Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[guno]

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it. He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.

More insane talking points with no proof

 

[sakinago]

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

 

[WinterBorn]

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it. He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.

Any evidence for that? I never saw any medical testimony of any evidence of domestic violence.

I guess not.

 

[Faun]

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it. He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.

She was not, ya raving lunatic.

 

[Faun]

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Actually, no he's not. If he doesn't have a person to provide him care he will die.

Viable in the sense that it reaches a point where it can survive outside the woman's womb.

Compared to Teri Schiavo, whose condition was never going to improve.

 

[Faun]

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it. He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.

Any evidence for that? I never saw any medical testimony of any evidence of domestic violence.

That's because there is none. Rightards are raving lunatics who make shot up because reality is not on their side.

 

[Faun]

[Emphasis add] You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

765.101 Definitions

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​

[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated] Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?

Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

 

[sakinago]

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent

 

[WinterBorn]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

 

[sakinago]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?

 

[Faun]

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, "any medical procedure .... which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.

You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent

Why play the 'what if' game when we know what doctors actually said?

* "This is as severe brain damage as I've ever seen," said Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, upon viewing the scans.

* Dr. Walter Bradley, chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, added: "I doubt there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain."

* A doctor appointed by the court concluded she is in a "persistent vegetative state" and has no chance of recovery.

* "The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero. The longer a person goes on, the less likely it is they will recover," Dr. Michael Pulley

 

[sakinago]

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.

uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe consistent

Why play the 'what if' game when we know what doctors actually said?

* "This is as severe brain damage as I've ever seen," said Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, upon viewing the scans.

* Dr. Walter Bradley, chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, added: "I doubt there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain."

* A doctor appointed by the court concluded she is in a "persistent vegetative state" and has no chance of recovery.

* "The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero. The longer a person goes on, the less likely it is they will recover," Dr. Michael Pulley

How do you not see what I'm getting at?

Ok so...hypothetically what if doctors said full recovery in the timespan of a trimester?? Picking up what I'm throwing down? Is it ok to then pull the plug on schiavo

 

[Faun]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?

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.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[sakinago]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?

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?

 

[JoeB131]

What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.

Gosnell was arrested, prosecuted and they even tried to hang 100 murders on him when he only really committed one.

Fact is, all those women went to his clinic voluntarily, knowing he was a hack because they didn't have other options.

Now, if we had universal health care and no Hyde amendment, that would be another story.

 

[JoeB131]

See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.

I had no problem with prosecuting him for dealing drugs, killing the 43 year old patient, or running an unsanitary or unsafe clinic.

I had a huge problem with pointing at medical waste and saying, "That's murder!"

And so did the Court, as they took the 100 claims of such "homicides", and threw all but three of them out.

Then the prosecutors gave Gosnell a sweetheart sentencing deal if he promised not to appeal the Medical Waste convictions.

so they essentially took a case where they still could have put this guy in prison for life with a plea, and instead wasted millions of dollars to get a ruling that medical waste is people.

 

[Faun]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?

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%.

 

[sakinago]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?

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?

 

[WinterBorn]

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone. It turned to liquid. There is no recovery from that. Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow. Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed. She was NOT going to recover.

Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?

Unless where you are going with this has bearing on the topic of Planned Parenthood trafficking in body parts, I do not see the relevance.

You are still wanting to make this about abortion. The thread and the story are about the accusations that PP is selling body parts for profit. If the story had been about claiming that PP was performing abortions, there would be no story.