Abortion

[XCR1250]

Science proves Roe v. Wade wrong. Humanity doesn't start at 20 weeks: Lila Rose

 

Lila Rose

Wed, December 1, 2021, 4:01 PM

Two little boys celebrated their first birthdays this summer, one in Minnesota and one in Alabama – miles apart, but with similar stories. Both born at 21 weeks, Richard Hutchinson and Curtis Means were 131 and 132 days premature, respectively.

These tiny but resilient babies weighed just ounces when born, fitting into the palms of their mothers’ hands. They both surpassed all medical expectations and were recognized by the Guinness World Records as the most premature baby to survive; Curtis now holds the title.

Their stories, although record-worthy, are becoming more common as advancements in medicine move back the age at which a child can survive outside his or her mother’s womb. Similarly, advancements in technology confirm that a preborn child is a human being at the point of conception – not magically at 21 weeks – a fact discussed Wednesday at the Supreme Court.

 

Richard Hutchinson in Minnesota in June 2020.

Unconstitutional, unscientific, immoral

On Wednesday, the court heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The law under scrutiny, passed by Mississippi in 2018, limits abortion after 15 weeks, except in cases of medical necessity or severe fetal abnormality.

Today, the state allows abortion up to 20 weeks – just one week before Richard and Curtis were born. After five decades and 62 million babies killed, it’s far past time for the Supreme Court to admit that the so-called viability standard established by Roe v. Wade – which prohibits states from banning abortions before the preborn child can survive outside the womb – is unscientific, unconstitutional and morally wrong.

What did Roe v. Wade actually say?: The landmark abortion rights ruling, explained

 

Richard Hutchinson in June 2021.

This case is making headlines – alongside Texas’ SB 8 Heartbeat Act – as it finally brings into question Roe’s viability standard. A decision in favor of Mississippi would likely allow states to pass legislation protecting the preborn in a way that has been impossible since Roe.

 

Abortion activists argue that a baby’s humanity begins with her ability to survive outside the womb; yet science and reason tell us her humanity is present at the moment of fertilization.

My organization, Live Action, one of the nation’s leading human rights nonprofits, alongside leading OBGYNs and medical professionals, has released a state-of-the-art animation of a baby’s development within the womb. Baby Olivia depicts the moment life begins and beyond to show the humanity of the preborn throughout each stage of development, complete with beating heart, brainwaves, fingers and toes.

This glimpse of early human life demonstrates its true beginning at fertilization when Olivia becomes a unique individual with her gender, ethnicity, hair and eye color – among other traits – immediately determined. By nine weeks, Olivia can suck her thumb and swallow.

 

Olivia’s continuous growth over time makes it clear that Roe’s “viability” precedent is arbitrary and unscientific. Even pro-Roe former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor acknowledged that “viability” is a wavering, contingent line: “As medical science becomes better able to provide for the separate existence of the fetus, the point of viability is moved further back toward conception.”

 

 

 

 

Dependency doesn't negate humanity

Not only is it logically inconsistent and unscientific, but it is also immoral to use the arbitrary standard of viability to determine a child’s legal status and, ultimately, worth.

As children, we were each dependent on others for our existence, our nourishment and our survival. Why should a preborn child’s physical dependency on his mother determine whether or not he is protected by law from the lethal violence of abortion?

Why should the court rule that life at 15 weeks is not a life worth saving, but that life at 20 weeks is? There is nothing “potential” about Richard’s humanity at 21 weeks, which existed since conception. Curtis’ life was no less valuable a few weeks before he was born. He was no less human just days before he took his first breath. And he is no more important now, on his first birthday, than he was the first moment he spent in his mother’s womb.

 

Baby Olivia is a state-of-the-art animated depiction of a baby’s development within the womb, showing each stage of development.

Richard, Curtis and others like them force abortion advocates to acknowledge an inconvenient truth: There is no difference between a 21-week-old baby born prematurely and one that remains inside his or her mother’s womb.

