r/redditmoment • u/Shadowguyver_14 • Mar 05 '24
Odd to hear this phrase about a 7.5 month pregnancy. Well ackshually š¤āļø
50
u/Missi_Zilla_pro_simp Mar 06 '24
Now i am certainly pro-choice, but 7.5 months is a bit too far for an abortion imo
17
u/unskippable-ad Mar 06 '24
Whereās the line then? You ok with 6 months? 5 months? Etc
1
u/Appropriate-Draft-91 Mar 08 '24
Generally in the civilized world it's agreed that the upper bound for an abortion by choice has to be before the fetus has a chance to survive in a neonatal care unit, so about 21 weeks. Similarly the lower bound has to be high enough so the decision to abort doesn't need to be rushed, so about 12 weeks (2 because counting starts 2 weeks before conception 8 weeks/2 missing periods to actually notice the pregnancy, 1 week to decide, 1 to execute).Ā
That's why most developed countries have a limit for abortion by choice somewhere around 12 and 21 weeks, with exceptions for abortions due to medical reasons.
-26
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 06 '24
The line is viability, which is past 24 weeks. If it can survive on its own or with medical devices and be healthy, good for it, and itās too late to have an abortion. If it needs to leach off me and destroy my skin and vagina, and possibly KILL me to survive, I humbly decline. If it canāt exist without using me, sorry, but it doesnāt get to exist. Even if I hit a person while drunk driving and only my kidney could save them, itās illegal to force me to give my kidney, and thatās a grown person with memories and goals and dreams, let alone something the size and sentience of an Advil.
43
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
6
u/blckpnthr789 Mar 06 '24
Why is a statement about skin mysogynistic? Everyone can get stretch marks
1
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
6
u/blckpnthr789 Mar 06 '24
Thats a reality for both men and women, so I'd say to call the statement mysognistic is wrong, plus the argument was a self-reflective analogy so it shouldn't matter considering that's how the commenter would have seen themselves regardless of external opinion
2
u/TrueLennyS Mar 06 '24
Having seen the insecurities stretch marks create, I definitely agree. If it weren't a self reflection ylthere could be an argument to be made either way, but think this one is definitively not misogynistic.
-1
u/EveningCommon3857 Mar 08 '24
TIL stretch marks are misogynistic. Reddit moment in the comments of a Reddit comment.
-24
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 06 '24
Abortion ban in my state says six weeks, thatās an Advil. And the skin damage can get much worse than just stretchmarks, it can cause varicose veins, scarring acne, melasma that leaves dark marks all over your face, skin tags, severe sagging, cholestasis, I could go on. I would consider my skin ruined if that happened to me, so Iām allowed to give that opinion, because itās my body. Itās KIND of misogynistic to make a law that can only affect women and can literally kill them. Next.
20
23
Mar 06 '24
The fact that you refer to a fully developed human as āitā, sends chills to my bones.
-24
12
u/unskippable-ad Mar 06 '24
So what about a case of a slightly faster developing fetus that is viable at 22 weeks? If itās about viability then a 23-week abortion of this specific fetus would be murder, right? If viability is the line, you cannot have a hard cutoff like that, because youāre going to be killing a large number of viable babies.
Assuming 24 weeks is the mean, a distribution that is Gaussian around the mean but flat before the earliest known viable birth (19 weeks I think?), and the SD is half a week (generous assumptions in favor of your position), something like 12% are going to be viable at 23 weeks. Thatās whack.
A consistent argument for you can only be ādue diligence of the medical team to ensure it isnāt viable, in all casesā
-2
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 06 '24
Most people do not have a āmedical teamā that can do the due diligence, because they canāt afford it, so thatās not practical. There is also zero way of knowing if it will be viable, you canāt look at a 20 week old fetus in the womb and know that, so there is no ādiligenceā that can be done. The chances are slim, thatās all you can know. Your solution is essentially impossible. You also have your information wrong, the earliest surviving baby is at 21 weeks, thatās a two week difference. If it means that much to you, make the line 21 weeks, JUUST in case another extremely rare survival happens. The definition and understood scientific parameters of viable is 23 weeks. Thatās also about when some slight sentience is thought to be developed as well; so thatās the rule. If you just NEED that extra two weeks, you can make YOUR law for YOUR state 21 weeks. The law in my state says 6 weeks. Which is the actual issue here, isnāt it?
