Ohio heartbeat law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is well before viability. There is no -- and I mean, absolutely no case, ever, worldwide -- 20 week old fetus that was delivered at that gestational age and survived.

If you do not know this basic fact, you have no business expressing your "tired of hearing opinions" on a message board.

Have you cared for a 22/23-week preemie infant? I have. Dating is hard at that age. Life is even harder.

It was my responsibility to rub nitroglycerin into the toes that were going gangrenous from the umbilical line. 357 grams. Tinier than my hand, and the skin was shredding off under my fingers. We finally made the parents be there for cares, so they could see what was happening from what they insisted we do for this creature. They didn't want to have to see it, just know that "we did everything possible." Thank you for making me a torturer so your conscience is soothed.

A 22 weeker is much different than a 24 weeker, and is much more different than 26 weeks. 20 weeks is far outside the pale, and yeah, it's a fetus, not a baby.

You know what I am fucking tired of? I am tired of people expressing opinions without bothering to check their facts. If this is so important to you, then you'd get the facts of the matter straight.

Can you get another job?

I hope she doesn't. These NICU nurses and medical professionals are amazing people who deal with things you can't possibly imagine. I have a good friend who has worked in the NICU for years and you can't believe the things she has seen. And importantly, these people can legitimately and without agenda tell the truth about the biology of these children/fetuses/whatever label you want to give. Correcting the bullshit opinions passed off as fact. I thank her for that and everything she does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should everyone get free birth control?

yes. If you want to avoid or reduce abortions, then this absolutely must occur. Otherwise, it's not about the baby, it's about the sex. And you lost the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

That is your opinion and is also why the pro-"life" stance is bullshit. Tell that to the hungry and poor. "It's ok that you're living in poverty, hey, you're alive! Am I right?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Cite please for the pope saying that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/europe/pope-francis-abortion-priests.html?_r=0

While firmly restating his opposition to abortion as “a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life,” the pope affirmed that “there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.” The document, an apostolic letter, was signed on Sunday after a Mass denoting the end of the jubilee year. It was made public on Monday.
. . .

Under canon law, abortion brings automatic excommunication unless the person receiving or performing it confesses and receives absolution. Abortion is considered a “reserved sin,” meaning that permission to grant forgiveness usually must come from a bishop.

Thus, abortion itself brings about excommunication UNLESS absolution is given. Support for abortion does not.

+1,000,000

total bullshit. not a single woman has ever been excommunicated for abortion. plus "automatic excommunication" is a lot more complicated than it sounds - there are many exceptions and it is not really automatic. plus, the original assertion was that political *belief* about abortion leads to excommunication, which is definitely not true at all. and in any event "excommunication" does not mean you are not catholic - it means you can't take communion until you are reconciled, but you still have to go to mass. finally, you are a shitty, shitty catholic if you are going around trying to alienate ppl from the church because you disagree with them politically.

I agree. And I think the link supports that. If they are contrite, an abortion can be forgiven. And automatic excommunication is not a easy as it sounds. But, the original poster seeking cite, I believe, said that supporting abortion results in automatic excommunication. That is plainly false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts but I do think it is appropriate to look again at abortion. Honestly I would hope even the most liberal would agree that after the first trimester it is time to outlaw abortion. Most genetic tests are done very early and if you account for health of the mother etc then after first trimester should be the law of the land. I also understand the heartbeat theory but seems as there will not be broad acceptance of that. I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

Can survive at 22 weeks... that's just 2 weeks later,...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0

Yes. And 20 weeks is different than 22 weeks, is different than 24, is different than 26.

Trying to keep a 22 week micropreemie alive is an exceedingly brutal process.

Have you done the training to do so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^Cite please for the pope saying that!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/europe/pope-francis-abortion-priests.html?_r=0

While firmly restating his opposition to abortion as “a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life,” the pope affirmed that “there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.” The document, an apostolic letter, was signed on Sunday after a Mass denoting the end of the jubilee year. It was made public on Monday.
. . .

Under canon law, abortion brings automatic excommunication unless the person receiving or performing it confesses and receives absolution. Abortion is considered a “reserved sin,” meaning that permission to grant forgiveness usually must come from a bishop.

Thus, abortion itself brings about excommunication UNLESS absolution is given. Support for abortion does not.