The degree of a child’s dependency does not determine his humanity. If anything, the more vulnerable a child is, the more legal protection they need and deserve.

So regardless of prematurity or “pre-viability” status, human infants, born or in-utero, should be entitled to protection by the same laws that protect the rest of us.

It’s time to trust the science and embrace life.

Edited December 2, 2021 by XCR1250

[Catalina]

At the time Roe was decided, it was probably a fair number to determine viability. As medical technology progresses, the number gets lower, that will likely continue. 

 

I always struggled with a specific number. How can you say that you have a baby one day, but a 'lump of cells' the day before, or the day before that? There is no way to really determine, that will not get changed as tech advances. 

I once worked with a guy who felt that abortion was okay, even if fairly late stages, as long as both parents agreed. He said that since everyone agrees, it should be OK. I mentioned that there really is a third person who should have a say in the decision, and a am pretty sure that if you could ask if they wanted to be born, the answer would most always be yes.   Ended that conversation fairly quickly. 

 

I really don't understand why we  cannot make adoption a viable option. There are lots of families who cannot have their own, who would consider adopting an infant. Seems like it would be a decent option, but isn't socially  acceptable to give a child up. But it's OK to abort? Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

[Bontz]

52 minutes ago, Catalina said:

At the time Roe was decided, it was probably a fair number to determine viability. As medical technology progresses, the number gets lower, that will likely continue. 

 

I always struggled with a specific number. How can you say that you have a baby one day, but a 'lump of cells' the day before, or the day before that? There is no way to really determine, that will not get changed as tech advances. 

I once worked with a guy who felt that abortion was okay, even if fairly late stages, as long as both parents agreed. He said that since everyone agrees, it should be OK. I mentioned that there really is a third person who should have a say in the decision, and a am pretty sure that if you could ask if they wanted to be born, the answer would most always be yes.   Ended that conversation fairly quickly. 

 

I really don't understand why we  cannot make adoption a viable option. There are lots of families who cannot have their own, who would consider adopting an infant. Seems like it would be a decent option, but isn't socially  acceptable to give a child up. But it's OK to abort? Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Although I agree for the most part with what you're saying here, the adoption aspect is really difficult.  It would certainly be the best solution for a pregnant woman who was capable of caring for herself and having a healthy pregnancy.  But let's face it, the majority of the time that's not the case at all, as many young women simply aren't capable of a healthy pregnancy.  At a personal level, despite being Catholic, I'm also pro-choice ... but I really struggle with this topic when it comes to irresponsible people who COULD go through with the pregnancy and provide a child for an adoptive family.  Using abortion as an "escape clause" to someone's irresponsible behavior is what sucks.

This whole Roe vs. Wade deal, and what's happening in Mississippi is frustrating as well because ... let's face it ... they're not going to overturn abortion as a whole.  The debate is empowering states to define when abortion is legal.  Some states may put in more restrictive measures, where others are going to be wide open on it and allow later term procedures.  Banning abortion 100% is not the answer, and would certainly take center stage on the political spectrum - overtaking all of the BLM and racist crap that's in the headlines now.

[Doomxz600]

M Y O B

[SkisNH]

It really isnt that hard not to get pregnant...just a touch of personal responsibility. 

[Mag6240]

3 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

It really isnt that hard not to get pregnant...just a touch of personal responsibility. 

What's that??

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, Catalina said:

At the time Roe was decided, it was probably a fair number to determine viability. As medical technology progresses, the number gets lower, that will likely continue. 

 

I always struggled with a specific number. How can you say that you have a baby one day, but a 'lump of cells' the day before, or the day before that? There is no way to really determine, that will not get changed as tech advances. 

I once worked with a guy who felt that abortion was okay, even if fairly late stages, as long as both parents agreed. He said that since everyone agrees, it should be OK. I mentioned that there really is a third person who should have a say in the decision, and a am pretty sure that if you could ask if they wanted to be born, the answer would most always be yes.   Ended that conversation fairly quickly. 