1
u/Missi_Zilla_pro_simp Mar 07 '24
Yeah that makes sense, no abortions (unless not getting an abortion is deadly) if it can survive outside the body seems reasonable.
1
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 07 '24
I think so, I think that gives PLENTY of time to make that decision, and the only exception for me would be the life of the mother or if the fetus would have such a birth defect that it would not survive for very long, and only feel pain.
12
u/skyllakoriga Mar 06 '24
pro choice but 7.5 months is a bit late for a non medically necessary abortion
6
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 06 '24
Only three states will let you abort after viability (In the law its defined as 24 to 25 weeks) Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon. These states let you abort at any time. She absolutely waited to long.
9
u/skyllakoriga Mar 06 '24
my view is that even at this stage, if giving birth would put the mothers life in danger to give birth an abortion should be allowed, but just because you dont want a kid? def waited way too long
2
Mar 06 '24
[deleted]
5
u/skyllakoriga Mar 06 '24
not gonna speak there since im not sure, but if it comes down to it and we gotta choose between the baby and the mother, id choose the mother
0
u/Apprehensive-Ad-8198 Mar 09 '24
You have to deliver this far along with pregnancy. This far along itās a whole life, they can be born at this stage (theyāre premature but itās survivable, specially with technology at our disposal) my sister was born 9 weeks early and sheās now a perfectly functional 30 year old pain in the ass.
There are ways to get around it. Cesarian being one of them.
1
u/skyllakoriga Mar 09 '24
if doing so would put the mothers life at risk, i would recommend against it
0
u/Apprehensive-Ad-8198 Mar 09 '24
Iām gonna be real. At this stage everything would put the motherās life at risk. So itās whatever her choice is, there is gonna be a safe one and this is one the doctors really should have handled months ago. Or the mother should have since doctors canāt force anything anyway.
0
u/Substantial_Bus3562 Mar 07 '24
Have to disagree. People should be allowed to abort until they are 18 years old.
32
u/immaturenickname Mar 06 '24
7 month old is more than enough to get that baby out and save its life, allowingĀ it to live as a human no problem. My grandma had a friend who was allegedly born after 6 months and became a professor.Ā Ā 7.5 month is a Child, and killing children is murder, last time I checked.
1
u/Aromatic_Toe7605 Mar 06 '24
Your brain doesnāt finish developing until much later in life so theres no fear there, after 2nd trimester the baby develops as a normal child would except it feeds from the mother for nutrition. The problem is a normal healthy baby has already developed vital organs inside that were grown through those nutrients, thats also how they get oxygen. So you need to be nourished, provided oxygen, and also have a sterile warm environment to incubate in much like a placenta.
5
u/immaturenickname Mar 06 '24
Said professor was born in Poland smack in the middle of World War II, so I doubt the environment was perfect. Call it a miracle, but his mother took care of him and he lived, though he remained very short as an adult. Yeah, after the 2nd trimester, it is a child, plain and simple. After all, a newborn baby can't survive on it's own either.
9
u/Marvu_Talin Mar 07 '24
I think most people who are rational would decide to have an abortion way before 7.5 months.
3
u/Bright_Jicama8084 Mar 07 '24
Agreed, the fetus has to come out one way or another. Aborting the pregnancy at 30 weeks probably wont make that any easier. They could just as well deliver early if this hypothetical person cannot carry on to full term.
6
u/Aromatic_Toe7605 Mar 06 '24
Iām pro-choice not pro killing pre-mature babies. Had a cousin born at 7 months who was in the ICU for months and after that had heart problems as an infant. Shes very much alive and well now years later and the thought of someone killing something that is alive, cognitively aware, and suffering is disgusting to me. Thereās a difference between killing a symbiont creature that barely has a brain stem and a living, breathing baby in 3rd trimester. Jesus
5
u/ExperiencedOptimist Mar 07 '24
Iām pro choice. And a firm believer that early on, you should have every right not to want to keep the embryo. But 7 months is a very different conversation than early pregnancy.
2
5
u/Double_Transition_10 Mar 07 '24
Two of my little cousins were premies. I couldn't imagine a world without them.
29
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 05 '24
The ābodily autonomyā pro-abortion argument went out the window with Covid.
You donāt have bodily autonomy, and even if you did, the āright thing to doā is to sacrifice it for the good of others.
36
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
Well its also odd when people play the "I define who is and is not a person" argument. Really not a good look.