+1,000,000

total bullshit. not a single woman has ever been excommunicated for abortion. plus "automatic excommunication" is a lot more complicated than it sounds - there are many exceptions and it is not really automatic. plus, the original assertion was that political *belief* about abortion leads to excommunication, which is definitely not true at all. and in any event "excommunication" does not mean you are not catholic - it means you can't take communion until you are reconciled, but you still have to go to mass. finally, you are a shitty, shitty catholic if you are going around trying to alienate ppl from the church because you disagree with them politically.

I agree. And I think the link supports that. If they are contrite, an abortion can be forgiven. And automatic excommunication is not a easy as it sounds. But, the original poster seeking cite, I believe, said that supporting abortion results in automatic excommunication. That is plainly false.

of course abortion can be forgiven. murdering an actual born person can be forgiven. but murdering a person seems somehow more forgiveable to some catholics because it does not have the nexus with sexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you sitting in judgment are pathetic.

Unless you are there to raise those children, provide for them, and support policies that provide the things you aren't willing to do (parental leave, healthcare for children, reasonably priced health care, etc.) you have no right -NONE- to sit in judgment of someone else who has chosen a path you would not. There are LOADS of kids languishing in foster care. Put your money where your vicious mouths are and get involved with those kids who are here and who have no consistent source of love and little advantages.

Is a heartbeat alone life? Maybe. But, it's not a human viable of living outside the womb at 6 weeks. And, that life is second to the woman. Period. It it regrettable, yes. But, again, you folks are generally the ones who also object to free and ready access to health care b/c it offends your delicate sensitivities. You're hypocrites. You're sanctimonious. You're judgmental. You're disgusting.

this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying the lives of the poor are worthless. If you are not middle class, then your life isn't worth living? You can not believe this. It is not better to not have lived at all than to have lived hungry and poor.

That is your opinion and is also why the pro-"life" stance is bullshit. Tell that to the hungry and poor. "It's ok that you're living in poverty, hey, you're alive! Am I right?"

Poor and hungry is not ok. But would you prefer to snuff their lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts but I do think it is appropriate to look again at abortion. Honestly I would hope even the most liberal would agree that after the first trimester it is time to outlaw abortion. Most genetic tests are done very early and if you account for health of the mother etc then after first trimester should be the law of the land. I also understand the heartbeat theory but seems as there will not be broad acceptance of that. I am tired though of hearing people call a baby that can be delivered alive at 20 weeks a fetus. Come on..you know it is a baby.

20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

Can survive at 22 weeks... that's just 2 weeks later,...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0

Yes. And 20 weeks is different than 22 weeks, is different than 24, is different than 26.

Trying to keep a 22 week micropreemie alive is an exceedingly brutal process.

Have you done the training to do so?

No, I haven't; however, my adult nephew was a 23 week preemie. I'm very aware of all that's involved, and our family has always been so very appreciative of all the medical professionals who made a difference in those first months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Seriously, this is relevant. If people really want to base a "right to life" on "being a person" AND hold that an embryo is a person, then those frozen embryos have exactly as much right to life.

No, they don't. As any reasonable person with an understanding of basic biology (not many people in this discussion, unfortunately) knows, it takes three things to create life: A sperm, an Egg and a Host in which to grow the life. "Frozen Embryos" do not have a host to give them life.

Any person who knows anything about biology knows that a 4 week old cluster of cells isn't "a human" who can be murdered and yet this foolish argument is brought up in every abortion argument.

Exactly when does the little life get to be termed "human" in your book?

Maybe when it has limbs and actually appears humanoid. Maybe when it's viable outside of the mothers body around 23-24 weeks. It's not up to me. If a woman finds out she's 6 weeks along and can't sustain a pregnancy or support a life, she has the choice and the right to terminate that pregnancy. Its baffling to me how you people think a literal lump of cells and tissue has more rights than a grown living human woman.

[Anonymous]

developmental timeline of growing baby:

http://www.babycenter.com/0_fetal-development-timeline_10357636.bc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Seriously, this is relevant. If people really want to base a "right to life" on "being a person" AND hold that an embryo is a person, then those frozen embryos have exactly as much right to life.

No, they don't. As any reasonable person with an understanding of basic biology (not many people in this discussion, unfortunately) knows, it takes three things to create life: A sperm, an Egg and a Host in which to grow the life. "Frozen Embryos" do not have a host to give them life.

