Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Are you trying to make some kind of point?

Yeah. That Mississippi has the highest rate of infant and maternal mortality and child hunger rates in the nations. They don't care about women, fetuses or born babies. If they did, they'd be more proactive and do something about that, first. This is on Mississippi, not Obama.

MS is doing the best they can within their own economy.

Maybe you aren't aware of the massive cost for each medicaid recipient?

Many states that went along with the obamacare medicaid expansion are now looking into cancelling it because obamacare only paid for the first few years, and continuing on their own would bankrupt their states.


Either way, this is an obamacare issue, and NOT an abortion issue.

Start a thread on obamacare failings and I'll gladly participate.


Not going to get away with trying to use the democrat's own obamacare disaster as a dishonest weapon on abortion issues.

Don't like the results of Obamacare?

Change obamacare.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

The first thing I look for in new abortion laws is what the exceptions are. I expect a few of them to be there. Protection for the life AND HEALTH of the mother, a rape and incest clause, and a clause allowing for fetal abnormalities. Of those three, I feel the one for the life and health of the mother is the most important. If that isn't in the law, I am just gonna keep telling ya it is unconstitutional regardless of what else the law says. If the law is forcing the someone to sacrifice either of those for the sake of another, well it isn't a sacrifice it is closer to state sponsored assault and murder.

Taken on it's own, this is a well written post, and one that I can mostly agree with (depending on the definition of some of your terms)

MUCH better than using dishonest tactics.

Good thing for us, this case before scotus has nothing to do with any of those details, only a potential update to rvw viability assumptions based on FACTS.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Maybe I am reading you wrong. Or maybe viability is being used wrong by you.
Nothing new has change in roles viability assumptions. Matter of fact as medical science progresses and gets better at treating preterm babies, roe will automatically adjust accordingly.

Considering that mississippi ban is at 17 weeks, far from the point of viability, I would say what is assumed to be viable isn't an issue. The law misses that mark by a longshot which is why the state's lawyer is asking it get shot out.
Viability is a medical term, it has a set meaning in the medical community. They make decisions as to the care of both mother and child sometimes taking viability into consideration.. you can't go just randomly changing when viability is.
So, they want to throw out viability as the pointer. Let the states decide whatever they wish that pointer to be, and hope the states find a better solution. And, the states think that stripping those exemptions down to just "saving the mother's life", or they might use the phrase "medical emergency"...which both Mississippi and tx did use one of these two terms. That isn't a better solution.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Maybe I am reading you wrong. Or maybe viability is being used wrong by you.
Nothing new has change in roles viability assumptions. Matter of fact as medical science progresses and gets better at treating preterm babies, roe will automatically adjust accordingly.

Considering that mississippi ban is at 17 weeks, far from the point of viability, I would say what is assumed to be viable isn't an issue. The law misses that mark by a longshot which is why the state's lawyer is asking it get shot out.
Viability is a medical term, it has a set meaning in the medical community. They make decisions as to the care of both mother and child sometimes taking viability into consideration.. you can't go just randomly changing when viability is.
So, they want to throw out viability as the pointer. Let the states decide whatever they wish that pointer to be, and hope the states find a better solution. And, the states think that stripping those exemptions down to just "saving the mother's life", or they might use the phrase "medical emergency"...which both Mississippi and tx did use one of these two terms. That isn't a better solution.

"Nothing new has change in roles viability assumptions. Matter of fact as medical science progresses and gets better at treating preterm babies, roe will automatically adjust accordingly."


WRONG.

At least when dishonestly stated as fact like you just did.

There is quite a bit of new knowledge (FACTS) since rvw, and this case is narrowly constrained to whether those new facts are significant enough to justify the recent very restrictive state laws.

Nothing Else.

You may not like that fact, but your opinions do not have the ability to change the facts at hand.


EVERYTHING after your 3rd sentence is completely dishonest claims based on that first MAJOR error in your understanding of this case.

AKA Your OPINIONS.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Maybe the fact that I misspelled or the computer replaced role for roe is a problem?
Our science has not changed when a fetus becomes viable that much since the court decided to use viability as a guide stone instead of trimesters.
The viability issue might be an issue worth considering if the Mississippi law was setting the mark at 20 weeks even.. but not at 17.. there is no viability in a 17 week fetus as of yet. That is a fact.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Maybe the fact that I misspelled or the computer replaced role for roe is a problem?
Our science has not changed when a fetus becomes viable that much since the court decided to use viability as a guide stone instead of trimesters.
The viability issue might be an issue worth considering if the Mississippi law was setting the mark at 20 weeks even.. but not at 17.. there is no viability in a 17 week fetus as of yet. That is a fact.

You just fairly accurately described the democrat's actual claim in this case.

The Republican's claim otherwise of course, and presented some fairly convincing evidence to the court.