 

I really don't understand why we  cannot make adoption a viable option. There are lots of families who cannot have their own, who would consider adopting an infant. Seems like it would be a decent option, but isn't socially  acceptable to give a child up. But it's OK to abort? Doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Most states have specific laws written exempting abortion from homicide or murder.   They have to because of the fetal homicide laws where someone can be charged with killing the mother and the unborn child.  Imagine we determine if its a human life solely based on if its "wanted" or not.  A mother could be on the way to the abortion clinic and the person still would get charged with homicide if its killed prior to getting there.  Its also extremely unreasonable that the father has no say.  Anyone who supports abortion should watch a video on the results.  Its Nazis level barbarianism.   

[Highmark]

40 minutes ago, Bontz said:

Although I agree for the most part with what you're saying here, the adoption aspect is really difficult.  It would certainly be the best solution for a pregnant woman who was capable of caring for herself and having a healthy pregnancy.  But let's face it, the majority of the time that's not the case at all, as many young women simply aren't capable of a healthy pregnancy.  At a personal level, despite being Catholic, I'm also pro-choice ... but I really struggle with this topic when it comes to irresponsible people who COULD go through with the pregnancy and provide a child for an adoptive family.  Using abortion as an "escape clause" to someone's irresponsible behavior is what sucks.

This whole Roe vs. Wade deal, and what's happening in Mississippi is frustrating as well because ... let's face it ... they're not going to overturn abortion as a whole.  The debate is empowering states to define when abortion is legal.  Some states may put in more restrictive measures, where others are going to be wide open on it and allow later term procedures.  Banning abortion 100% is not the answer, and would certainly take center stage on the political spectrum - overtaking all of the BLM and racist crap that's in the headlines now.

That is simply not true.   Please post up some factual links. 

While I'm 100% against abortion I agree with you on the 2nd paragraph.   This isn't changing Roe its simply upholding the part of Roe on viability.   Viability in medical texts in 1973 stated 400g or 20 weeks.   Today its even better.  Blue states will still be killing kids right up to childbirth.

When the constitution isn't clear it goes back to the states (people). 

[Highmark]

I'll give some props to the woman representing the Pro Choice side.   While I disagree the theory of her argument she did a tremendous job with her argument.  Very bright attorney. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Highmark

[Bontz]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

That is simply not true.   Please post up some factual links. 

While I'm 100% against abortion I agree with you on the 2nd paragraph.   This isn't changing Roe its simply upholding the part of Roe on viability.   Viability in medical texts in 1973 stated 400g or 20 weeks.   Today its even better.  Blue states will still be killing kids right up to childbirth.

When the constitution isn't clear it goes back to the states (people). 

I was referring to some of these kids being in an environment where they can't even keep themselves healthy. let alone a fetus ... drug users, alcoholics, etc.  I don't have factual links - you got me there.  But there's no denying there are kids out there ... YOUNG KIDS ... who are in no position to carry a pregnancy full term.

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, Bontz said:

I was referring to some of these kids being in an environment where they can't even keep themselves healthy. let alone a fetus ... drug users, alcoholics, etc.  I don't have factual links - you got me there.  But there's no denying there are kids out there ... YOUNG KIDS ... who are in no position to carry a pregnancy full term.

I can agree with that however in todays society we have the free infrastructure in place to help them except now they just focus on abortion.   Its called Planned Parenthood.  They have been caught over and over telling young women they no longer offer prenatal care.  Just goes to show you how fucked up this topic has become.  Guess selling baby parts was just too lucrative. 

https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care-plummeted-abortions-skyrocketed/  

Edited December 2, 2021 by Highmark

[poopooforme]

Well I hate to see irresponsible behavior this is kinda how I feel about it.  Every fathers day that goes by without getting a card in the mail is a good fathers day for me....

 

 

[Mainecat]

It’s a woman’s choice.

[Frostynuts]

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

It’s a woman’s choice.

