[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

And how would that be figured out?

Statistics and medicine don't change your argument any more or any less. It's just you trying to justify your arbitrary number which you find convenient to quote, yet have no backing as to why it is reasonable, not as to why it is a "good enough" compromise.

I arrived at that number after thinking about the various factors actually, not before. And I have repeatedly given you reasons. And I have said that it could be altered if there were some development of technology that pushed the bounds of reasonable viability earlier.

I'd rather it be more vague than a strict arbitrary cutoff, personally, because it makes the most sense as you are taking into account advances in medicine from the get go.

And the way you'd figure that out is the same way most diagnoses are figured out: between a woman and a doctor. The doctor knows best, right?

Or are you suddenly going to doubt the medical expertise of an OB/GYN in how early is early enough to induce a pregnancy and keep the baby on life support?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, but abortion should not be the first step on the table. "Cutoff", legally, doesn't make sense. Arbitrary dates are only arbitrary and decent enough for creating policy, but I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

It's a hoop, but it is the only reasonable hoop I see if you want to make it about "cutoff" dates and whatnot.

The fact that abortions are permitted does not make them the first step. It usually isn't, in fact.

"Cutoff" does make sense. What that means is that, past that point, nobody is allowed to get an abortion unless it is medically necessary. Prior to that point, abortions may not necessarily will) be performed for any reason (hence the term elective).

I will also remind you that "can" is not "will". A 2% chance does not magically mean it will survive, and it's not always as simple as "This one will, this one won't". The way you are throwing around words (The term you're searching for is "earliest viable date". Least viable date implies the date at which the fetus is least viable, which means the date at which it has a 0% chance.). Getting a doctor to confirm an abortion, likewise, means getting the doctor to confirm that it happened. Recommended ma be the word you're looking for, and, even then, that doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not like doctors just perform procedures just because the patient says to. They do go over the risks of the procedure, downtime, etc, before doing it, and they do discuss alternatives with the patient. It's not like these things are just done for shits and giggles.

You vision seems to be rather unreasonable, then, as it's either something already done or something that doesn't really work the way you're suggesting.

Abortions before the third trimester mark nowadays can mostly be done for shits and giggles.

The point is this: you either care about medicine, and statistics matter only to enhance an argument of non-zero viability, or they don't and it's mostly us arguing over the convenience of having a set arbitrary date as to when a woman can have an abortion for any reason and after that it is a big bad thing except in certain circumstances.

So far, the only argument for a 24 week cutoff is... well, convenience, it's not about what makes it reasonable, because if it was reasonable it'd take into account possible medical advances, which it doesn't.

[The New California Republic]

I'd rather it be more vague than a strict arbitrary cutoff, personally, because it makes the most sense as you are taking into account advances in medicine from the get go.

Or we can do what we do now: Have a cutoff that is re-evaluated every so often on the basis of medical evidence.

And the way you'd figure that out is the same way most diagnoses are figured out: between a woman and a doctor. The doctor knows best, right?

I'm not sure if fetal viability can be figured out on a case by case basis with the current medical techniques that are available, unless you are alluding to some future tech that can do that...?

Or are you suddenly going to doubt the medical expertise of an OB/GYN in how early is early enough to induce a pregnancy and keep the baby on life support?

Why would I?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm confused why viability odds matter if consciousness is the real standard. If the argument is "it doesn't have consciousness therefore it isn't a full-fledged human deserving of protection yet" then week count viability is irrelevant. If we somehow got viability at 22 weeks up to 51%, it doesn't alter the consciousness of the fetus which appears to be the actual line in the sand for some people.

It's another facet of the debate.

You're right in that it's irrelevant, but it's still something being argued and therefore something to be countered/debated.

TBF your boy over here, NCR, started asking about it:

Is 24 weeks a reasonable limit for abortions that are not performed to save the life of the woman?

I am saying it's not a reasonable limit, considering what I have just stated, then y'all wanted to argue with statistics which, frankly, don't help your point at all.