Any person who knows anything about biology knows that a 4 week old cluster of cells isn't "a human" who can be murdered and yet this foolish argument is brought up in every abortion argument.

Exactly when does the little life get to be termed "human" in your book?

Maybe when it has limbs and actually appears humanoid. Maybe when it's viable outside of the mothers body around 23-24 weeks. It's not up to me. If a woman finds out she's 6 weeks along and can't sustain a pregnancy or support a life, she has the choice and the right to terminate that pregnancy. Its baffling to me how you people think a literal lump of cells and tissue has more rights than a grown living human woman.

Maybe answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

Can survive at 22 weeks... that's just 2 weeks later,...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0

Yes. And 20 weeks is different than 22 weeks, is different than 24, is different than 26.

Trying to keep a 22 week micropreemie alive is an exceedingly brutal process.

Have you done the training to do so?

No, I haven't; however, my adult nephew was a 23 week preemie. I'm very aware of all that's involved, and our family has always been so very appreciative of all the medical professionals who made a difference in those first months.

It sounds like your nephew has done well. That is wonderful. I'm glad he beat those odds, and it sounds like he had a supportive family.

It's true that there are only 2 weeks between 20 and 22 weeks. Those are the most critical weeks of neonatology, and every single hour counts. That's the difference between 0% survivability and less than 5%. You cannot compare them to the weeks between 36 and 38 weeks gestation, and certainly not two weeks for you and I. It is the insurmountable mountain.

It's true and only one week between 22 and 23 weeks. That's the difference in survival rate from less than 5% to 30% -- survivability rates go up by 3-4% each day in the uterus. That is a huge difference, not even taking into account rates of serious disability. The difference is even marked then.

My frustration is that people see to believe that viability just goes from "baby dies peacefully because CPR doesn't work" to "baby makes it, and everybody cheers." They seem to WANT to believe that. The truth is that trying to survive at 22 weeks means the skin shreds under your fingers if rubbed -- and we had to, for this one -- so you try not to. It means the isolette is kept so wet that water is dripping down the sides, and inevitably fungus grows on the skin -- because otherwise this translucent membrane becomes a hard, brittle shell, and it cracks open and bleeds.

It means that you know you will have to turn the ventilator pressure high enough to blow out sections of the lungs -- this is a matter of "when," not "if" -- and you pray you are not the one with your hand on the dial when it happens.

Days matter. Hours matter. Weeks? Weeks are the flipping Grace of God.

Don't talk about "only a couple of weeks." Those weeks are never "only."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

Can survive at 22 weeks... that's just 2 weeks later,...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0

Yes. And 20 weeks is different than 22 weeks, is different than 24, is different than 26.

Trying to keep a 22 week micropreemie alive is an exceedingly brutal process.

Have you done the training to do so?

No, I haven't; however, my adult nephew was a 23 week preemie. I'm very aware of all that's involved, and our family has always been so very appreciative of all the medical professionals who made a difference in those first months.

It sounds like your nephew has done well. That is wonderful. I'm glad he beat those odds, and it sounds like he had a supportive family.

It's true that there are only 2 weeks between 20 and 22 weeks. Those are the most critical weeks of neonatology, and every single hour counts. That's the difference between 0% survivability and less than 5%. You cannot compare them to the weeks between 36 and 38 weeks gestation, and certainly not two weeks for you and I. It is the insurmountable mountain.

It's true and only one week between 22 and 23 weeks. That's the difference in survival rate from less than 5% to 30% -- survivability rates go up by 3-4% each day in the uterus. That is a huge difference, not even taking into account rates of serious disability. The difference is even marked then.

My frustration is that people see to believe that viability just goes from "baby dies peacefully because CPR doesn't work" to "baby makes it, and everybody cheers." They seem to WANT to believe that. The truth is that trying to survive at 22 weeks means the skin shreds under your fingers if rubbed -- and we had to, for this one -- so you try not to. It means the isolette is kept so wet that water is dripping down the sides, and inevitably fungus grows on the skin -- because otherwise this translucent membrane becomes a hard, brittle shell, and it cracks open and bleeds.

It means that you know you will have to turn the ventilator pressure high enough to blow out sections of the lungs -- this is a matter of "when," not "if" -- and you pray you are not the one with your hand on the dial when it happens.

