often need an abortion procedure to protect their health. I hope that helps. As Jack Brock has told you already, don't be lazy. Look things up. But as you are writing with a sarcastic anti feminist agenda, you won't. It's a waste of time arguing with these people like novastar. Getting them to see common sense is a lost cause. You can't even get her to answer a basic question - like when i asked about people who shoot doctors who perform abortions.
Do you want an answer to your actual question, or your added commentary regarding the confusion of 'an eye for an eye'?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 22, 2023 21:19:38 GMT
You also said women who miscarry can still need an abortion.
Now since we're supposed to believe the two are basically the same, why would a woman who's miscarried 'still need the abortion procedure'? To ensure the baby's actually dead? And which abortion procedure would be required after a miscarriage? Injecting poison directly into the already dead fetus's heart?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 21:31:45 GMT
You also said women who miscarry can still need an abortion. Now since we're supposed to believe the two are basically the same, I actually said to be exact that people who miscarry often need an abortion procedure to protect their health - a subtle difference. This is because this there are different types of miscarriage. Not being a doctor or having your sympathetic and superior medical knowledge on this subject, you better ask a doctor. But it might be to facilitate passage of nonviable pregnancy tissue from the uterus, typically done with misoprostol +/- mifepristone. Any heart injections are your own work.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 22, 2023 21:43:21 GMT
You also said women who miscarry can still need an abortion. Now since we're supposed to believe the two are basically the same, I actually said that To be exact hat people who miscarry often need an abortion procedure to protect their health - a subtle difference. Not being a doctor or having your sympathetic and superior medical knowledge on this subject, you better ask a doctor. But it might be to facilitate passage of nonviable pregnancy tissue from the uterus, typically done with misoprostol +/- mifepristone. Any heart injections are your own work.
Because a dead baby staying in the mother could actually be toxic to her health? As opposed to perfectly healthy LIVING babies who are still dismembered and chopped up in the name of the woman's convenience and pretend it's healthcare?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 21:55:09 GMT
I actually said that To be exact hat people who miscarry often need an abortion procedure to protect their health - a subtle difference. Not being a doctor or having your sympathetic and superior medical knowledge on this subject, you better ask a doctor. But it might be to facilitate passage of nonviable pregnancy tissue from the uterus, typically done with misoprostol +/- mifepristone. Any heart injections are your own work. Because a dead baby staying in the mother could actually be toxic to her health? What do you think? Actually, in the UK, at least an abortion is predicated on a woman's health and wider welfare.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 22, 2023 22:04:54 GMT
Because a dead baby staying in the mother could actually be toxic to her health? What do you think? Actually, in the UK, at least an abortion is predicated on a woman's health and wider welfare.
'Wider welfare' as in 'you'll have more money without kids'? Yeah, true of everybody, not a reason to crush a baby's skull and rip its limbs off.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 22:07:11 GMT
What do you think? Actually, in the UK, at least an abortion is predicated on a woman's health and wider welfare.
'Wider welfare' as in 'you'll have more money without kids'? Yeah, true of everybody, not a reason to crush a baby's skull and rip its limbs off.
A woman's career prospects can be taken into account, yes. You also seem to be focussing on admittedly gruesome and distressing things which happen in a comparatively few late term abortions and mostly to non-viable* foetuses - a tactic right out of the pro-life playbook when what has been banned is abortion much more widely, The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated — and the more controversial — the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy can require that the foetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynaecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed (admittedly this was in the year 2000) on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 (of these gruesome) abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year. This is still not reason to withdraw abortion rights more widely imho. And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after foetal "viability." To give things a perspective which you will undoubtedly lack when replying, when some members of Congress tried to amend a bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.*Foetal viability is the ability of a human foetus to survive outside the uterus. Medical viability in a normal pregnancy is generally considered to be between 23 and 24 weeks . An example of non-viable late term issues might include the foetus with hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally. [Various sources, cos I substantiate]
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 22, 2023 22:51:38 GMT
'Wider welfare' as in 'you'll have more money without kids'? Yeah, true of everybody, not a reason to crush a baby's skull and rip its limbs off.
A woman's career prospects can be taken into account, yes. You also seem to be focussing on admittedly gruesome and distressing things which happen in a comparatively few late term abortions and mostly to non-viable* foetuses - a tactic right out of the pro-life playbook when what has been banned is abortion much more widely, The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated — and the more controversial — the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy can require that the foetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynaecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed (admittedly this was in the year 2000) on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 (of these gruesome) abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year. This is still not reason to withdraw abortion rights more widely imho. And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after foetal "viability." To give things a perspective which you will undoubtedly lack when replying, when some members of Congress tried to amend a bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.*Foetal viability is the ability of a human foetus to survive outside the uterus. Medical viability in a normal pregnancy is generally considered to be between 23 and 24 weeks . An example of non viable late term issues might include the foetus with hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally. [Various sources, cos I substantiate]
Hmmm, seems like part of school sex ed. should be explaining to girls all the risk factors associated with abortions, the statistics that show over 90% of unwanted pregnancies stem from no protection/improperly used protection, and the cost difference in a $5 box of condoms, a $50 morning after pill, and an up to $4500 abortion.