I didn't bring in the question "hey guis, what do you think about 24 weeks as being a reasonable cutoff for an abortion?".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd rather it be more vague than a strict arbitrary cutoff, personally, because it makes the most sense as you are taking into account advances in medicine from the get go.

Or we can do what we do now: Have a cutoff that is re-evaluated every so often on the basis of medical evidence.

And the way you'd figure that out is the same way most diagnoses are figured out: between a woman and a doctor. The doctor knows best, right?

I'm not sure if fetal viability can be figured out on a case by case basis with the current medical techniques that are available, unless you are alluding to some future tech that can do that...?

Or are you suddenly going to doubt the medical expertise of an OB/GYN in how early is early enough to induce a pregnancy and keep the baby on life support?

Why would I?

Because clearly you're trying to argue on a non-zero probability as if it somehow makes you more of an expert than the doctors are.

I am sure there are ways to know if a child can survive below 24 weeks, otherwise we wouldn't have non-zero child births. This is essentially dismissing your own statistics at this point and saying the doctors don't know what they are doing and just got lucky on a live birth, even with the fact there is a non-zero amount of babies being born before 24 weeks.

[The New California Republic]

Because clearly you're trying to argue on a non-zero probability as if it somehow makes you more of an expert than the doctors are.

Not at all.

I am sure there are ways to know if a child can survive below 24 weeks, otherwise we wouldn't have non-zero child births.

There may or may not be, but I'm just saying that I don't know what they are if they do exist.

This is essentially dismissing your own statistics at this point

How?

and saying the doctors don't know what they are doing and just got lucky on a live birth, even with the fact there is a non-zero amount of babies being born before 24 weeks.

I never said the doctors don't know what they are doing, so god knows where you got that from. And again I agree it is non-zero, just extremely small.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I am sure there are ways to know if a child can survive below 24 weeks, otherwise we wouldn't have non-zero child births.

There may or may not be, but I'm just saying that I don't know what they are if they do exist.

and saying the doctors don't know what they are doing and just got lucky on a live birth, even with the fact there is a non-zero amount of babies being born before 24 weeks.

I never said the doctors don't know what they are doing, so god knows where you got that from. And again I agree it is non-zero, just extremely small.

Yes, and the thing is, I am not casting doubt on your statistics. I am casting doubt on your interpretation of them.

If 0-3% of all pregnancies below 24 weeks is viable for live birth, then it doesn't suddenly mean one must agree that trying to legislate 24 weeks as the cutoff line is reasonable. 24 weeks can be reasonable, or can't be reasonable. It's not up to me to show that your cutoff line is reasonable tho. As I have said, you have been quibbling with me over the "statistical" viability of a child below 24 weeks without arguing why must I take your cutoff as reasonable other than you say it is.

[Jebslund]

So far, the only argument for a 24 week cutoff is... well, convenience, it's not about what makes it reasonable, because if it was reasonable it'd take into account possible medical advances, which it doesn't.

"If it was reasonable, it would act as if we can perform miracles now!".

First off, I've said it many times, we've hit the limit for what medical science can do as far as that 2% goes. Some technological advances are just physically impossible.

Second, even if there *was* a way, we currently cannot do it, and, therefore, any policies made now need to be made based on what's possible not, not vaguely imaginable many moons in the future. It is unreasonable to make policy that is in effect now based on what the situation might imaginably be decades from now if you're scientifically illiterate. Should such advances come to pass, the policy can be amended *then*. We can't do it now, so there's no reason to write policy as if we can.

Third, as NCR and others have said, viability isn't the only consideration here. It's not just convenience. You simply refuse to acknowledge the other considerations and instead want to bet the farm on maybes and ifs.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

[The New California Republic]

As I have said, you have been quibbling with me over the "statistical" viability of a child below 24 weeks without arguing why must I take your cutoff as reasonable other than you say it is.

I have repeatedly said why.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So far, the only argument for a 24 week cutoff is... well, convenience, it's not about what makes it reasonable, because if it was reasonable it'd take into account possible medical advances, which it doesn't.