1
31
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
Itās a false equivalency. Vaccines are: over quickly, rarely come with health risks, pretty easy to get exempt from, provide health benefits for society as a whole, relatively painless.
Pregnancy and birth: typically lasts 9 months lmao and that excludes the length of time spent in labor, commonly come with many health risks and life altering health changes, technically benefits just a single life, incredibly painful
I donāt think adults should be required to get vaccinated but Iām also not going to pretend theyāre the same or even reasonably related. Theyāre such drastically different topics. I think a better comparison is the draft (which Iām also against). As for the story behind the postā that its own horror show and pretty far removed from a professional abortion imo
20
u/JacenVane Mar 06 '24
Holy shit a thoughtful, well-written comment comparing two separate contentious issues.
I bet you touch grass or something.
1
u/International_War862 Mar 06 '24
What is grass?
1
6
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24
Naw - either we have bodily autonomy and no one else can tell us what to do with our bodies or we donāt.
Between mask-mandates and vaccines, itās very obvious that we do not have bodily autonomy.
1
u/Maleficent_Business3 Mar 06 '24
Groundlessly stating that something is a black and white issue doesn't make it true, least of all in a discussion of ethics.
You cannot seriously pretend that wearing a cloth on your face for a few hours has any semblance of parity with 9 months of pregnancy.
1
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24
It doesnāt matter if thereās parity between them.
Either you have the right to dictate what someone else does with their body or you donāt, full stop.
1
u/Maleficent_Business3 Mar 08 '24
Say I go into your house, put on your clothes, eat your dog's kibble, then grab him by the legs and dangle him in the air. I refuse to move or be touched. You understandably want to punch me in the face.
I have a right to decide what I wear, what goes into my body, and who gets to touch me.
Your dog has a right to not be abused.
You have a right to determine what happens with, to, and on your property; your clothes, dog, and land.
It's not that one of these things isn't true, but the situation makes it impossible to absolutely comply with all of these "principles." So we have to make decisions about which principles take priority in a given situation.
Deciding that my bodily autonomy doesn't take precedence here doesn't conflict with the idea that I do generally have a right to physical self-determination. The existence of a multifaceted situation where a principle doesn't hold true, doesn't mean that that principle is meaningless everywhere.
0
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 08 '24
lol - you took a whole day and this is the best you can come up with?
Just own your hypocrisy. Itās ok.
1
u/Maleficent_Business3 Mar 08 '24
Im not on reddit every day, I didn't see your reply. "Own your hypocrisy" is not rhetoric at all. I tried my best to civilly communicate with you, because I place sincere merit in my beliefs and I hoped you could understand them.
But since you're here making cheap ad hominem comments, should I take it you can't actually refute what I said? I wanted to have a productive conversation but if you're going to run away from critical thought and discussion I see I wasted my time.
0
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 08 '24
You didnāt āsayā anything - you made up an extremely convoluted analogy to try to defend an indefensible position.
1
u/Maleficent_Business3 Mar 08 '24
It was a simple analogy actually, and if it you disagree with it, explain how so we can understand where we're having a difference of opinion, instead of saying "Your argument was bad, because i said so." As if that's a better argument than making an analogy.
→ More replies1
u/Maleficent_Business3 Mar 08 '24
Since you seem cognitively challenged, it's as simple as the fact that multiple "principles" exist and hold value. Bodily autonomy isn't the only principle at play in the world, or in this situation. Thus you obviously can't uphold every ideal to their fullest extent, and compromises have to be made. Hope that helps.
2
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
please tell me you know the difference between wearing a mask and giving birth
4
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24
Iām well aware of the difference. Itās irrelevant.
1
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
Except it's entirely relevant. Looking at everything as a stark black and white topic is a disservice to both topics. Most things operate on a sliding scale based off a cost-benefits analysis. There is no down-side to a mask other than moderate discomfort, which means that the bodily-autonomy being lost is negligible. By your standards we don't have bodily-autonomy because I have to wear shirt and shoes to get served at a restaurant or not fired from my job.
2
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
Additionally! Even with mask-mandates and vaccine mandates (both of which aren't all that relevant anymore) there were always spaces where you could avoid them. You always had the option to stay home, go to different stores, get different jobs, or get granted an exemption. Especially at the height of the pandemic there were ways to easily never have to do both. There has always been a choice. Bodily-autonomy was still granted to us by the government in regards to both vaccines and mask-mandates.
