New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[Tiberius]

Alabama is one of the states that has refused to expand medicare coverage. They are really pro-life. What a con 

[McGee Return TD]

23 minutes ago, B-Man said:

As per usual.....................that "conservatives don't care about babies after they are born" lie..........is easy to disprove.

 

To anyone who has 3 digits in their IQ and eyes open enough to see the real world.

 

She asked what pro-lifers have done to help low-income single mothers, and she got answers

 

 

Twitter is all about abortion Wednesday after Alabama’s abortion ban was signed into law, and last we checked, #AlabamaAbortionBan is the top trending topic in the United States.

All of which means the pro-choice crowd is out in force, doing everything it can to demonize all pro-lifers and bringing out the old saw that pro-lifers only care about the baby until it’s born.

Blue-check author Sarah Tuttle-Singer asked what pro-lifers have done for low-income single mothers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

No need to wait....................there are answers ALL around you.

 

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/05/15/she-asked-what-pro-lifers-have-done-to-help-low-income-single-mothers-and-she-got-answers/

 

 

 

 

.

 

Personal anecdotes are great - good for those folks. What laws has Alabama passed to provide support to those who would otherwise get an abortion?

[TakeYouToTasker]

55 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

As per usual, George Carlin hits the nail on the head

 

 

No, Carlin is obfuscating here.

 

The philosophy is this:

 

The proper role of government, its primary purpose in fact, is to protect the rights of the individuals it proposes to govern by establishing and enforcing law to those ends.  Necessarily primary amongst those rights, the right to life.

 

Conversely it is most certainly not the proper role of government to absolve individuals of their absolute responsibility to provide for their children.

 

Edit:  also important to note that the overwhelming amount of resources directed at support for single mothers, early child care, and adoption placement comes from pro-life groups.

Edited May 16, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, McGee Return TD said:

As per usual, George Carlin hits the nail on the head

 

 

Complain some more about B-Man never posting anything original, why don't you? 

[row_33]

Carlin? That’s rock bottom for thinking.

 

[B-Man]

2 hours ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Personal anecdotes are great - good for those folks. What laws has Alabama passed to provide support to those who would otherwise get an abortion?

 

 

GoodLord..........................you really don't think that Alabama has welfare programs in place (for 60 years) for the poor who need it

 

Maybe they just exclude single mothers.................right?

 

 

More lefty thinking

 

 

 

 

This JRehling fellow really thought he had a gotcha here.   Yeah, it’s painful.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Mo Mo@molratty

 

Just like the eggs of a woman who is not pregnant, no cocck was involved in the creation of this egg.

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/05/16/the-fail-to-end-all-fails-doorknob-uses-an-egg-to-prove-abortion-doesnt-kill-babies-and-omg-the-replies-are-glorious/

 

Had to get around the censor

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

More men weigh in on this women's health issue

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conservatives-against-alabama-abortion-law

Quote

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Thursday that the Alabama law banning abortion without an exception for rape and ***** goes too far.

“I believe in exceptions for rape, ***** and life of the mother, and that’s what I’ve voted on,” he said at his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill.

Conservative writer Erick Erickson was also wary of the law’s lack of an exception for rape and *****, arguing that he does not support making rape victims suffer by carrying a child to term.

“I also think we risk turning people against the cause by a dogmatic insistence on getting rid of an exception for rape,” he wrote. “We can pat ourselves on the back for our purity to the cause, but will ultimately doom our cause by treating a complicated issue as an easy choice of choosing the victim we cannot see for the victim we can see.”

 

 

[B-Man]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

‘Keep pretending we don’t exist’! Pro-life women

 

 

.

 

[B-Man]

Satire ?.............................or is it ?

 

Man Identifies As Woman Just Long Enough To Voice Valid Opinion On Abortion

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/man-identifies-as-woman-just-long-enough-to-voice-valid-opinion-on-abortion?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwbrand

[BringBackOrton]

3 hours ago, McGee Return TD said:

As per usual, George Carlin hits the nail on the head

 

Ah yes, the “I get my political talking points from comedians” ######s.