"If it was reasonable, it would act as if we can perform miracles now!".

First off, I've said it many times, we've hit the limit for what medical science can do as far as that 2% goes. Some technological advances are just physically impossible.

Second, even if there *was* a way, we currently cannot do it, and, therefore, any policies made now need to be made based on what's possible not, not vaguely imaginable many moons in the future. It is unreasonable to make policy that is in effect now based on what the situation might imaginably be decades from now if you're scientifically illiterate. Should such advances come to pass, the policy can be amended *then*. We can't do it now, so there's no reason to write policy as if we can.

Third, as NCR and others have said, viability isn't the only consideration here. It's not just convenience. You simply refuse to acknowledge the other considerations and instead want to bet the farm on maybes and ifs.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

No, you don't make policy over what is in effect now. Doing so is a fool's errand because the government cannot be unstable over the long term on its policies. A strong government usually makes policies that affects more than one generation. Social Security, for example, has been with us since the Roosevelt administration. It was thought out on a long-term basis, not on a short-term basis.

I don't think you understand how policy is written.

I have seen the other considerations. They all hinge on this magical probability which y'all think it cannot change right now so why bother right now writing policy that will affect at least three generations of people. It's irrelevant to the point I am arguing, further, because I am not the one who asked whether or not 24 weeks is an acceptable cutoff, I am the one arguing why it is not a reasonable one and the "least viable" standard should be used instead of the "arbitrary cutoff" one.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As I have said, you have been quibbling with me over the "statistical" viability of a child below 24 weeks without arguing why must I take your cutoff as reasonable other than you say it is.

I have repeatedly said why.

That's cute, but you haven't. All you have said is that, statistically, we shouldn't bother with the gray area of births before 24 weeks but later than 21 because it is not statistically significant to your argument.

That's not the same as you giving me a reason as to why I should accept 24 weeks as an acceptable cutoff line for on-demand abortions.

[The New California Republic]

No, you don't make policy over what is in effect now. Doing so is a fool's errand because the government cannot be unstable over the long term on its policies. A strong government usually makes policies that affects more than one generation. Social Security, for example, has been with us since the Roosevelt administration. It was thought out on a long-term basis, not on a short-term basis.

I don't think you understand how policy is written.

But it isn't reasonable to change abortion policy based on technology etc that doesn't exist yet and cannot be used by women who are currently faced with the issue of unwanted pregnancy.

[Jebslund]

:rofl:

No, you don't make policy over what is in effect now. Doing so is a fool's errand because the government cannot be unstable over the long term on its policies. A strong government usually makes policies that affects more than one generation. Social Security, for example, has been with us since the Roosevelt administration. It was thought out on a long-term basis, not on a short-term basis.

I don't think you understand how policy is written.

If we made policy on wild speculation, we'd never make policy. Policy does affect multiple generations. That's why we made laws amendable and repealable. Laws can be amended in the future if circumstances change, but flights of fancy do not good policy make. So long as the situation does not change, the law does not need to. If and when it does, the law can be changed as needed. That's the beauty of laws not being permanent. It's not instability. It's flexibility. A government that cannot write flexible policies will find itself too rigid to adapt.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, you don't make policy over what is in effect now. Doing so is a fool's errand because the government cannot be unstable over the long term on its policies. A strong government usually makes policies that affects more than one generation. Social Security, for example, has been with us since the Roosevelt administration. It was thought out on a long-term basis, not on a short-term basis.

I don't think you understand how policy is written.

But it isn't reasonable to change abortion policy based on technology etc that doesn't exist yet and cannot be used by women who are currently faced with the issue of unwanted pregnancy.

It is perfectly reasonable to change abortion policy to a less strict interpretation of a cutoff line if the cutoff line is all that sacred to you.