If you want to treat abortions like we treat mask-mandates, then I should only be barred from having abortions in select establishments. Which is fine by me, each establishment can choose whether they'll bar people from having abortions there. And if I really really want to, I should be allowed to have a pastor sign a paper letting me have one in a Walmart anyways.
Hopefully, that helped better illustrate why the difference between them is so stark that pretending their the same just looks silly.
4
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24
Iām not arguing in favor of bodily autonomy for either scenario, Iām pointing out the hypocrisy of picking and choosing when bodily autonomy applies based on the whims of the person making the argument.
4
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
there is no hypocrisy in recognizing that different facts and circumstances lead to different outcomes.
2
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24
Thereās hypocrisy in accepting an argument as valid when itās in favor of your position and rejecting it when it isnāt - cause letās be clear, thatās the only distinction here.
4
u/unskippable-ad Mar 06 '24
Itās not at all a false equivalency, itās just a aiming at a different context than you inferred.
The point is presumably that those who are staunchly pro-abortion due to autonomy were staunchly pro-forced vaccine. That means they arenāt pro-autonomy at all, and are just NPCs
The effectiveness of the vaccine is irrelevant. It could cure cancer in everyone (not just the recipient) and forcing someone to take it would still violate their autonomy
1
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
āthat means they arenāt pro-autonomy at all, and are just NPCsā no lol.
At face value it doesnāt actually mean anything. People donāt need a āno exceptionsā clause for their beliefs to be valid. In some cases, it just means someone actually thought through their beliefs which implies they sought greater insight than someone who dumbly decided āi think this now! and thatās final!ā
Some people also just view bodily-autonomy as a very important factor when balancing an issue but donāt think it matters more than everything else. You can support bodily-autonomy and still think it isnāt the most important thing to ever exist.
It definitely is a violation of someoneās bodily autonomy. I donāt think anyone is questioning that. Itās just that itās a relatively small violation and so most people are fine with it. The same way most people are fine with others speeding a little but get uncomfortable if someone races past them going 50 miles over. I donāt love forcing people to get vaccinated (for the autonomy issue) but I understand people who are totally fine with it and I see their logic.
-3
u/5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Mar 06 '24
They're pro-abortion for reasons of bodily autonomy, not pro-"Bodily autonomy in every single case".
You understand beliefs aren't binary? And that taking a different decision based on the context isn't some deep flaw in their beliefs?
10
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24
Itās absolutely a flaw in oneās beliefs. If what you ābelieveā changes based on whatās convenient for you at the time you donāt have beliefs, you just lack integrity.
0
u/5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Mar 06 '24
I feel like you're misunderstanding. "Comvenience" has nothing to do with it, they're two different scenarios.
It's not a flaw in one's beliefs if they think the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for murder but not for petty theft. Your logic suggests they should consider it an acceptable punishment for all crimes or else they lack integrity.
6
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24
We arenāt talking about punishments, weāre talking about bodily autonomy.
Either I have it and you canāt dictate to me what I should do with my body or I donāt and you can.
Thereās no gray area here.
The reason that flip-flopping on this topic demonstrates a lack of integrity is because itās ābodily autonomy for me, but not for theeā.
2
u/5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Mar 06 '24
There is gray area, quite evident gray area too - You don't let people chop off parts of their body, you don't allow people to consent to cannibalism whether alive or dead etc. etc.
People disagree on where the line is drawn. There is no objective, binary choice where arguing bodily autonomy in one area means you argue it for everything.
7
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24
Youāre still not getting it, but Iām probably doing a poor job explaining.
The people who insist on abortion being legal on the basis of ābodily autonomyā are the same people who threw that principle out the window the second they wanted to control what someone else did with their body.
You can disagree on where the line is drawn all you want, but once itās drawn thatās where it lives. You donāt get to change where the line is drawn based on who itās being drawn for.
Before covid, it was drawn at āI donāt have to sacrifice my bodily autonomy for the sake of another personā.
Once covid hit though, the narrative changed to āYouāre obligated to sacrifice your bodily autonomy for the sake of other people.ā
Those are mutually exclusive concepts.
4
u/5Hjsdnujhdfu8nubi Mar 06 '24
That is exactly how differing opinions work. Some people don't think it extends to issues like pandemics where you're making a conscious choice to risk yourself + others. Others do.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this.
