Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be America’s New Normal.

nu2u

HR Legend
Aug 10, 2006
14,541
14,761
113
No, I meant “whether we consider the fertilized eggs legally protected as humans or not…”.

You knew that, right?
JFC here we go again.

If an IVF fertilized egg were to be legally protected, what other than a human is being protected? ANSWER THAT.

You can't be this dense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
22,851
29,567
113
After viability which is generally accepted as 23-24 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger.
wbw-your-baby-2021-alt-w24-1200x1200.jpg
 

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,302
12,307
113
JFC here we go again.

If an IVF fertilized egg were to be legally protected, what other than a human is being protected? ANSWER THAT.

You can't be this dense.

But I’m saying an IVF fertilized egg should NOT be protected as a human.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
119,172
110,201
113
After viability which is generally accepted as 23-24 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger.
24 weeks is the "lower limit" of viability, and varies, depending on actual organ development (e.g. mainly lungs)

And this "viability" is ONLY if you have significant NICU facilities, which are not really commonplace across the states banning abortions, which means "viability" is also strongly related to what resources/facilities you have in place.

28 weeks is mostly viable in all cases. So 24 weeks is not some magic number, the reality is 24-28 weeks in most cases. And it should be the mother's decision, not the legislature's, up to that 28 weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
May 17, 2021
878
1,890
93
No. It's not.

Not everyone has unlimited resources to move their lives somewhere else.
Let’s say you’re a teacher with 20 years of experience. You will have your salary almost cut in half if you move to another district even in your own state (because annual salary raises don’t transfer to a new job where you start from scratch), much less having to deal with the impossible to afford cost of living in a much more highly educated and economically vibrant blue state.

this whole “love it or leave it” mentality is not just a fallacy, but unashamed but terrifyingly Unselfaware fascism.

if we have a WWIII apocalypse it will be caused by fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews. And they want it. Christians yearn for the apocalypse because they get to see the vast majority of “heathens” burn and their all star heisman winner Jesus lead the team to victory in battle!

fundamentalists are fundamentally violent fanatics.

Fundamentalism is the new/old fascism.
 

nu2u

HR Legend
Aug 10, 2006
14,541
14,761
113
Just did.
[Me] Q: "If an IVF fertilized egg were to be legally protected, what other than a human is being protected?"

[You] A: "Nothng"

So we can dispense with your previous ambiguous ""human or not" qualifying characterization of an IVF embryo. The IVF egg is a human (and nothing else).

You have also previously declared that IVF eggs are "abortable".

You now have two exceptions to a total ban on abortions after conception: (1) the life of the mother; and (2) human eggs conceived via in vitro fertilization. I figured there was a reason you first declared that an IVF egg was "not human" and then were evasive after further inquiry ("human or not'). Carry on.
 
Last edited:

markfromj

HR Legend
Sep 1, 2004
27,302
12,307
113
You now have two exceptions to a total ban on abortions after conception: (1) the life of the mother; and (2) human eggs conceived via in vitro fertilization. I figured there was a reason you first declared that an IVF egg was "not human" and then were evasive after further inquiry ("human or not'). Carry on.

But I am not understanding your point here. I have stated (perhaps poorly to a degree) that I agree to these two exceptions to my “no abortions” stance.

What is your point here relative to my stance?