France makes abortion a constitutional right in historic vote

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Sookiechacha
so now that you have told me what a woman isnt ...

tell me what a woman is

Whatever she wants to be.

Like I'm fooled by that question.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Sookiechacha
so now that you have told me what a woman isnt ...

tell me what a woman is

A woman is a adult human female but first you should revise what fetal viability means because you didn't sound confident earlier.

I believe now you know what it means rather than trying to create your own version of the term.

But in case this conversation is brought up again

In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Now ask yourself why different US States and most European countries permit abortion up to and including the 24th week into the pregnancy.

If you want further links

www.babycenter.com...

Before 23 weeks, a baby's rate of survival remains low, even with interventions: only 5 to 6 percent.

At 23 weeks, the rate increases to 23 to 27 percent.

At 24 weeks, a baby's survival rate reaches 42 to 59 percent.

By 25 weeks, the survival rate is as high as 67 to 76 percent.

a reply to: Venkuish1
if you admit "fetal viability" is a gross redefinition of the word "viable" and has nothing to do with what a viable human is...


eta
just to say even if you say "adult human female"
sookie will never say that lol

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: WeMustCare

That doesn't sound like Christian nationalist nonsense at all.

Lol..

As long as they leave it up to their God. And don't decide on God's behalf for California, Its tolerable.. Well see how long "states rights" hold up though.

California is an easy target. I propose ultra conservative America change the scapegoat liberal state to Colorado. They tried to kick The Savior Archetype off the ballot and allow full term abortions!

But I got to vote for Haley today.

In the spirit of countering the "Christian Nationalist" support of her rival, and because I'm still registered Republican from back when moderates like Meg Whitman used to counter Jerry Brown 2.0, and almost win.



Now there's a vote that won't matter.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Venkuish1

God may spare France if abortions are not allowed after the living spirit has taken up residence. Otherwise, France will face wrath, like California is, here in the USA.

So all of California must face the wrath of god because some people had abortions?

sounds about as sane as most things you dream up

I always thought God was forgiving, your God wishes to show wrath, so more an eye for an eye type God

You know what that outcome leads to dont you?

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1
if you admit "fetal viability" is a gross redefinition of the word "viable" and has nothing to do with what a viable human is...


eta
just to say even if you say "adult human female"
sookie will never say that lol

You need to stick to recognised medical and scientific terms and definitions.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown2

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Venkuish1

God may spare France if abortions are not allowed after the living spirit has taken up residence. Otherwise, France will face wrath, like California is, here in the USA.

So all of California must face the wrath of god because some people had abortions?

sounds about as sane as most things you dream up

I always thought God was forgiving, your God wishes to show wrath, so more an eye for an eye type God

You know what that outcome leads to dont you?

Sounds like religion-driven paranoia

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown2

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Venkuish1

God may spare France if abortions are not allowed after the living spirit has taken up residence. Otherwise, France will face wrath, like California is, here in the USA.

So all of California must face the wrath of god because some people had abortions?

sounds about as sane as most things you dream up

I always thought God was forgiving, your God wishes to show wrath, so more an eye for an eye type God

You know what that outcome leads to dont you?

Sounds like religion-driven paranoia

Like this thread devolved into.

a reply to: Venkuish1

you dont think "viable" and "human" are scientific terms?

what differs... and the only place it differs is "fetaal viablity"

now let look at the definitions of those words....

fetal

A fetus or foetus (/ˈfiːtəs/; pl.: fetuses, feti, foetuses, or foeti) is the unborn offspring that develops from an animal embryo.[1] Following embryonic development, the fetal stage of development takes place.

viability

(biology) Able to live and develop.

so when you say "viable fetus " you dont actually believe the biological definitions ...

what you really mean is this skewed idea/definition of , if you take a viable fetus from the location it is viable in ...then will it survive in its new state?

thats a gross mis definition that comes from the insane idea that there is some magic number as to when you can take a viable fetus from the womb and keep it alive

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

you dont think "viable" and "human" are scientific terms?

what differs... and the only place it differs is "fetaal viablity"

now let look at the definitions of those words....

fetal

A fetus or foetus (/ˈfiːtəs/; pl.: fetuses, feti, foetuses, or foeti) is the unborn offspring that develops from an animal embryo.[1] Following embryonic development, the fetal stage of development takes place.

viability

(biology) Able to live and develop.

so when you say "viable fetus " you dont actually believe the biological definitions ...

what you really mean is this skewed idea/definition of , if you take a viable fetus from the location it is viable in ...then will it survive in its new state?

thats a gross mis definition that comes from the insane idea that there is some magic number as to when you can take a viable fetus from the womb and keep it alive

You remind me of the creationists who argue about what science should be and try to twist definitions or completely dismiss evidence and data.

I don't know if you have your own definitions but fetal viability refers to the ability of the fetus to survive outside the uterus.