[row_33]

Just now, BringBackOrton said:

Ah yes, the “I get my political talking points from comedians” ######s.

 

George was innovative and refreshing

 

then 1971 rolled around and it was the same old same old same old until he died

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Personal anecdotes are great - good for those folks. What laws has Alabama passed to provide support to those who would otherwise get an abortion?

 

Inconvenience is not a justifiable excuse to kill a human being.

 

Again, it is not the proper role of government to absolve parents of their responsibility to provide and care for their children.

 

The proper role of government is to provide and enforce law which protects the rights of the individuals it proposes to govern.  Amongst these the right to life is tantamount.

[Nanker]

On 4/7/2019 at 11:16 PM, Hedge said:

 

 

Of course the mother should have the right to have her baby killed after it’s born. What if it came out the wrong color? Heaven forbid!

 

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, Nanker said:

Of course the mother should have the right to have her baby killed after it’s born. What if it came out the wrong color? Heaven forbid!

 

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

More men weigh in on this women's health issue

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conservatives-against-alabama-abortion-law

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Thursday that the Alabama law banning abortion without an exception for rape and ***** goes too far.

 

That actually went through?  Are both parties trying to see what are the most extreme state laws we can pass regarding abortion that only a small minority in the country favor?  If the goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade I doubt the Supreme Court even takes up that case without those exceptions.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Doc Brown

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Thursday that the Alabama law banning abortion without an exception for rape and ***** goes too far.

 

That actually went through?  Are both parties trying to see what are the most extreme laws we can pass regarding abortion that only a small minority in the country favor?  If the goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade I doubt the Supreme Court even takes up that case without those exceptions.

Actually I heard a discussion yesterday on the radio between a moderator, a woman who had been raped and a woman who was against abortion, even in the instance of rape. The woman who was against rape regardless of the circumstances made the point that if you were of the belief that the baby was alive, and it was murder to abort at any point in the pregnancy, then it would also be murder to abort a baby created out of rape or *****. I agree with that assessment. Now, before one of our idiot posters here starts making a big deal out of that I haven't made my mind up when an embryo should be considered viable or a living baby. I know it's not the morning after but I certainly know that that the point that a woman is dilating is way too late for an abortion.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

Actually I heard a discussion yesterday on the radio between a moderator, a woman who had been raped and a woman who was against abortion, even in the instance of rape. The woman who was against rape regardless of the circumstances made the point that if you were of the belief that the baby was alive, and it was murder to abort at any point in the pregnancy, then it would also be murder to abort a baby created out of rape or *****. I agree with that assessment. Now, before one of our idiot posters here starts making a big deal out of that I haven't made my mind up when an embryo should be considered viable or a living baby. I know it's not the morning after but I certainly know that that the point that a woman is dilating is way too late for an abortion.

One thing we can agree on is that we all should be against rape regardless of the circumstances.  That's still an extreme position forcing somebody who through no fault of their own becomes pregnant to be forced to have that baby.  It should be left for the victim of the rape to decide.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Doc Brown

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

One thing we can agree on is that we all should be against rape regardless of the circumstances.  That's still an extreme position forcing somebody who through no fault of their own becomes pregnant to be forced to have that baby.  It should be left for the victim of the rape to decide.

Question: why is rape a crime?

 

Please note, I'm not advocating for rape, I'm asking for your definition as to what makes it a crime.

 

[3rdnlng]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

One thing we can agree on is that we all should be against rape regardless of the circumstances.  That's still an extreme position forcing somebody who through no fault of their own becomes pregnant to be forced to have that baby.  It should be left for the victim of the rape to decide.

There should be no difference between how a person gets pregnant as it pertains to abortion. If it's considered murder after the first trimester for a baby conceived out of love then it's still murder of a baby even if it was conceived during a rape. The Alabama law was passed for one reason and that was to get it reviewed by the SCOTUS.

