Vaccinated stay contagious longer than Unvaccinated

DoubleAtotheRON

Well-Known Member
Lots of money, but not the trillions of other peoples money as described. Context matters.
Im not saying that those companies aren't making money... they certainly are. Im saying that BR/VG are making thier money and market share by thousands of investor fees, security lending, etc. .... would you rather count on 100 people paying you $1 a month, or a million people paying you a penny a month?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Not sure why that's funny to @Herb & Suds, but here's some other folks who seem to agree with my assertion.



Why does it surprise you that the people who dedicated their entire lives to the study of the fields they are working in would choose to change career and work in public service?

Are you saying that by doing so that they are somehow being nefarious with their decisions on how they run their lives? Because I think that is just more fear mongering. This is not to say that people out there are corrupt/corruptible, but that is just human nature, pretending like a 'entity' like the CDC is somehow corrupt (or most people working in it are) is a big leap.

I would agree that it is an issue and should factor into the conversation. We shouldn't blindly follow any single authority on anything, but I'm comfortable accepting when the majority of experts in any given field agree on certain things, and show peer reviewed studies to back up there views. What I don't understand is how or why there are so many people that so easily dismiss what the majority of experts in any given field present, if they can find just a few credible people that hold an opposing view, especially when they are not completely transparent as to how they came to the conclusions that oppose the majority.

It's also quite irritating when people focus on nothing but rate of death, and completely ignore the larger impact it has had on the health care industry. When it's your own family member that has their cancer treatment delayed because of the strain on the hospitals, you'd agree there is a bigger picture and you would hope people will finally come around to seeing that.
It is because they are being trolled nonstop all day everyday with the same bullshit trolling narratives that are then backed up by bullshit fake 'news-esque' looking websites, or op-ed's by bullshit artists in actual news media companies, then talking heads on their propaganda tv/radio stations use this to reenforce these manufactured anti-science 'feels'.

All the while training these real life useful idiots into what to say when the topic inevitably comes up in the real world when they read trolls online spam.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I don't keep up with the law too much... but Oregon for example, what exactly is "no cutoff"?

View attachment 5233111
I think it makes sense to understand all the reasons that there are that someone would seek a 'late term abortion' and then figure out if there are actual examples of very real problems that arise late in the woman's pregnancy that would not really give a shit about a political timeframe. So maybe the better question to ask would be 'what defines an abortion'.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/Screen Shot 2022-12-02 at 4.29.43 PM.png
What are 'late-term’ abortions?

“Late-term” abortions are generally understood to take place during or after the 21st to 24th week of gestation, which is late in the second trimester. That gestational period roughly corresponds to the point of “fetal viability” or when a fetus might be able to survive outside the womb with or without medical assistance. However, there is no precise medical or legal definition of “late-term,” and many doctors and scientists avoid that language, calling it imprecise and misleading. They say “late-term” may imply that these abortions are taking place when a woman has reached or passed a full-term pregnancy, which is defined as starting in the 37th week.

How common is the procedure?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

These percentages are similar to estimates by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center that supports abortion rights. Guttmacher found that 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or over 21 weeks out of a total of 926,200 abortions in 2014.

Can a woman really get an abortion 'moments before birth’?

The idea that new legislation under consideration or that passed in several states would allow this to happen made headlines after a video of Virginia Del. Kathy Tran (D-Fairfax) went viral. In the 30-second clip, a Republican asked Tran whether a woman in labor would be allowed to have an abortion, and she answered yes. Tran later said she misspoke and that such a procedure would not be allowed: “Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.”

“No, absolutely, no if she is in the middle of giving birth. That’s not how medical care works,” said Jenn Conti, an abortion provider in San Francisco and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. She called the idea “sensationalized fake news" and said she believes a lot of the confusion comes from the use of the term “late-term” abortions. It’s “intentionally vague,” she said, so even though later abortions typically take place at the end of the second trimester people may believe they are much later in pregnancy.

President Trump repeated the misleading assertion in his State of the Union address, stating, “New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.” The New York law allows for women after 24 weeks of pregnancy to get an abortion if “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

I thought Roe v. Wade gave women the right to have abortions. Why do we need new state laws?

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision recognized abortion as “a fundamental right” nationwide but stated that after the stage of viability, states could regulate abortions with the exception of when they were “necessary, in appropriate medical judgement'' to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.

The United States today contains a patchwork of restrictions and prohibitions on abortions that occur later in pregnancy. According to Guttmacher, 43 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy. Some use fetal viability as the cutoff, others the third trimester (which begins in the 28th week), and others a certain number of weeks post-fertilization or after a woman’s last menstrual period or of gestation.