I believe the actual MS claim is that viability should now be considered 21 weeks, and claim that the legislators added more weeks in effort to be absolutely certain

rvw decision was also constructed this way as the actual viability consensus was 29 weeks at the time, so scotus used 24 weeks in rvw assumption to be extra safe.

Now we just have to wait for the court's decision.

I personally don't think the court will see enough of those new facts to justify a change in the rvw assumptions.

Yet.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Huh??
First, the viability standard was from Casey vs. Planned parenthood, not roe. Roe just used the trimesters.
I don't think Mississippi asked the supreme court to make any changes to viability, they just want to throw the concept of viability out and let the states decide on whatever standard they pick. But, tell ya what...
I went through listening to the whole hearing again and gave the link to the hearing. I even pointed out where Sotomayor's questionable comments are at to support my claim that her comments were taken out of context. Feel free to point me to where the Mississippi lawyer is saying anything about changing the viability point or adding a few weeks to be safe. All I remember hearing was him arguing that it was set wrong and should be a week earlier as justification for discarding the concept.

I don't believe casey added a few weeks to their point of viability to be safe as you claim.

And quite frankly, going from 21 to 15 is more than a few weeks!

But, I am making crap up???

a reply to: dawnstar

I think the term "viability" is being misunderstood. As I understand it, in the context of Roe v Wade, it dies not mean the child can be removed from the mother and still survive. It means the child is developing normally, is expected to develop normally, and poses no major risk to the health of the mother.

That determination cannot be made at the very early stages before there is a heartbeat and brainwaves. The question is, are the heartbeat and brainwaves sufficient to establish viability? Justice Sotomayor doesn't think so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar


Read the actual case.

Orals mean very little.


I did not say whether I agree with either of those arguements before scotus, just that those are, in fact, the arguements before scotus.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dawnstar

I think the term "viability" is being misunderstood. As I understand it, in the context of Roe v Wade, it dies not mean the child can be removed from the mother and still survive. It means the child is developing normally, is expected to develop normally, and poses no major risk to the health of the mother.

That determination cannot be made at the very early stages before there is a heartbeat and brainwaves. The question is, are the heartbeat and brainwaves sufficient to establish viability? Justice Sotomayor doesn't think so.

TheRedneck

Well stated.

Viability does NOT necessarily mean that that the baby would survive a C section birth at that point.

In the case of abortion law, it means the point after which an unborn baby should no longer be intentionally killed, since it MAY be a living, thinking, aware human being.

a reply to: TheRedneck

There are two types of viability. One refers to the fetus' ability to live outside of the womb. The other is the viabilty of the pregnancy.. basically means you could leave that fetus in the womb for 10 months and it wouldn't survive once out of the womb. It is pretty clear which casey was referring to since they set up markers of when they believe a fetus was viable.

You don't have a heartbeat and those brainwave aren't telling as much as you thing. The neural system begins to form early in fetal development. The neuron cells form, and they begin to form synopses between the cells.. building the network. The smallest, most primitive part of the brain also is forming. Part of the process is that messages will be sent, tested if you like... kind of like are you there yet. If no answer comes back, that pathway will be deleted. If an answer does come back... the link is strengthened which might just mean the messages keep flowing back and forth till the pathway is clear in the mind. Kind of how physical therapy can retrain a brain to use another part of the brain to do a task if the original part is damaged. Or at least that is what I got from the article I was reading the other night. I will go back and see if I can find it I guess.

Edited to add links..

I am including two links... not sure if the original article I was referring to is either of them. Thought is was the one with the MRI images, still do. But, i just scanned them.

Link1

Link 2

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

There are two types of viability. One refers to the fetus' ability to live outside of the womb. The other is the viabilty of the pregnancy.. basically means you could leave that fetus in the womb for 10 months and it wouldn't survive once out of the womb. It is pretty clear which casey was referring to since they set up markers of when they believe a fetus was viable.

You don't have a heartbeat and those brainwave aren't telling as much as you thing. The neural system begins to form early in fetal development. The neuron cells form, and they begin to for synopses between the cells.. building the network. The smallest, most primitive part of the brain also is forming. Part of the process is that message will be sent, tested if you like... kind of like are you there yet. If no answer comes back, that pathway will be deleted. If an answer does come back... the link is strengthened which might just mean the messages keep flowing back and forth till the pathway is clear in the mind. Kind of how physical therapy can retrain a brain to use another part of the brain to do a task if the original part is damaged. Or at least that is what I got from the article I was reading the other night. I will go back and see if I can find it I guess.

I'd like to read that article if you find it.


You again fairly accurately described the democrat side's arguments in this case.

The republican side obviously had different arguments.

Now scotus will decide which to agree with, or maybe even some parts of both arguments, in determining whether those recent state laws violated anyone's (baby's or mother's) constitutional rights.