[mjt328]

20 hours ago, McGee Return TD said:

As per usual, George Carlin hits the nail on the head

 

 

Completely ridiculous and untrue.

 

Conservatives have NEVER been against helping the poor.  They have NEVER been against helping the sick. 

They just don't believe the government is the answer to fixing all of these problems.

 

The government is inefficient, wasteful and corrupt.  Absolutely nobody can dispute this.  Take a look around and see how your tax dollars are used.  Despite the ridiculous amount of money brought in each year, most school districts are failing terribly to properly educate the kids.  Highways, bridges and other infrastructure are falling apart.  Why would I want to put the ones responsible for this MESS in charge of MORE things?  People pushing for free "Medicare for all" have no idea how much this would actually cost them in taxes.  And what happens when our government runs out of money to pay for it (like they always do)...

 

Regarding Carlin's comments, I've NEVER heard of a conservative against food stamps, school lunch, limited unemployment benefits or a certain level of welfare.  The problem is, all of the government handouts in the world will NEVER succeed in getting anyone out of poverty.  History has proven this time and time again.  If anything, it creates a culture of people dependent on the government to support them.  The only thing that will make a poor person successful, is a good job and a hard work ethic. 

 

I would much rather contribute my hard-earned dollars towards a charity of my choice.  Or help pay for someone's doctor bills with a Go Fund Me page.  Or donate food and clothes to the local food pantry.  Or send money to disaster relief.  Most of the conservatives I know are VERY generous and compassionate in helping people.  They just prefer to do it THIS WAY, instead of supporting yet another government spending spree.

 

 

[mjt328]

8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

One thing we can agree on is that we all should be against rape regardless of the circumstances.  That's still an extreme position forcing somebody who through no fault of their own becomes pregnant to be forced to have that baby.  It should be left for the victim of the rape to decide.

 

The issue of abortion really comes down to only one question: 

When does life begin?

 

All of the other discussions about women's rights, health concerns, rape victims, etc. are vitally important. 

But they mean absolutely nothing until you have answered this question FIRST. 

When does life begin?

 

Because regardless of the other circumstances surrounding the pregnancy - AT SOME POINT you have to acknowledge the "fetus" has become a living human being.  And whatever point you believe life starts (conception? 8 weeks? 5 months? birth?)... then at that very point, abortion is the same as killing a living person.  There is no other way around it.

 

 

[oldmanfan]

I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin.  But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question.  First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life.  The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell.  The question then is:  is that new cell a human life?  And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development.

 

The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest.  It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity.  If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg.  I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities.  The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus.  From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions.  Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus.  And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals.  This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication.  Thus, without implantation there is no  development into a fetus.

 

Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby.  It has the potential to form two babies.  OR three.  Or most times none.  Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos.  But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything.  it means it is normal biology. 

 

Some say science has proven life begins at conception.  It has not.  It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy.  A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. 

 

The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term.  Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test.  It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing.  Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation.  That date seems ill advised to me.  I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger.  My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it).  Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad.  Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water).   Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred.  As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption.  But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible.

 

Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values.  as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven.  Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer.  One cannot apply the scientific methods  to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins.  Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion.   

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin.  But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question.  First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life.  The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell.  The question then is:  is that new cell a human life?  And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development.

 

The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest.  It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity.  If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg.  I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities.  The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus.  From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions.  Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus.  And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals.  This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication.  Thus, without implantation there is no  development into a fetus.

 

Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby.  It has the potential to form two babies.  OR three.  Or most times none.  Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos.  But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything.  it means it is normal biology. 

 

Some say science has proven life begins at conception.  It has not.  It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy.  A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. 

 

The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term.  Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test.  It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing.  Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation.  That date seems ill advised to me.  I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger.  My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it).  Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad.  Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water).   Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred.  As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption.  But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible.

 

Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values.  as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven.  Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer.  One cannot apply the scientific methods  to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins.  Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion.   

 

 

 

What is your opinion then on when life begins? 