Yup, if they cann,t or won,t take birth control, then only anal or swallowing should be compulsory !

[steve from amherst]

3 hours ago, Doomxz600 said:

M Y O B

x2

 

[Humpty]

MYOB eh? The reason this is an issue is some feel it’s killing babies. Something they can’t ignore, understandably. If I thought something dastardly was being done I’d have trouble minding my own business also.

[Catalina]

I get the MYOB thing, and I agree that to a large extent it should be left up to the people involved. But - I do have a strong feeling that there really is a second person involved, who should have some rights, and cannot speak for themselves.

Lots of liberal people would say that we should stand up for people who cannot stand for themselves, but make an exception for abortiions. 

 

A woman should and does have a right to choose, I just wish they would be better at exercising that right BEFORE they are pregnant I have not counted, but there must be more than a dozen types of birth control to choose from. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Catalina

[Highmark]

Destroy a Bald Eagle egg and face one year in jail and $100K fine (first offense) but kill a baby that's just ready to be born.....no problem.  

Penalties associated with violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act the first criminal offense is a misdemeanor with maximum penalty of one year in prison and $100,000 fine for an individual ($200,000 for an organization). The second offense becomes a felony with maximum penalty of 2 years in prison and $250,000 fine for individual ($500,000 for an “organization” such as a business). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act also provides for maximum civil penalties of $5,000 for each violation.

[Mainecat]

27 minutes ago, Catalina said:

I get the MYOB thing, and I agree that to a large extent it should be left up to the people involved. But - I do have a strong feeling that there really is a second person involved, who should have some rights, and cannot speak for themselves.

Lots of liberal people would say that we should stand up for people who cannot stand for themselves, but make an exception for abortiions. 

 

A woman should and does have a right to choose, I just wish they would be better at exercising that right BEFORE they are pregnant I have not counted, but there must be more than a dozen types of birth control to choose from. 

Texas just voted to ban the morning after pill.

Watch for when the liberals control the court to uphold states gun bans if they ban roe. 
It can happen as everyone will suffer if the courts become politically controlled.

[airflite1]

1 hour ago, Mainecat said:

Texas just voted to ban the morning after pill.

Watch for when the liberals control the court to uphold states gun bans if they ban roe. 
It can happen as everyone will suffer if the courts become politically controlled.

With the age of the justicesI think it will be a long time before the court has a chance to be liberal leaning again, I feel the court now is way less political, and rules on law not emotion like it's liberal times.

[Mainecat]

16 minutes ago, airflite1 said:

With the age of the justicesI think it will be a long time before the court has a chance to be liberal leaning again, I feel the court now is way less political, and rules on law not emotion like it's liberal times.

If they vote down roe it will become political.

[Bontz]

4 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

If they vote down roe it will become political.

But they're not voting down abortion ... that's what the MSM is spinning this as without putting it in context.  The debate is, at which point in time should abortion become illegal?  And allowing a state to determine that time frame ... is it going to be 15 weeks at the latest, 20 weeks, etc?  The debate is allowing individual states to choose - not banning abortion altogether.

[airflite1]

5 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

If they vote down roe it will become political.

It depends on. the law that supports it, Roe was very political when it was originally decided, now it will depend if the laws support that decision. Personally I hope it doesn't.

[Zambroski]

4 hours ago, Frostynuts said:

Yup, if they cann,t or won,t take birth control, then only anal or swallowing should be compulsory !

I support this.

21 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

If they vote down roe it will become political.

Wow!  That’d be new!  

Dildo.

15 minutes ago, airflite1 said:

It depends on. the law that supports it, Roe was very political when it was originally decided, now it will depend if the laws support that decision. Personally I hope it doesn't.

I’m for aborting people up to age 30.  At that age, it can be decided whether they were a mistake or not.  Lol

Seriously though, Thai should come down to State’s Rights.  Not federal rule.

[Skidooski]

7 hours ago, SkisNH said:

It really isnt that hard not to get pregnant...just a touch of personal responsibility.