As seen in my links (and you are free to look in different sources) fetal viability occurs at around the 24th week into the pregnancy. This has been established with hard empirical evidence over many years. It's not my definitions or conclusions. But better you get familiar with the medical terms rather than trying to create your own or argue 'philosophically'.

a reply to: Venkuish1

You remind me of the creationists who argue about what science should be and try to twist definitions or completely dismiss evidence and data.

im not twisting definitions ..

I don't know if you have your own definitions but fetal viability refers to the ability of the fetus to survive outside the uterus.

where did the scientific term "viable fetus" originate? what science supports it?

As seen in my links (and you are free to look in different sources) fetal viability occurs at around the 24th week into the pregnancy.

if you define "fetal viability " as "the ability for a viable fetus to survive outside the womb" .. then yes... but then you are destroying the very definition of biological viability as it necessitates the natural environment.

It's not my definitions or conclusions.

this i whole heartedly agree with .. im sure you are just parroting what you have heard and your ignorance and refusal to learn are telling.

But better you get familiar with the medical terms rather than trying to create your own or argue 'philosophically'.

i an very familiar .... you one the other hand....

a reply to: DBCowboy

Even Ayn Rand argued that an embryo didn't have rights. And she has some weight behind her with growing up in a socialist state that most likely did control women's reproductive systems.

You have to set a line somewhere. Because now we enter the realm of how deep do you go.
You can only hide behind the libertarian facade so much DCB.

French women will get abortions in record numbers while the Muslim horde will breed in record numbers. There won't be any white people left in western Europe in 100 years.

originally posted by: MemeLord
French women will get abortions in record numbers while the Muslim horde will breed in record numbers. There won't be any white people left in western Europe in 100 years.

And the women who choose education and independence will lead them.

a reply to: MemeLord

I think you're lost.

Here's the next ticket to somewhere you'll feel more comfortable:

boards.4chan.org...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: DBCowboy

Even Ayn Rand argued that an embryo didn't have rights. And she has some weight behind her with growing up in a socialist state that most likely did control women's reproductive systems.

You have to set a line somewhere. Because now we enter the realm of how deep do you go.
You can only hide behind the libertarian facade so much DCB.

She went much further “embryo doesn’t have rights”.
Her view was that if a baby wasn’t born then it had zero rights.
Hard to agree with someone who thinks a baby isn’t human even 1 second before its birth.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

You remind me of the creationists who argue about what science should be and try to twist definitions or completely dismiss evidence and data.

im not twisting definitions ..

I don't know if you have your own definitions but fetal viability refers to the ability of the fetus to survive outside the uterus.

where did the scientific term "viable fetus" originate? what science supports it?

As seen in my links (and you are free to look in different sources) fetal viability occurs at around the 24th week into the pregnancy.

if you define "fetal viability " as "the ability for a viable fetus to survive outside the womb" .. then yes... but then you are destroying the very definition of biological viability as it necessitates the natural environment.

It's not my definitions or conclusions.

this i whole heartedly agree with .. im sure you are just parroting what you have heard and your ignorance and refusal to learn are telling.

But better you get familiar with the medical terms rather than trying to create your own or argue 'philosophically'.

i an very familiar .... you one the other hand....

That's precisely what creationists claim when they are reminded of scientific definitions and the explanations of various terms, they have the answer ready: You are parroting what you have heard and you trust the scientists too much.

If you haven't realised my first link was from a peer reviewed scientific publication

In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998)

I am sure that medical experts, researchers end physicians, know well what fetal viability is and when it occurs.

If you think fetal viability is something that I have come up with then you are ignoring some of the very basic terms and definitions.

A simple search reveals the following

en.wikipedia.org...

Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus.

Viability depends upon factors such as birth weight, gestational age, and the availability of advanced medical care.

Medical viability is generally considered to be between 23 and 24 weeks gestational age...

a reply to: Vermilion

Rights are subjective. Rands philosophy was based on differences between what is objective and subjective.

Even if a fetus comes to full term and birthed, it still doesn't have full rights.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Vermilion

Rights are subjective. Rands philosophy was based on differences between what is objective and subjective.

Even if a fetus comes to full term and birthed, it still doesn't have full rights.

Sure whatever.
You framed it as if she thought an “embryo has no rights“ when you should have been honest and said that Ayn Rand thought a baby doesn’t have a right to live anytime before birth.
This fact needed to be stated.
Big difference.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: DBCowboy

Even Ayn Rand argued that an embryo didn't have rights. And she has some weight behind her with growing up in a socialist state that most likely did control women's reproductive systems.

You have to set a line somewhere. Because now we enter the realm of how deep do you go.
You can only hide behind the libertarian facade so much DCB.

A human life is a human life.

Be it pre-born or infant or teenaged or elderly adult.

*shrugs*