 

 

[mjt328]

27 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin.  But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question.  First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life.  The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell.  The question then is:  is that new cell a human life?  And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development.

 

The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest.  It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity.  If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg.  I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities.  The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus.  From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions.  Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus.  And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals.  This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication.  Thus, without implantation there is no  development into a fetus.

 

Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby.  It has the potential to form two babies.  OR three.  Or most times none.  Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos.  But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything.  it means it is normal biology. 

 

Some say science has proven life begins at conception.  It has not.  It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy.  A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. 

 

The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term.  Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test.  It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing.  Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation.  That date seems ill advised to me.  I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger.  My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it).  Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad.  Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water).   Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred.  As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption.  But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible.

 

Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values.  as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven.  Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer.  One cannot apply the scientific methods  to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins.  Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion.   

 

 

Fantastic response, and exactly what I was trying to get at.

 

The question of "when life begins" is not something that can be answered by science. 

Scientists can look into a microscope and understand what is happening biologically.  But the determination of when it actually becomes life is completely open to interpretation.  At the end of the day, it comes down to a person's moral beliefs. 

 

Many Christians are against any form of abortion, because the Bible states that God "knew" each person before they were conceived.  Their stance is not based on being anti-women or anti-choice.  They simply believe abortion at any point is killing a human life.  Some denominations have extended this to even forbid birth control, but that seems to be a very small minority among the Christian population.  Others (like you mentioned) may point to implantation, which occurs within a few weeks.  Others may look at the fetal heartbeat, which is about 3 weeks.  I've heard others point to when pain can be felt in the womb, which I understand is around 20 weeks.

 

In my opinion, society should err on the side of caution.  If there is a chance you are killing a living human being, you do your best to avoid it.  All other questions and circumstances come secondary.  I can certainly understand if a pregnancy threatens the mother's life, because in that situation you are trading a life for a life.  But I don't see the justification in any other circumstance.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree the fundamental question is when does life begin.  But as a scientist who has directed IVF labs for a number of years, I can hopefully provide some input as to that question.  First, one has to be sure that one you talk about life you talk about human, and not biological, life.  The egg and sperm are both viable living cells, and when they untie they create another living cell.  The question then is:  is that new cell a human life?  And for that there needs to be a complete understanding of early development.

 

The fertilized egg or zygote is not truly a unique human entity, or unique life, as some would suggest.  It is the beginning of the potential of such, but not truly a unique entity.  If one takes that view, one then must deny the existence of identical twins, as they are derived from the same fertilized egg.  I don't think anyone would make the argument that twins are not, each, unique entities.  The zygote then has to undergo a number of cell divisions to form a blastocyst, which contains one hundred or so cells, and is the stage that the embryo can normally implant in the uterus.  From years of IVF experience, and from studies of basic biology, it is known that many zygotes arrest in development early one, perhaps after one or two cell divisions.  Thus they do not have the cellular or genetic machinery to form a fetus.  And, a critical point to make, humans are eutherian mammals.  This means in order for development to ensue there is a requirement for development of the placenta, to allow for maternal-embryonic communication.  Thus, without implantation there is no  development into a fetus.

 

Considering the above, it can be stated that a fertilized egg has the POTENTIAL to form a baby.  It has the potential to form two babies.  OR three.  Or most times none.  Potential is the key word, which is why labs like mine are constantly obsessing over conditions to support proper growth and development of embryos.  But biology dictates many fertilized eggs do not make it, and that does not mean I or a woman who just had intercourse are killing anything.  it means it is normal biology. 

 

Some say science has proven life begins at conception.  It has not.  It is impossible biologically to define conception, as the fertilization process contains a number of sequential steps from initial contact of sperm with cells surrounding the egg to the union of male and female pronuclei at syngamy.  A more logical place to begin the discussion is implantation, for without that you have no development and there is a defined measure (hCG levels) that tell you implantation has occurred. 