I do think an arbitrary number of weeks is detrimental because it brings about endless debate on it. A "least viable" standard at least will leave it in the hands of the medical community, where the decision should belong.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, you don't make policy over what is in effect now. Doing so is a fool's errand because the government cannot be unstable over the long term on its policies. A strong government usually makes policies that affects more than one generation. Social Security, for example, has been with us since the Roosevelt administration. It was thought out on a long-term basis, not on a short-term basis.

I don't think you understand how policy is written.

If we made policy on wild speculation, we'd never make policy. Policy does affect multiple generations. That's why we made laws amendable and repealable. Laws can be amended in the future if circumstances change, but flights of fancy do not good policy make. So long as the situation does not change, the law does not need to. If and when it does, the law can be changed as needed. That's the beauty of laws not being permanent. It's not instability. It's flexibility. A government that cannot write flexible policies will find itself too rigid to adapt.

Flexibility is only good when technology doesn't outpace your policymaking.

My proposal to add a policy that makes it instead of an arbitrary number a number that changes within the medical community is more sane than an arbitrary one in terms of flexibility. If "flexibility" is your argument then my proposition of leaving the cutoff date as the "least viable" date which doctors can agree on and can detect (as I said, if they didn't there would be zero births) instead of an arbitrary date makes far more sense than keep trying to keep up with technology in terms of policy.

You're not helping NCR's argument, I hope you realize.

[The New California Republic]

I have repeatedly said why.

That's cute, but you haven't.

I have actually. You just keep dismissing it. And don't give me that condescending "that's cute" shit, just don't.

All you have said is that, statistically, we shouldn't bother with the gray area of births before 24 weeks but later than 21 because it is not statistically significant to your argument.

It's not that it isn't statistically significant to my argument, it isn't statistically significant period. It is around 3% in contrast to around 50%. Changing the current cutoff for abortions from the current 24 weeks to a week with a non-zero number of live births that is in single figures just isn't reasonable.

That's not the same as you giving me a reason as to why I should accept 24 weeks as an acceptable cutoff line for on-demand abortions.

I have also said that the fetus is not conscious before 24 weeks as well.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's cute, but you haven't.

I have actually. You just keep dismissing it. And don't give me that condescending "that's cute" shit, just don't.

All you have said is that, statistically, we shouldn't bother with the gray area of births before 24 weeks but later than 21 because it is not statistically significant to your argument.

It's not that it isn't statistically significant to my argument, it isn't statistically significant period. It is around 3% in contrast to around 50%. Changing the current cutoff for abortions from the current 24 weeks to a week with a non-zero number of live births that is in single figures just isn't reasonable.

That's not the same as you giving me a reason as to why I should accept 24 weeks as an acceptable cutoff line for on-demand abortions.

I have also said that the fetus is not conscious before 24 weeks as well.

See, you are arguing it's not statistically significant. You're not arguing "24 weeks is reasonable because...".

You keep bringing science, but policy doesn't hinge on science. It hinges on what is sensible for a society. Now, let's try again, why is it sensible for me to accept 24 weeks as the cutoff line?

I am not asking you why is it scientifically and probabilistically better to make the cutoff at 24 weeks. I am asking you why is it sensible for me to accept 24 weeks as the cutoff line.

[The New California Republic]

It is perfectly reasonable to change abortion policy to a less strict interpretation of a cutoff line if the cutoff line is all that sacred to you.

On the basis of technology that doesn't exist yet?

I do think an arbitrary number of weeks is detrimental because it brings about endless debate on it.

Do you honestly believe having a nebulous cutoff date would make things better?

A "least viable" standard at least will leave it in the hands of the medical community, where the decision should belong.

And that's what they currently have with 24 weeks, i.e. the point where it can reasonably be expected for the fetus to have a chance of survival that isn't in single digits.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A "least viable" standard at least will leave it in the hands of the medical community, where the decision should belong.

And that's what they currently have with 24 weeks, i.e. the point where it can reasonably be expected for the fetus to have a chance of survival that isn't in single digits.

Yes, but that is not what you are arguing. You are arguing an arbitrary cutoff line is better than a "least viable" standard.

