Some useful info from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
These are the facts about abortion later in pregnancy.
Abortion after 21 weeks accounts for slightly more than 1 percent of all abortions that occur in the United Statesi. Abortion later in the second trimester is very rare, and abortion in the third trimester is rarer still, accounting for less than one percent of abortions. The term “late-term abortion” has no medical definition and is not used in a clinical setting or to describe the delivery of abortion care later in pregnancy.
The need for an abortion later in pregnancy could arise for a number of reasons, including fetal anomalies or complications that threaten a woman’s health. Women, in consultation with their physicians, must be able to evaluate all appropriate treatments and make informed choices about what’s best for their health and their pregnancies. Depending on the circumstance, this might include abortion care, induction of labor, or cesarean delivery. Women’s access to accurate, full information and care must never be constrained by politicians.
Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavityii. In these cases, where death is likely before or shortly after birth, patients may decide whether to continue the pregnancy and deliver a nonviable fetus or have an abortion. In any case, the focus of medically-appropriate, compassionate care must be on the patient and what she feels is best for her health and her family.
Abortion later in pregnancy may also be necessary when complications severely compromise a woman’s health or life, conditions which may also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. These might include premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta. Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.
Sound health policy must be based on scientific facts and evidence-based medicine. The best health care is provided free from political interference in the patient-physician relationship.
https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG-Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/Facts-are-Important-Abortion-Care-Later-in-Pregnancy-is-Important-to-Womens-Health?IsMobileSet=false
@no1marauder saidRoe vs Wade originally only allowed abortions within the first 90 days of pregnancy. Personally, I would ban abortions after the sixth month of pregnancy. Unless other extreme circumstances came forth in that time. And you?
That is considerably less protection for a women's bodily sovereignity than Roe v. Wade provides.
By "support" do you mean to say that you would not object to laws banning abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy or do you state that line as a personal moral preference?
@whodey saidAt what stage do you support it? You've been mealy-mouthed on the issue, on the one hand saying abortion should be banned after conception, and on the other hand refusing to commit to calling for a ban on IVF and the contraceptive pill.
So at what stage in development do you support abortion, and if politicians champion abortion after this stage would you vote for them?
@kingdavid403 saidThat is inaccurate:
Roe vs Wade only allowed abortions within the first 90 days of pregnancy. Personally, I would ban abortions after the first six month of pregnancy. Unless other extreme circumstances came forth in that time.
The Court ruled that the woman’s liberty right (right to control whether or not she is pregnant) is stronger than the state’s interest in the fetus’ life up until a certain point in the pregnancy. That point is the “point of viability” - when the fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb. After the point of viability, the state’s interest in protecting the fetus outweighs the woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy. After the point of viability, the Court ruled, a state can prohibit women from getting abortions.
https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/roe-v-wade
Viability was, and is, considered to be in the 24-28 week range.
The ruling did not technically "allow abortions"; what it did was to invalidate State laws criminalizing abortion before viability.
The Court was clear on the issue being discussed:
If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ at pp. 164-65
Whodey is perfectly aware of all this.
@no1marauder saidBS, the original abortion law passed by Roe vs wade was only within the first 90 days of a pregnancy. Period!!!
That is inaccurate:
The Court ruled that the woman’s liberty right (right to control whether or not she is pregnant) is stronger than the state’s interest in the fetus’ life up until a certain point in the pregnancy. That point is the “point of viability” - when the fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb. After the point of viability, the state’s interest i ...[text shortened]... e.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ at pp. 164-65
Whodey is perfectly aware of all this.
@kazetnagorra saidI'm on record here stating that a fair compromise would be the heart beat bill.
At what stage do you support it? You've been mealy-mouthed on the issue, on the one hand saying abortion should be banned after conception, and on the other hand refusing to commit to calling for a ban on IVF and the contraceptive pill.
Women have a period of time to take measures before a heart beat develops.
@kingdavid403 saidThere was no "abortion law passed by Roe v. Wade" as I have already explained.
BS, the original abortion law passed by Roe vs wade was only within the first 90 days of a pregnancy. Period!!!
You are misinformed as to what the decision did and would be well advised to actually read it (I provided the link).
@whodey saidA heart-beat is not a sign of life. The cells start beating before there is a even a body, brain, or heart. So your're against all people being removed off of life support then even tho their dead???
I'm on record here stating that a fair compromise would be the heart beat bill.