 

The Alabama law uses 6 weeks as a defined term.  Pregnancy dates from the last menstrual period, not hen the embryo implants, not when you get a positive pregnancy test.  It's why humans have 40 week gestation periods but talk about being pregnant for nine months; there is a month long difference between dating and knowing.  Many women simply do not know they are pregnant at six weeks; it is only three weeks from implantation.  That date seems ill advised to me.  I would also say that the NYS law, to me, is draconian and borderline evil; to do such late term terminations should only be done, if at all, if the life of the mother is in imminent danger.  My position is that we should all be working to make a society where abortion is never required unless imminent danger to the mother is in place. Being pro choice should mean you have the ability to make choices. Like you should be able to choose contraceptives of your choice, and they should be readily available (which to me means if you're a pharmacist and someone gives you a prescription for a pill form a licensed physician, you fill it).  Men should never have sex without condoms unless they intend to become a dad.  Younger kids should be instructed about waiting until they are mature ought to handle the responsibilities of sex (but if you think abstinence is the only answer to this issue, good luck - sex is as basic a biologic instinct as seeking water).   Using the morning after pill to me is a sound approach because again implantation has not occurred.  As one who works with infertile couples, I am a strong proponent of adoption.  But I also cannot imagine taking away choices from women who have been raped or been the victims of *****, just that I would encourage that choice to be made as early as possible.

 

Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values.  as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven.  Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer.  One cannot apply the scientific methods  to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins.  Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion.   

 

 

Very good response from someone who certainly has some expertise on the subject. This is the kind of discussion that I would hope would happen more often here at PPP. BTW it is the Georgia law that uses 6 weeks as a defined term. The Alabama law basically forbids abortion altogether and really came about as a political challenge to right to choose people, with the idea that the SCOTUS will eventually rule on the inevitable lawsuits. On another note, I think that anyone who is raped should get a "morning after pill" as soon as possible.

[oldmanfan]

48 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

What is your opinion then on when life begins? 

 

 

My moral  and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own.  And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time.  Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances.  If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated.  That was our choice.  We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. 

 

I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question.  I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality.  Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance.   Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. 

[row_33]

14 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

My moral  and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own.  And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time.  Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances.  If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated.  That was our choice.  We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. 

 

I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question.  I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality.  Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance.   Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. 

 

good answers

 

but time continues unabated and decisions have to be made in real time based on whatever is of use at the moment

 

this apparently isn't the kind of thing we can all sit down and talk about for hours over a cup of cocoa

 

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Very good response from someone who certainly has some expertise on the subject. This is the kind of discussion that I would hope would happen more often here at PPP. BTW it is the Georgia law that uses 6 weeks as a defined term. The Alabama law basically forbids abortion altogether and really came about as a political challenge to right to choose people, with the idea that the SCOTUS will eventually rule on the inevitable lawsuits. On another note, I think that anyone who is raped should get a "morning after pill" as soon as possible.

Thanks for correcting that.   I am for anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy, and since implantation starts the clock on that process I become irritated by the position of some pharmacists who refuse to fill a lawfully written prescription for the morning after pill by a licensed physician or NP or PA.  We have even had folks in our practice that we've put on birth control pills to control endometriosis or to time egg retrieval procedures, and pharmacists have refused to fill those.  Of all the issues, that surround this complex debate, that one is the one that angers me.  If you are a pharmacist, fill a legal prescription.  If you have some sort of religious thing that prevents you from doing so, then find another profession.

[Bray Wyatt]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

My moral  and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own.  And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time.  Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances.  If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated.  That was our choice.  We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. 

 

I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question.  I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality.  Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance.   Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. 

 

Thanks for your answer, I wasnt asking it as a leading question or anything, more out of curiosity for someone who has more knowledge on the subject than I.

 

I do have a clarification question on what do you mean when you say "fetus can sustain life on its own" what do you mean by that? As I see people mention that without ever explaining/defining what it means.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

good answers

 

but time continues unabated and decisions have to be made in real time based on whatever is of use at the moment

 

this apparently isn't the kind of thing we can all sit down and talk about for hours over a cup of cocoa

 

 

Well put.  It is as stated an extraordinarily grey issue, with temporal issues being critical.  I just wish people would quit painting is as black and white.