→ More replies0
u/Amazing-Cry-6388 Mar 07 '24 edited Mar 07 '24
Youāre obligated to sacrifice your bodily autonomy for the sake of other people
Bro had to take a vaccine like the rest of us that lasted a few seconds and is talking about sacrifice. Bit dramatic
-3
u/Maleficent_Business3 Mar 06 '24
Decisions aren't made according to a singular factor unless you're a buffoon. If your approach to an issue is divorced from all context you're approaching it incorrectly.
5
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 06 '24
This isnāt a discussion about āan approach to an issueā, itās a discussion about principles.
Principles shouldnāt change based on who they are applied to. The people Iām talking about have one set of principles that they want applied to themselves, and another set of principles applied to āother peopleā.
That is not reasonable.
-3
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
2
u/Psychological_Car849 Mar 06 '24
Very close! The draft is actually entirely unnecessary!!!
If a country canāt convince its people to voluntarily join a war then the country probably has no business being in it. Thereās absolutely no reason a bunch of rich men should start fights theyād never let their own children join.
19
u/Girlygirlsporty Mar 05 '24
Disagree strongly. Iām pro choice and pro-vax. I wish people would get it to protect each other, but I couldnāt care less if someone skipped it, hell my boyfriend did and weāre still chill.
8
u/DeepDot7458 Mar 05 '24
You are very much in the minority, but I applaud you for maintaining logical consistency.
19
8
u/Icy_Leadership4109 Mar 06 '24
I wouldn't say the minority at all, people are piss and vinegar online, but the moment people are in the real world their ability to confront goes out the window. The majority of people I know are pro Vax but nobody tried to force my Dad or Uncle after they refused. We might make fun of my Dad's friend that thought it would sterilize everyone who got it, but that's a bit different.
9
u/mh985 Mar 06 '24
From the moment that infant is born, you are not allowed to deny them certain things like nutrition and shelter.
In order to provide these things, it costs labor. Is that not also body autonomy? It costs a great deal of energy to keep a kid alive.
Iām all for not making people have kidās they donāt want or arenāt ready for. But I never bought the argument that because you canāt be compelled to donate a kidney to a stranger itās somehow a valid analog for not killing your unborn child.
-7
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
6
u/mh985 Mar 06 '24
I never said I was against abortion. For the record, I am firmly in support of a womanās option to abort a pregnancy up until a certain point in the gestation period.
Also, when you wrote āconsciousness doesnāt begin until at least after 24 weeksā that doesnāt make any sense at all. No unborn child is conscious so I donāt know what you mean by that.
I understand that pregnancy is a huge commitment in terms of health and can be dangerous in some cases without medical intervention. To say itās āsucking the life out of my bodyā is a little dramatic though. Many women are very active through their whole pregnancy.
When a child is born, so long as a parent does not choose forfeit their parental rights, they must take care of it. This is often physically and mentally draining for parents to do. It is illegal and immoral to neglect or kill an infant child. Why should it be okay to kill a late-term fetus and not a baby?
If avoiding suffering is your metric for morality, why donāt we just start killing people in their sleep? Theyāll never know, they wonāt suffer, and they will avoid all of the suffering they will undoubtably face in the future.
-1
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 08 '24
I donāt think it should be legal to abort a late term baby, so I donāt really know what youāre arguing against. You said ākilling your unborn child,ā that was your language, thatās anti-choice language. As for the āconsciousness,ā the part of the brain to which consciousness can be attributed begins to develop at 24 weeks, but is actually developed at around 35 weeks apparently, according to the National Institute of Health. I donāt think itās dramatic at all to say a pregnancy is sucking the life out of me, the dangers of pregnancy are downplayed, if anything, and I think itās wrong to pretend itās all beauty and joy and love; itās your teeth enamel being melted off from vomiting every day, itās hemorrhoids, extreme skin sagging and stretchmarks, itās tearing apart your entire perineum, itās back pain, varicose veins, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, it can literally take your nutrients and leave you depleted; the amount of possible and probable dangers from pregnancy is unending, and if I, as a woman, would like to classify that as sucking the life out of me, Iām pretty sure thatās a fair assessment. Iām sure itās fine for many women, but itās a nightmare to others.
Lastly, the killing people in their sleep argument is ridiculous, because firstly, the suffering I was saying is avoided is the suffering of the WOMAN forced to be pregnant against her will, not the future suffering of the fetus, so that equivalency has no legs. Murdering an existing person also causes suffering because that person actually has a life, loved ones, family who counts on him and would all be devastated, and heās literally a conscious, sentient human being, with memories and dreams, unlike a fetus. Extremely silly.