States have imposed many other kinds of restrictions such as having a second physician attend the procedure or to have multiple doctors sign off that a later abortion is medically necessary.

With the appointment of conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in October, abortion activists have been trying to codify reproductive rights in state law in case the federal law falls.

Screen Shot 2022-12-02 at 4.30.43 PM.png

Hamada, an obstetrician-gynecologist and theologian who has spoken out against abortion on Christian radio stations and Fox News, was echoing an idea expressed by some abortion opponents.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.

Numerous groups that oppose abortion, including the National Right to Life Committee, allow for exceptions when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Many also accept it in cases of incest or rape.

Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery.

“This is incredibly complex. This is not something that can be litigated on Twitter,” she said, adding that “one of the things I’m concerned in all the rhetoric is that we’re missing compassion and empathy for that patient and what she’s going through.”

Jennifer Gunter, obstetrician and gynecologist practicing in California, offered this scenario on her blog: “A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”

Who is obtaining later abortions?

There isn’t a lot of research on the subject, but the best information we have comes from a study from the University of California at San Francisco. It found women who got later abortions were similar in “race, ethnicity, number of live births or abortions, mental or physical health history or substance use” to women who got an abortion in the first trimester. They were mostly unmarried, and many were already mothers.
Screen Shot 2022-12-02 at 4.36.29 PM.png
 

Drop That Sound

Well-Known Member
It means that they can wait long enough, until the fetus is aware enough to actually feel limbs being "cut-off".

They usually go for the jugular first, so no one hears the screams. Sad but true. Even sadder, is when they miss, and everyone has to hear the would be mother screaming from the waiting room.

Kinda like how they cut the dogs throats, when they are doing animal testing of animals in the US funded labs in Ukraine or wuhan or whatever...
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
It means that they can wait long enough, until the fetus is aware enough to actually feel limbs being "cut-off".

They usually go for the jugular first, so no one hears the screams. Sad but true. Even sadder, is when they miss, and everyone has to hear the would be mother screaming from the waiting room.

Kinda like how they cut the dogs throats, when they are doing animal testing of animals in the US funded labs in Ukraine or wuhan or whatever...


Propaganda.

You all believe some fucked up shit if you think that the above troll narrative is reality.
 

DoubleAtotheRON

Well-Known Member
I think it makes sense to understand all the reasons that there are that someone would seek a 'late term abortion' and then figure out if there are actual examples of very real problems that arise late in the woman's pregnancy that would not really give a shit about a political timeframe. So maybe the better question to ask would be 'what defines an abortion'.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/View attachment 5233129
Interesting read... I never really got into the subject as it really has had no affect on my life personally. But I can see how this can get complicated. I am pro-choice, but to what degree?...rape victim?, sure. Can't afford the kid? sure. But those decisions need to be made fairly early on. I have no idea what my "point of no return" would be. I mean, if you decide in your 3rd trimester that you just don't want it.... I don't know. But, I can certainly understand that if the mothers life is in danger late in the 3rd,... of course. .. if that's your choice. Hell, I didn't even know it was banned in my own State. No wonder my estranged niece has 8 fucking kids and possession of 0.
 
Last edited:

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
It means that they can wait long enough, until the fetus is aware enough to actually feel limbs being "cut-off".

They usually go for the jugular first, so no one hears the screams. Sad but true. Even sadder, is when they miss, and everyone has to hear the would be mother screaming from the waiting room.

Kinda like how they cut the dogs throats, when they are doing animal testing of animals in the US funded labs in Ukraine or wuhan or whatever...
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Interesting read... I never really got into the subject as it really has had no affect on my life personally. But I can see how this can get complicated. I am pro-choice, but to what degree?...rape victim?, sure. Can't afford the kid? sure. But those decisions need to be made fairly early on. I have no idea what my "point of no return" would be. I mean, if you decide in your 3rd trimester that you just don't want it.... I don't know. But, I can certainly understand that if the mothers life is in danger late in the 3rd,... of course. .. if that's your choice. Hell, I didn't even know it was banned in my own State. No wonder my estranged niece has 8 fucking kids and possession of 0.
Yeah it is pretty confusing, which is why it is such a great propaganda topic.

I imagine finding out something like your child having not developed a brain and would have zero chance at actually living in the late stages would be utterly devastating. I don't know all the science of the things that can go wrong that wouldn't actually show up until the woman was almost finished cooking up a kid, but I do know that it should be up to her how her body is treated as she decided in the situation she finds herself in.
 
Top