Days matter. Hours matter. Weeks? Weeks are the flipping Grace of God.

Don't talk about "only a couple of weeks." Those weeks are never "only."

PP here. I appreciate your thoughtful post and the medical info you've shared. I'll add that my nephew was extremely fortunate in that he was born in a hospital known for top-notch, quality NICU care; and we have nurses in our family for extra support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20 weeks is not possible. 20 weeks is a fetus.

Can survive at 22 weeks... that's just 2 weeks later,...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0

Yes. And 20 weeks is different than 22 weeks, is different than 24, is different than 26.

Trying to keep a 22 week micropreemie alive is an exceedingly brutal process.

Have you done the training to do so?

No, I haven't; however, my adult nephew was a 23 week preemie. I'm very aware of all that's involved, and our family has always been so very appreciative of all the medical professionals who made a difference in those first months.

It sounds like your nephew has done well. That is wonderful. I'm glad he beat those odds, and it sounds like he had a supportive family.

It's true that there are only 2 weeks between 20 and 22 weeks. Those are the most critical weeks of neonatology, and every single hour counts. That's the difference between 0% survivability and less than 5%. You cannot compare them to the weeks between 36 and 38 weeks gestation, and certainly not two weeks for you and I. It is the insurmountable mountain.

It's true and only one week between 22 and 23 weeks. That's the difference in survival rate from less than 5% to 30% -- survivability rates go up by 3-4% each day in the uterus. That is a huge difference, not even taking into account rates of serious disability. The difference is even marked then.

My frustration is that people see to believe that viability just goes from "baby dies peacefully because CPR doesn't work" to "baby makes it, and everybody cheers." They seem to WANT to believe that. The truth is that trying to survive at 22 weeks means the skin shreds under your fingers if rubbed -- and we had to, for this one -- so you try not to. It means the isolette is kept so wet that water is dripping down the sides, and inevitably fungus grows on the skin -- because otherwise this translucent membrane becomes a hard, brittle shell, and it cracks open and bleeds.

It means that you know you will have to turn the ventilator pressure high enough to blow out sections of the lungs -- this is a matter of "when," not "if" -- and you pray you are not the one with your hand on the dial when it happens.

Days matter. Hours matter. Weeks? Weeks are the flipping Grace of God.

Don't talk about "only a couple of weeks." Those weeks are never "only."

PP here. I appreciate your thoughtful post and the medical info you've shared. I'll add that my nephew was extremely fortunate in that he was born in a hospital known for top-notch, quality NICU care; and we have nurses in our family for extra support.

I think the PP NICU nurse's point is that it is extremely difficult for a micropreemie no matter the quality of care, and that having high level life support technology now is a mixed blessing for some babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If fertilized embryo is a person bye bye IVF.

This would make an incredible sci-fi movie plot... Alt Right government takes over all IVF clinics and orders EVERY SINGLE FROZEN EMBRYO brought to life using surrogates. These children are raised in a government-military esq compound and used as weapons for the alt right as "savior babies".

Seriously, this is relevant. If people really want to base a "right to life" on "being a person" AND hold that an embryo is a person, then those frozen embryos have exactly as much right to life.

No, they don't. As any reasonable person with an understanding of basic biology (not many people in this discussion, unfortunately) knows, it takes three things to create life: A sperm, an Egg and a Host in which to grow the life. "Frozen Embryos" do not have a host to give them life.

Any person who knows anything about biology knows that a 4 week old cluster of cells isn't "a human" who can be murdered and yet this foolish argument is brought up in every abortion argument.

Exactly when does the little life get to be termed "human" in your book?

Maybe when it has limbs and actually appears humanoid. Maybe when it's viable outside of the mothers body around 23-24 weeks. It's not up to me. If a woman finds out she's 6 weeks along and can't sustain a pregnancy or support a life, she has the choice and the right to terminate that pregnancy. Its baffling to me how you people think a literal lump of cells and tissue has more rights than a grown living human woman.

Maybe answer the question.

I just did, fool, with the caveat it isn't up to me. If the baby cannot live outside of its mother, then it's not "viable life" to me. But I don't make the rules and someone else's definition may be different. Everyone's personal cutoff for that is theirs and the law allows for abortions to take place until 20 weeks because the fetus IS NOT VIABLE before then (and not terribly viable for many weeks after).