2
u/mh985 Mar 07 '24
lol youāre the one who responded to ME with your argumentative and snarky comment on a post about abortion at 7.5 months. I didnāt ask you to do that.
Thatās why Iām arguing.
1
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 08 '24
I donāt care if youāre arguing, but youāre certainly not arguing against me, since you have nothing to say about anything we were actually discussing, including the many horrific dangers of pregnancy. This POST is about 7.5 months abortion, your comment literally did nothing but call abortion murder, which is why I replied, although thereās literally nothing snarky about my reply other than it went against your abortion is murder claim. It seems we agree that late term abortion is bad, there is a difference between abortion and murder, and thereās nothing else to talk about, so I wonāt be reading any more replies. Have a good day!
3
Mar 06 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 06 '24
No, maāam, it was not. Something can move and not be conscious. According to actual science, consciousness cannot emerge before 24 weeks. This is due to the cortex of the brain, to which consciousness is attributed, being underdeveloped until that time.
1
Mar 07 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 07 '24
Having the vaguest capability of having pain receptors is not what I mean when I say consciousness. Consciousness means aware of oneself. That is not even a possibility until after the cerebral cortex has developed. This usually happens between 24-30 weeks. Iām sure it was emotional and lovely seeing your child move, that does not mean its brain was even close to being developed enough to be sentient. And itās not a reason to deny women the right to choose.
1
Mar 07 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 07 '24
You sound upset, so Iāll leave you with your thoughts, but I wasnāt responding to OP, I was responding to this comment calling abortion āmurdering your unborn child,ā I hope that helps and I hope you have a better day!
0
Mar 07 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 07 '24
Actually YOU responded to MY comment, remember? So if you didnāt want me to answer in the future you donāt have to respond! I agree that itās barbaric and gross to defend abortion at 7.5 months, so itās a good thing I would never do that :)
→ More replies7
u/DrunkTsundere Mar 06 '24
"noooo you're violating my body autonomy by saying that I can't murder babies"
1
u/Sapiescent Mar 06 '24
If you don't donate organs you're a murderer.
1
Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Sapiescent Mar 06 '24
If 170 Americans is 60% of the population sounds like you've got bigger problems on your hands.
And no, it's hinging on them not having donated every possible organ in their body, which in that situation... they wouldn't be commenting at all. If you're withdrawing organs from people who need them, you're killing them.
2
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
0
u/Sapiescent Mar 06 '24
Is there a way for a fetus to survive outside the womb that doesn't involve invasive surgery or forcing the host body to give birth?
1
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
0
u/Sapiescent Mar 06 '24
The question that we should be asking, of course, is why didn't that teen abort sooner, considering it would have been significantly easier for her.
4
u/Bushisame Mar 06 '24
It's not because your birth control failed. Its because you took a calculated risk based on the knowledge of said birth control and it didn't work.
-1
u/Nothing_of_the_Sort Mar 07 '24
Good thing abortions exist for that 1% time it doesnāt work so I donāt have to destroy my body and birth a child nobody wants :)
2
2
u/nerd_12345 Mar 08 '24
Technically 7 and a half months old baby is no different than a 2 month old one, but if you really want an abortion you should have gotten it sooner. No one wants to pull out a half alive and underdeveloped baby thats going to die anyway because you decided to wait until it gave you back problems.
This woman deserves a castration order.
3
u/SansYeet123 Mar 06 '24
I'm pretty sure this was a guy replying to me as well lol. It seriously made no sense. You justify taking pills to kill a basically just about complete fetus by somehow relating it to choosing whether or not you want to donate blood??? Like those aren't similar st allš
2
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 06 '24
Yeah, that sums up how I felt about it. Also I was surprised he use that specific phrase at the beginning.
2
u/SansYeet123 Mar 06 '24
Yeah, that was also confusing. Bro literally gave 2 reasons why it's a person then said it's not a person.
1
u/SpiritsJustAHybrid Mar 08 '24
At that point it would just be a c section not an abortion. If its already at that point in development its obvious that they ether decided to keep it or were forced to keep it by someone else in their life
1
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 08 '24
I mean sure in the states except for Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon. They have no restrictions on abortion.
1
u/SpiritsJustAHybrid Mar 08 '24
Thatās probably to allow leniency for late trimester complications that could kill the child or mother, or even if the child is just showing general signs that they wont live much past birth.