Women have a period of time to take measures before a heart beat develops.
@no1marauder saidI disagee... I Was alive in my late teen years when abortions became legal and they were only legal within the first 90 days of a pregnancy, at first when Roe vs Wade was passed. Then, it extended to the whole pregnancy. All within my early adulthood... lol.
There was no "abortion law passed by Roe v. Wade" as I have already explained.
You are misinformed as to what the decision did and would be well advised to actually read it (I provided the link).
@whodey saidThere is no "heart" to "beat" at the point where most of the unconstitutional State laws recently passed draw the line, generally at 6 weeks of pregnancy:
I'm on record here stating that a fair compromise would be the heart beat bill.
Women have a period of time to take measures before a heart beat develops.
From there, the issue is what that “heartbeat” actually is. “At six weeks, the embryo is forming what will eventually develop into mature systems. There’s an immature neurological system, and there’s a very immature cardiovascular system,” says Jennifer Kerns, an ob-gyn at UC San Francisco and director of research in obstetrics and gynecology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. The rhythm specified in the six-week abortion bans, she says, “is a group of cells with electrical activity. That’s what the heartbeat is at that stage of gestation … We are in no way talking about any kind of cardiovascular system.”
In part because that rhythm is a sign of the health of the developing embryo, scientists have worked to push backward the moment in pregnancy they can detect it. In 1984 they were pretty psyched to pick up fetal cardiac activity at between 41 and 43 days of gestation—six weeks. The researchers described it as a “tiny blinking, flashing, and/or rocking echo with a regular rhythm,” which is how scientists say something has a good beat and you can dance to it. “What’s really happening at that point is that our ultrasound technology has gotten good enough to be able to detect electrical activity in a rudimentary group of cells,” Horvath says.
https://www.wired.com/story/heartbeat-bills-get-the-science-of-fetal-heartbeats-all-wrong/
The types of fetal "heartbeat" laws passed would effectively ban abortion:
If a woman suspects she's pregnant, she explained, at-home pregnancy tests vary in their ability to give accurate results, especially in the earliest stages. Generally, they work at five-to-six weeks, the doctor said. But even then, it can take multiple tests -- or a visit to a doctor -- to be 100% sure.
And an appointment with a doctor can often take another week or two to get.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/health/pregnancy-at-six-weeks/index.html
And, of course, an appointment to get an abortion might take weeks more esp. in the States where these laws have been passed which have few facilities providing the service.
And, of course, they are completely nonsensical as a philosophical matter; if you really believe that a human being is present at conception, why would you say it can be "killed" until it shows some electrical activity in a certain area?
@kingdavid403 saidI'm not much into debating with anecdotal statements that are clearly inaccurate nor wasting time with those who's style of argument is "holding their breath until they turn blue".
I disagee... I Was alive in my late teen years when abortions became legal and they were only legal within the first 90 days of a pregnancy at first when Roe vs Wade was passed, Then, it extended to the whole pregnancy. All within my early adulthood... lol.
My statements are correct and consistent with the ruling in Roe v. Wade.
@no1marauder saidYou can argue all you want, I was there... How about you? It is as I said and it was and nothing else at that time. Anything written otherwise is a lie, plain and simple. I grew up with it as an over sext teen... Hello???
I'm not much into debating with anecdotal statements that are clearly inaccurate nor wasting time with those who's style of argument is "holding their breath until they turn blue".
My statements are correct and consistent with the ruling in Roe v. Wade.
@no1marauder saidOk, then how about saying the beat of a very immature cardiovascular system?
There is no "heart" to "beat" at the point where most of the unconstitutional State laws recently passed draw the line, generally at 6 weeks of pregnancy:
From there, the issue is what that “heartbeat” actually is. “At six weeks, the embryo is forming what will eventually develop into mature systems. There’s an immature neurological system, and there’s a very immature ...[text shortened]... ion, why would you say it can be "killed" until it shows some electrical activity in a certain area?
Happy?
But before we define what a heart is, shouldn't we first define what is.............is?
I think Bill Clinton was working on that when asked if he perjured himself. Define is.
Did he ever get around to doing that? If not, can you do it for him?
@kingdavid403 saidAn obviously misinformed "over sext" teen.
You can argue all you want, I was there... How about you? It is as I said and it was and nothing else at that time. Anything written otherwise is a lie, plain and simple. I grew up with it as an over sext teen... Hello???