A question on "viability".
When is a baby viable?
They aren't when they are born.
They aren't when they are 1 years old.
2 year's old? Nope.
3?
4?
5?
The baby will need someone to care for them until they become self sufficient.
Do we allow abortion up to the age of 10? 12? 16?
The pro abortion (death) crowd is stuck on the term "viable".
I know some grown adults that aren't "viable".
Should we kill them as well?
Seriously, the term sucks and means little in determining the murder of a child.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Your meaning of viability doesn't meet either of the two meanings that viability is defined as being.

My oldest son didn't decide to face the world till close to the 10th month, so I know a pregnancy can go longer that the 9 months. How much longer I don't know. But, using your defination...
If the baby, in the womb is showing all the signs that it is living, thinking, and aware... but it is also known that it's lungs are malformed and inadequate to inhale so the baby will die upon birth...
If the mother's body never starts the labor process, if the water sack is never broken... when can labor be induced? Since inducing labor would kill the fetus.

I am describing here an non-viable pregnancy. It has nothing to do with weather the fetus is thinking and aware has nothing to with it. It doesn't matter if you give that fetus 9 months, or 10 months, or 20 months! It will die once it is separated from mom"s life support system and we have no life support system that can save it.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Once born... does the baby need the mother to support it or can the two be separated?
Viability... when a fetus can live outside of the womb..

originally posted by: Quadrivium
A question on "viability".
When is a baby viable?
They aren't when they are born.
They aren't when they are 1 years old.
2 year's old? Nope.
3?
4?
5?
The baby will need someone to care for them until they become self sufficient.
Do we allow abortion up to the age of 10? 12? 16?
The pro abortion (death) crowd is stuck on the term "viable".
I know some grown adults that aren't "viable".
Should we kill them as well?
Seriously, the term sucks and means little in determining the murder of a child.

There is a specific (though still mushy) legal definition of that word when used in abortion law.

In rough terms it means the point at which an unborn baby is to be considered a legal person with constitutional rights, before which the fetus is considered to be an extension of it's mother's tissue.

But I also wish they would use a more precise word for this legal threshold, would lead to a lot less confusion.

That has always been one of the many complaints about the convoluted nature of their rvw decision.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Your meaning of viability doesn't meet either of the two meanings that viability is defined as being.

My oldest son didn't decide to face the world till close to the 10th month, so I know a pregnancy can go longer that the 9 months. How much longer I don't know. But, using your defination...
If the baby, in the womb is showing all the signs that it is living, thinking, and aware... but it is also known that it's lungs are malformed and inadequate to inhale so the baby will die upon birth...
If the mother's body never starts the labor process, if the water sack is never broken... when can labor be induced? Since inducing labor would kill the fetus.

I am describing here an non-viable pregnancy. It has nothing to do with weather the fetus is thinking and aware has nothing to with it. It doesn't matter if you give that fetus 9 months, or 10 months, or 20 months! It will die once it is separated from mom"s life support system and we have no life support system that can save it.

You are using an 'alternate' definition of that 'viability' term.

'Alternate' is a polite way of saying you are either a dishonest paid troll, or are severely intellectually challenged,

I have never said anything even remotely similar to what you claim.

And neither did anyone related to this case.

Even soto didn't stoop that far in her deception.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Link

Nope!! If you don't like the link to the legal dictionary I provided, go find your own online legal dictionary. There are lots to choose from.

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dawnstar

I think the term "viability" is being misunderstood. As I understand it, in the context of Roe v Wade, it dies not mean the child can be removed from the mother and still survive. It means the child is developing normally, is expected to develop normally, and poses no major risk to the health of the mother.

That determination cannot be made at the very early stages before there is a heartbeat and brainwaves. The question is, are the heartbeat and brainwaves sufficient to establish viability? Justice Sotomayor doesn't think so.

TheRedneck

Well stated.

Viability does NOT necessarily mean that that the baby would survive a C section birth at that point.

In the case of abortion law, it means the point after which an unborn baby should no longer be intentionally killed, since it MAY be a living, thinking, aware human being.

This is what you said...

originally posted by: dawnstar

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dawnstar

I think the term "viability" is being misunderstood. As I understand it, in the context of Roe v Wade, it dies not mean the child can be removed from the mother and still survive. It means the child is developing normally, is expected to develop normally, and poses no major risk to the health of the mother.

That determination cannot be made at the very early stages before there is a heartbeat and brainwaves. The question is, are the heartbeat and brainwaves sufficient to establish viability? Justice Sotomayor doesn't think so.

TheRedneck

Well stated.

Viability does NOT necessarily mean that that the baby would survive a C section birth at that point.

In the case of abortion law, it means the point after which an unborn baby should no longer be intentionally killed, since it MAY be a living, thinking, aware human being.

This is what you said...

And I stand by it.

THAT is the legal definition of the term related to abortion law.


I did NOT say anything at all about viability at birth, or any other absurd point in the process, as you claimed.

That was 100% dishonest on your part.

Why did you just do that?

Are you used to getting away with such dishonest stupidity here?