Funny how so many women can claim they did NOT want to get pregnant, but they just HAD to the equivalent of 'I don't WANT to be fat, so I eat 10 double cheeseburgers each day'.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 22, 2023 22:57:49 GMT
seems like part of school sex ed. should be explaining to girls all the risk factors associated with abortions, the statistics that show over 90% of unwanted pregnancies stem from no protection/improperly used protection, and the cost difference in a $5 box of condoms, a $50 morning after pill, and an up to $4500 abortion. That prevention is better than cure is something we can agree on, although some abortions are for unexpected medical and health reasons of course. Just when you were sounding reasonable for once here you are back with the casual sexism and victim blaming/shaming. And we are all entitled to the same rights whether fat or female it hardly needs to be said.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 22, 2023 23:49:26 GMT
seems like part of school sex ed. should be explaining to girls all the risk factors associated with abortions, the statistics that show over 90% of unwanted pregnancies stem from no protection/improperly used protection, and the cost difference in a $5 box of condoms, a $50 morning after pill, and an up to $4500 abortion. That prevention is better than cure is something we can agree on, although some abortions are for unexpected medical and health reasons of course. Just when you were sounding reasonable for once here you are back with the casual sexism and victim blaming/shaming. And we are all entitled to the same rights whether fat or female it hardly needs to be said.
Buyer's remorse does not a victim make. They knowingly had unprotected sex while they knowingly did NOT want to get pregnant. That's as much a victim as a DUI driver, you know, the ones who *weren't* drugged unbeknownst to them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 23, 2023 11:36:28 GMT
That prevention is better than cure is something we can agree on, although some abortions are for unexpected medical and health reasons of course. Just when you were sounding reasonable for once here you are back with the casual sexism and victim blaming/shaming. And we are all entitled to the same rights whether fat or female it hardly needs to be said.
Buyer's remorse does not a victim make. They knowingly had unprotected sex while they knowingly did NOT want to get pregnant. That's as much a victim as a DUI driver, you know, the ones who *weren't* drugged unbeknownst to them.
I am sure that some women should have used contraceptives and did not, and so were foolish. But that is still not a reason to deny women overall their rights. Continually victim blaming is not a good look.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 23, 2023 13:04:50 GMT
Buyer's remorse does not a victim make. They knowingly had unprotected sex while they knowingly did NOT want to get pregnant. That's as much a victim as a DUI driver, you know, the ones who *weren't* drugged unbeknownst to them.
I am sure that some women should have used contraceptives and did not, and so were foolish. But that is still not a reason to deny women overall their rights. Continually victim blaming is not a good look.
57% roughly, substantiated incase you forgot.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 23, 2023 13:08:56 GMT
I am sure that some women should have used contraceptives and did not, and so were foolish. But that is still not a reason to deny women overall their rights. Continually victim blaming is not a good look.
57% roughly, substantiated incase you forgot.
If we are arguing from percentages then, have a look at how many on this thread are against removing abortion rights, let alone the majority figures in the country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Abortion
Jul 23, 2023 20:27:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2023 20:27:59 GMT
It takes two to tango... The man is more to blame than the woman for unwanted pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 23, 2023 21:17:29 GMT
Abortion should have never been anything other than a private medical issue between the woman and her physician. The moment politics became involved one could have expected the usual idiotic shitstorm this country invariably manages to brew around anything regarding sexuality, and more particularly, female sexuality.
IOW, if you're not the one pregnant, it is and should be none of your damned business.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 23, 2023 22:19:54 GMT
Abortion should have never been anything other than a private medical issue between the woman and her physician. The moment politics became involved one could have expected the usual idiotic shitstorm this country invariably manages to brew around anything regarding sexuality, and more particularly, female sexuality. IOW, if you're not the one pregnant, it is and should be none of your damned business. So since a man can't get pregnant, he doesn't have to pay for the baby if she keeps it, that all falls on HER and nobody else.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 23, 2023 22:38:12 GMT
It takes two to tango... The man is more to blame than the woman for unwanted pregnancies.
That's bullshit. The woman is the only one who knows whether or not she wants to get pregnant, ergo it's HER responsibility to tell the guy she's with, since most of these incidences are NOT in committed relationships where it's 50/50 and there's a mutual respect for one another and they share responsibilities for everything and there's an open communication and they talk about everything, that she will not fuck him without condoms, and if that doesn't work for him, he can hit the bricks. Contrary to popular SJW belief, most men are not rapists, if a woman says no, he's going to respect that, cut his losses and be on his way, maybe a little pissed off but he'll take his lumps. Men are able to put their sperm in a woman to create those unplanned, unwanted babies, because they were INVITED in.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 25, 2023 23:43:10 GMT
Abortion should have never been anything other than a private medical issue between the woman and her physician. The moment politics became involved one could have expected the usual idiotic shitstorm this country invariably manages to brew around anything regarding sexuality, and more particularly, female sexuality. IOW, if you're not the one pregnant, it is and should be none of your damned business. So since a man can't get pregnant, he doesn't have to pay for the baby if she keeps it, that all falls on HER and nobody else.
Of course that's the argument you'd fall back on. Why, exactly, are you so bloody anxious to have your nose into a woman's personal reproductive affairs? Perhaps any and all here should have free access to your personal gynecological records and history? That ought to be fun.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jul 26, 2023 3:13:25 GMT
So since a man can't get pregnant, he doesn't have to pay for the baby if she keeps it, that all falls on HER and nobody else.
Of course that's the argument you'd fall back on. Why, exactly, are you so bloody anxious to have your nose into a woman's personal reproductive affairs? Perhaps any and all here should have free access to your personal gynecological records and history? That ought to be fun.
Short reading. I don't have any.
Now since you want to play the 'if it's not YOU, stay out of it', WHO should've decided slavery was wrong? The slaves themselves, or the slave owners? Obviously abolitionists who were neither, should've minded their own damn business instead of repealing something that didn't affect them. They should've stayed in their own back yard and let the slaves figure out how to emancipate themselves.
|
|