Having a more flexible standard which law enforcement can use the medical community as the litmus test is better, yes. Because ultimately you're not making the law for the people and pat yourself in the back. You are writing policy so that the justice system can enforce it. A flexible line, in that sense, doesn't just give a leeway to doctors to make a recommendation, and it doesn't just provide a way for doctors to provide research in the field of gynecology and obstetrics that allows us to enforce a reasonable cutoff line, but it also provides judges with expert advice as to how to proceed legally.

[The New California Republic]

I am not asking you why is it scientifically and probabilistically better to make the cutoff at 24 weeks. I am asking you why is it sensible for me to accept 24 weeks as the cutoff line.

Because it is better to have a clear date in the law, rather than having a situation whereby every woman wanting to have an abortion at that late stage has to undergo what is likely a barrage of tests to see whether she qualifies on the basis of individual fetal viability for an abortion or not, thus making what is likely a traumatic experience even worse.

[Jebslund]

Flexibility is only good when technology doesn't outpace your policymaking.

My proposal to add a policy that makes it instead of an arbitrary number a number that changes within the medical community is more sane than an arbitrary one in terms of flexibility. If "flexibility" is your argument then my proposition of leaving the cutoff date as the "least viable" date instead of an arbitrary date makes far more sense than keep trying to keep up with technology in terms of policy.

First off, "least viable". You seem to be confused as to what words mean. 'Least viable' would be 0% viability. "Earliest reasonably viable" would be a better phrase. It would also, incidentally, be as simple as determining when the viability of the fetus reaches a chance of survival that a sane person would consider good enough to bet money on. The term I suspect you're looking for, however, is "earliest viable", which would mean any chance of survival.

Second, if viability is too unstable a standard, sapience then becomes a better one, which scientists have nailed down to... Oh, would you look at that... 24 weeks at the soonest.

Third, laws very often set FAR more arbitrary cutoffs. 18, anyone? 16? 14? All ages of consent of different nations. Many of which have had to institute Romeo and Juliet laws to add flexibility to laws that otherwise often punished minors and/or legitimate couples where one partner's birthday was sooner than the other's unfairly. Drinking age in the US also used to be 18. Then it got set to 21. UK's drinking age, IIRC, is 16, or was last time I was there. Voting age is 18, driving age is 16 (15 in some states), drinking age is 21. All in the US. Yet there are people who have been driving since 12 with no problems and people who waited and should have waited longer still. There's people who, at 14, would be better voters than people int heir 40s who don't look beyond what party the candidates are when casting their vote. There are people who started drinking at 10 and never drank tot he point of it being a problem and those who waited till 30 and ruined their lives with drinking. Tell me that ain't arbitrary.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I am not asking you why is it scientifically and probabilistically better to make the cutoff at 24 weeks. I am asking you why is it sensible for me to accept 24 weeks as the cutoff line.

Because it is better to have a clear date in the law, rather than having a situation whereby every woman wanting to have an abortion at that late stage has to undergo what is likely a barrage of tests to see whether she qualifies on the basis of individual fetal viability for an abortion or not, thus making what is likely a traumatic experience even worse.

That's unfortunate for the woman, but not something I am ready to accept as a justification of the law being such.

The convenience of the woman on whether or not to experience further trauma over tests to see whether she qualifies on the basis of individual fetal viability or not is not particularly relevant to me. Reason for that being, if you're going to die on the hill of medicine, you cannot at the same time say that making a woman go to her doctor to have tests to determine the viability of the fetus is traumatizing and medically unnecessary because the woman will be traumatized. The same thing will happen after 24 weeks anyways, so you're just delaying it by 3 weeks.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Flexibility is only good when technology doesn't outpace your policymaking.

My proposal to add a policy that makes it instead of an arbitrary number a number that changes within the medical community is more sane than an arbitrary one in terms of flexibility. If "flexibility" is your argument then my proposition of leaving the cutoff date as the "least viable" date instead of an arbitrary date makes far more sense than keep trying to keep up with technology in terms of policy.