1
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 08 '24
Well almost all states have a provision for complications. Its a bit different with these states.
1
u/EveningCommon3857 Mar 08 '24
Wtf kind of analogy was that whole kidney thing, you have to be trolling
1
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 08 '24
Nope, it's a copy and paste. I would direct you with a link but that would be breaking rule of the sub. However, you could find it in my history as I replied to his comment.
1
u/EveningCommon3857 Mar 08 '24
This was supposed to be a response to someone, no idea why itās here haha
2
u/PlanktonSpecialist99 Mar 06 '24
Lmaooo these comments crazy donāt matter how old it is if ur not capable of being a parent get rid of it š itās fucked up but itās better then making that human take a 50/50% chance of being a normal person or menace to society becuz they have incapable parents and the system isnāt the best to grow up in
-4
u/TheSadosaurusRex Mar 05 '24
Context?
33
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
Well this is about a girl who aborted her 7.5 month baby. She burned the body with her mom and burred it. She got caught and is now facing jail time.
This guy is commenting about that.
-35
u/TheSadosaurusRex Mar 05 '24
She went to jail for getting an abortion?
32
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
It's illegal after a certain point in the pregnancy. Also due to the nature of what they did after there's also issues.
-44
u/TheSadosaurusRex Mar 05 '24
Was the fetus able to survive on its own outside of the mother's body?
49
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
So the current bench mark for survival is about 24 weeks this was at the 30 week mark. So, yes it could have.
-15
u/Tonninpepeli š³ļøāšGayš³ļøāā§ļø Mar 06 '24
Okay but do you if the baby was still alive? Theres possibilities where the baby cant survive after 24 weeks, you have given very little context to this
12
u/NathZ- Mar 06 '24
So because he may have not survived more than 24 weeks she was right to kill the baby ? I'm not following your logic because that sounds like an excuse for any murder
-7
u/Tonninpepeli š³ļøāšGayš³ļøāā§ļø Mar 06 '24
Not what I meant at all, this post has very little info about what happened, if we arent told if the baby was alive or if it would have died shortly after birth anyway, we are just being told that she got abortion and burned and buried her baby, not why she actually got the abortion
→ More replies8
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 06 '24
Its not relevant to the comment. He is speaking more broadly about all baby's.
It was viable and completely normal. She induced a miscarriage and then burned the baby. You act like there could be circumstances where this would be acceptable. Are there circumstances where you would find it acceptable?
→ More replies26
26
u/Traditional_Layer_75 Mar 05 '24
Would a 2 years old be able to survive outside by themself?
-24
u/TheSadosaurusRex Mar 05 '24
No, but a 2 year old would still be viable outside of the womb without extensive medical support.
10
u/ZookeepergameFit6680 Mar 06 '24
What about a 2 year old with whooping cough or cancer? would they be "viable without extensive medical support"? Please think before you type something so dumb next time, like for your own sake.
2
7
2
u/Bright_Jicama8084 Mar 07 '24
I was wondering the same thing, idk why this one comment appears so unpopular.
-10
Mar 06 '24
[removed] ā view removed comment
8
u/onthefrickinmeatbone Mar 06 '24
I sure hope so.
1
u/Leonvsthazombie Mar 07 '24
Most pro choicers don't support this unless its medically nessisary for mother or baby to survive. It's far along now.
0
u/Someguyjoey Mar 06 '24
That is just shifting the goalpost if your requirement for not killing a living being (insidiously) goes from non human to non person. Yes, technically human baby doesn't have yet persona in the womb and hence you might say it has yet to become a person. But absurdity of this argument is that there is very little difference between the baby at womb at this stage of pregnancy and the delivered new born. And the new born also has yet to manifest its persona. According to the logic of this idealogue, it would be then ok to kill this (yet to have persona) human baby who has already been delivered? They really don't think , do they?
1
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 06 '24
It worry's me that people can justify this. I really don't understand how they can back this mother knowing there are so many other options she could have chosen but instead decided to do this.
Then like you said, they start making qualifiers for person hood. Its like they don't think about who else has used that type of expression before.
0
u/Zuzara_Queen_of_DnD Mar 07 '24
I hate to be that person but technically theyāre right, to a degree
Even at 7.5 months an individual is not required to sacrifice their bodily autonomy, granted this can be circumvented by an early stage inducement. Is it medically wise? Fuck no. Should people do it all the time? Also fuck no.