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Thanks for correcting that.   I am for anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy, and since implantation starts the clock on that process I become irritated by the position of some pharmacists who refuse to fill a lawfully written prescription for the morning after pill by a licensed physician or NP or PA.  We have even had folks in our practice that we've put on birth control pills to control endometriosis or to time egg retrieval procedures, and pharmacists have refused to fill those.  Of all the issues, that surround this complex debate, that one is the one that angers me.  If you are a pharmacist, fill a legal prescription.  If you have some sort of religious thing that prevents you from doing so, then find another profession.

 

a profession should not impinge on the conscience of its member

 

it can get tough at times

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Thanks for correcting that.   I am for anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy, and since implantation starts the clock on that process I become irritated by the position of some pharmacists who refuse to fill a lawfully written prescription for the morning after pill by a licensed physician or NP or PA.  We have even had folks in our practice that we've put on birth control pills to control endometriosis or to time egg retrieval procedures, and pharmacists have refused to fill those.  Of all the issues, that surround this complex debate, that one is the one that angers me.  If you are a pharmacist, fill a legal prescription.  If you have some sort of religious thing that prevents you from doing so, then find another profession.

 

That would bother me too, if a doctor prescribes someone something, the job of the pharmacist is to make sure they receive it and the client is aware of any possible interactions, not overrule a doctor.

[row_33]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Well put.  It is as stated an extraordinarily grey issue, with temporal issues being critical.  I just wish people would quit painting is as black and white.

 

i'm kind of amused by the people who gleefully and yet angrily demand for increasing abortions where they are not concerned at all

 

i understand those who have a religious view and keep to it, but the other side is astounding, i guess there's $$$ and power to be made from it

 

 

12 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

That would bother me too, if a doctor prescribes someone something, the job of the pharmacist is to make sure they receive it and the client is aware of any possible interactions, not overrule a doctor.

 

pharmacists have the ability to overrule a doctor

 

they can refuse prescriptions for many reasons

 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by row_33

[Bray Wyatt]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

i'm kind of amused by the people who gleefully and yet angrily demand for increasing abortions where they are not concerned at all

 

i understand those who have a religious view and keep to it, but the other side is astounding, i guess there's $$$ and power to be made from it

 

 

 

pharmacists can overrule a doctor

 

they can refuse prescriptions for many reasons

 

 

 

I mean I get if they feel it may be a fraudulent one, but for the reason oldmanfan described thats absurd.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Thanks for your answer, I wasnt asking it as a leading question or anything, more out of curiosity for someone who has more knowledge on the subject than I.

 

I do have a clarification question on what do you mean when you say "fetus can sustain life on its own" what do you mean by that? As I see people mention that without ever explaining/defining what it means.

This is going to sound awful, but in a sense the fetus exists in utero in a somewhat parasitic relationship with the mother.  The fetus can only get oxygen and required nutrients from the mother through the placenta.  Once the placental communication with the mother is terminated, then the fetus must be able to breath on its own and take in and utilize nutrients etc.  But one can certainly intervene with modern medical care after termination of the placental connection (such as ECMO for oxygenation, etc.), and as such the age of viability has come down since Roe v. Wade.  And may continue to do so.    

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

i'm kind of amused by the people who gleefully and yet angrily demand for increasing abortions where they are not concerned at all

 

i understand those who have a religious view and keep to it, but the other side is astounding, i guess there's $$$ and power to be made from it

 

 

 

pharmacists have the ability to overrule a doctor

 

they can refuse prescriptions for many reasons

 

 

If there a potentially dangerous drug interaction with another prescribed medication, certainly.  What our patients have run into are pharmacists who refuse to fill any birth control prescription because of their religious beliefs.  They have no business being pharmacists then.

