Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[sakinago]

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

 

[MaryL]

Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?

Get off my screen, get medication, get help. Dismissed, flatliner.

Wow, Someone was a little tiny bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.

---
I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.

Shall we give God the death penalty?
Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?

It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in this mess? Wow.

---
A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
Or, the devil made them do it.

Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.

---
And we should "traffic" their body parts to help others in medical need

The short answer? Some die that others live. That is a hard pill to swallow. I am a organ donor. My death should benefit someone. I hope so. Abortion,too. Does that baby/fetus need protecting? I don't know, I leave that up to fate. Or God, whichever you prefer. People are milking this issue to fuel their outrage.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.

 

[JoeB131]

Bleh, save that worn out BS, Sanger was a racist who supported eradicating the black race. Sorry but it's a fact and if the Confederate flag has been deemed offensive so is she

Um, no, not really.

Sanger was in fact praised by black leaders at the time for helping bring birth control to their community.

Now I know this is a shock to you, but birth control is actually considered a GOOD thing by sane people.

 

[sakinago]

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

 

[JoeB131]

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

Not really. A woman after birth has the right to renounce parenthood. No one can compell her to take care of a child if she doesn't want to.

Now, if she agreed to parent the child and doesn't, that would be neglect.

 

[sakinago]

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

Not really. A woman after birth has the right to renounce parenthood. No one can compell her to take care of a child if she doesn't want to.

Now, if she agreed to parent the child and doesn't, that would be neglect.

But then the person caring for that child would be charged with neglect if chose to behave that way

 

[Faun]

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who knows where you think you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[sakinago]

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

 

[WinterBorn]

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

I am being consistent. No one forces the mother to keep the baby. She can surrender it. But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.

 

[Faun]

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

 

[sakinago]

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

I am being consistent. No one forces the mother to keep the baby. She can surrender it. But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.

Not against her will, that is what happens with reproduction. I don't want a hangover when I drink a lot, but that is what happens when I do.

 

[sakinago]

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

 

[sakinago]

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent

I am being consistent. No one forces the mother to keep the baby. She can surrender it. But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.

She should stop fucking...Who wants to fuck someone that has no responsibility?

 

[Noomi]

Nice propaganda video the lifers are sure to jump all over.

 

[sakinago]

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

Looked it up, I was right, around 80%. So do you pull the plug on Sheri tiavo?

 

[Lilah]

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.

....... it's not 98%.

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow. And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

The Fetal Protection Act is upheld in 39 states, and the Unborn Victim Violence Act is upheld in 29 states.
There is also a Preborn Victims of Violence Act.

 

[Faun]

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo

WTF are you talking about? Again, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of 27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.