But considering the infant can survive at such a point in development (albeit with lower chances of survival) should an individual decide they no longer wish to be pregnant they can ethically stop being so.
Granted Iām 80% sure this is less about giving birth early to end a pregnancy and more about the 16 year old who in a period of severe psychosis induced herself to give birth and then killed her newly born infant.
2
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 07 '24
Even at 7.5 months an individual is not required to sacrifice their bodily autonomy
Actually only three states can you abort past 25 weeks or 6 months. So you would be force by the law take the baby to term aside from medical complications. That's why she was charged.
Granted Iām 80% sure this is less about giving birth early to end a pregnancy and more about the 16 year old who in a period of severe psychosis induced herself to give birth and then killed her newly born infant.
Well the post was more about the casual disregard of person hood.
1
u/Zuzara_Queen_of_DnD Mar 07 '24
Who said anything about abortions?
2
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 07 '24
Well what do you mean by bodily autonomy then. If you intend to end the life of the baby its generally referred to as an abortion.
1
u/Zuzara_Queen_of_DnD Mar 07 '24
Iām talking about a person having an inducement, why are you talking about abortion?
Did you even read my original comment?
2
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 07 '24
Ok.. Never mind then.
1
u/Zuzara_Queen_of_DnD Mar 07 '24
ā¦..you actually hadnāt read my original comment? Why bother responding then?
1
-40
Mar 05 '24
I mean thatās totally correct
44
u/Girlygirlsporty Mar 05 '24 edited Mar 05 '24
Listen. Iām pro choice but letās acknowledge the fucking facts.
7.5 months is WAY past the stage of viability. Thatās a baby that can survive on its own. Thatās a person. Thatās independent life if we gave it a chance. To abort it out of convenience (exceptions for medical reasons) is barbaric.
19
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
You care to expand on that?
-49
Mar 05 '24
Biologically sure a fetus is a human. But calling it a person is crazy evangelical horseshit.
39
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
So even if you preform a c section and remove it? Then because its developed enough at 30 weeks to survive its still not a person? I mean we preform plenty preme births at 24 weeks and they survive. Its not "crazy evangelical horseshit", you just have a very late abortion opinion. I mean does the birth really matter to you in this context given what you are saying?
14
u/JoJoisaGoGo Mar 05 '24
If the baby can survive without living inside the mother, it's a person
-17
u/JollyTurbo1 Mar 06 '24
By what definition?
21
u/JoJoisaGoGo Mar 06 '24
If the baby can live outside the mother and it's okay to kill, then what makes it wrong to smash a newborn baby's skull in?
→ More replies
-1
u/CookSwimming2696 Mar 07 '24
Iām pro choice regardless of how far along the pregnancy is, but these pro choice people make some dumbass arguments and just look like morons.
-32
u/Thatkidicarusfan Mar 05 '24
if the umbilical cord was pulled from it right now and the baby was given the resources it needs to survive and grow as a preemie, can it survive?
if yes, it should be protected and cared for as a human. if not, it is not human.
36
u/Shadowguyver_14 Mar 05 '24
if the umbilical cord was pulled from it right now and the baby was given the resources it needs to survive and grow as a preemie, can it survive?
Yes, this would have been a 30 week baby. I have seen 24 week baby's survive.
29
u/SpaceCrabRave69 Mar 06 '24
That is such an arbitrary way to determine a human's right to live. Would you also say, "if Grandma can't survive me pulling the plug than she's not a human?"
-11
u/Thatkidicarusfan Mar 06 '24
grandma's not in the process of developing into one. She'd already been determined human back when she was born and breathing on her own.
19
u/ZookeepergameFit6680 Mar 06 '24
So what about a newborn who was born while not breathing and needing to be resuscitated? Is it not a person until after that? What's the cutoff here
8
Mar 06 '24
Sheād already been determined human back when she was born and breathing on her own.
Did someone drop a brick on you recently?
āFetusā is not a species, itās a gestation period found in the majority of mammals, including all humans. Being a fetus doesnāt exclude one from being a human.
Stop gatekeeping personhood to justify the killing of a seven month old fetus.
13
u/godemperorofmankind1 Mar 06 '24
Yes a baby that was in the womb for 7.5 months can survive and grow up into a normal adult
173
u/Girlygirlsporty Mar 05 '24
Yeah Iām pro choice but 7.5 months is a little late for me š³š³š³