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

This is going to sound awful, but in a sense the fetus exists in utero in a somewhat parasitic relationship with the mother.  The fetus can only get oxygen and required nutrients from the mother through the placenta.  Once the placental communication with the mother is terminated, then the fetus must be able to breath on its own and take in and utilize nutrients etc.  But one can certainly intervene with modern medical care after termination of the placental connection (such as ECMO for oxygenation, etc.), and as such the age of viability has come down since Roe v. Wade.  And may continue to do so.    

 

I was more curious as to if that meant being able to breathe on its own or not, which it does. The whole nutrients part to me while an issue, wouldnt hold too much weight as a baby still needs to be fed after its born, and there are IV's and things. 

 

I have two kids and you think I would have paid more attention to these developmental things when they were happening lol

 

I do think we need to draw a line somewhere on when a decision should be made on when one would be allowed vs not, and as you say with the advances in technology making it more viable for the baby to live outside the womb earlier, the law should then be reviewed every now and then to be updated.

 

Just a quick google search yielded this result on viability: According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

 

Trying to make a common sense proposal here, it would seem it would have to be something well before 24 weeks when a decision would have to be made. While it is a tough decision, I do not think it should be something that would take that long to make.

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

My moral  and religious belief, again because it is not something defined scientifically, is when the fetus can sustain life on its own.  And with medical advances that age becomes younger and younger with time.  Does that mean, however, I would advocate for abortion at, say 12 weeks? Overall, no, but It would depend on circumstances.  If my wife and I had conceived a child with Down syndrome, we would not have terminated.  That was our choice.  We did , however, have a conception with a chromosomal trisomy that was incompatible with embryonic growth and development to term, and although we saw a heartbeat at 6 weeks by 8 weeks it was gone. 

 

I do think these decisions must be made by the individual in question.  I have seen couples where a man with a pro-life T shirt was sitting right next to the bed of his wife who just had a termination due to a fetal abnormality.  Having worked in the field for over 35 years, what I've learned is that it is impossible to make moral judgments for another unless you are put into the same circumstance.   Or to put it another way, people often want to make something black and white when the reality is the issue exists in shades of gray. 

I like this answer also. I personally am not for abortion but I'm not against it on a wider basis. I believe abortion is between the parties and their God but I also believe that it should be regulated by government so that babies aren't being murdered in the third trimester. As someone who has had to make a life or death decision over someone else I'm well aware of how difficult that decision can be. With that said, yes, there are fewer blacks & whites in this world than grays.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

 

Ultimately the question of when life begins is one of moral and/or religious values.  as a scientist, I try to educate folks on the actual biology of reproduction, and I get ticked when some misrepresent science as having proven something it has not proven.  Science cannot prove when life begins, because it is not a scientific question to answer.  One cannot apply the scientific methods  to the question, one cannot design experiments to test hypotheses of when life begins.  Thus it remains a moral issue, and as such there will always be differences of opinion.   

 

 

 

This, here, is basically why I'm pro-choice.  A sincere desire not to inflict my personal values on others in the presence of such ambiguity.

[DC Tom]

 

[row_33]

27 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

This is going to sound awful, but in a sense the fetus exists in utero in a somewhat parasitic relationship with the mother.  The fetus can only get oxygen and required nutrients from the mother through the placenta.  Once the placental communication with the mother is terminated, then the fetus must be able to breath on its own and take in and utilize nutrients etc.  But one can certainly intervene with modern medical care after termination of the placental connection (such as ECMO for oxygenation, etc.), and as such the age of viability has come down since Roe v. Wade.  And may continue to do so.    

If there a potentially dangerous drug interaction with another prescribed medication, certainly.  What our patients have run into are pharmacists who refuse to fill any birth control prescription because of their religious beliefs.  They have no business being pharmacists then.

 

can't read the scrawl, they know the doctor isn't reliable, incorrect amounts due to doc error or doc forgetting the history of the patient...

 

for matters of conscience that's getting steep, but one should be protected, it will obviously come at a professional cost to refuse service that is legal

 

 

 

 

pharm has the ability to change the prescription to the lowest cost generic equivalent of what was requested