First off, "least viable". You seem to be confused as to what words mean. 'Least viable' would be 0% viability. "Earliest reasonably viable" would be a better phrase. It would also, incidentally, be as simple as determining when the viability of the fetus reaches a chance of survival that a sane person would consider good enough to bet money on. The term I suspect you're looking for, however, is "earliest viable", which would mean any chance of survival.

Second, if viability is too unstable a standard, sapience then becomes a better one, which scientists have nailed down to... Oh, would you look at that... 24 weeks at the soonest.

Third, laws very often set FAR more arbitrary cutoffs. 18, anyone? 16? 14? All ages of consent of different nations. Many of which have had to institute Romeo and Juliet laws to add flexibility to laws that otherwise often punished minors and/or legitimate couples where one partner's birthday was sooner than the other's unfairly. Drinking age in the US also used to be 18. Then it got set to 21. UK's drinking age, IIRC, is 16, or was last time I was there. Voting age is 18, driving age is 16 (15 in some states), drinking age is 21. All in the US. Yet there are people who have been driving since 12 with no problems and people who waited and should have waited longer still. There's people who, at 14, would be better voters than people int heir 40s who don't look beyond what party the candidates are when casting their vote. There are people who started drinking at 10 and never drank tot he point of it being a problem and those who waited till 30 and ruined their lives with drinking. Tell me that ain't arbitrary.

Yes, laws based on age are arbitrary. Your point is duly noted.

Your point, however, doesn't mean that I have to take that it is reasonable to accept it as a cutoff if there is a gray area which you are neglecting, which is the 21-24 weeks period.

I know it's a small minority of cases, but it is also a non-zero amount of cases, which is where your argument that "well 24 weeks is when it should be the cutoff date because 21-24 weeks is just too complicated for me so therefore I will just argue that it is statistically nonsignificant" is just not relevant.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

First off, "least viable". You seem to be confused as to what words mean. 'Least viable' would be 0% viability. "Earliest reasonably viable" would be a better phrase. It would also, incidentally, be as simple as determining when the viability of the fetus reaches a chance of survival that a sane person would consider good enough to bet money on. The term I suspect you're looking for, however, is "earliest viable", which would mean any chance of survival.

Second, if viability is too unstable a standard, sapience then becomes a better one, which scientists have nailed down to... Oh, would you look at that... 24 weeks at the soonest.

Third, laws very often set FAR more arbitrary cutoffs. 18, anyone? 16? 14? All ages of consent of different nations. Many of which have had to institute Romeo and Juliet laws to add flexibility to laws that otherwise often punished minors and/or legitimate couples where one partner's birthday was sooner than the other's unfairly. Drinking age in the US also used to be 18. Then it got set to 21. UK's drinking age, IIRC, is 16, or was last time I was there. Voting age is 18, driving age is 16 (15 in some states), drinking age is 21. All in the US. Yet there are people who have been driving since 12 with no problems and people who waited and should have waited longer still. There's people who, at 14, would be better voters than people int heir 40s who don't look beyond what party the candidates are when casting their vote. There are people who started drinking at 10 and never drank tot he point of it being a problem and those who waited till 30 and ruined their lives with drinking. Tell me that ain't arbitrary.

Yes, laws based on age are arbitrary. Your point is duly noted.

Your point, however, doesn't mean that I have to take that it is reasonable to accept it as a cutoff if there is a gray area which you are neglecting, which is the 21-24 weeks period.

I know it's a small minority of cases, but it is also a non-zero amount of cases, which is where your argument that "well 24 weeks is when it should be the cutoff date" is just not relevant.

The problem is that if the probability is less, as you stated, that in itself can be a medically valid reason to dismiss it and use the 24 week cutoff. It’s not 0, but it not a high number either.

[The New California Republic]

Because it is better to have a clear date in the law, rather than having a situation whereby every woman wanting to have an abortion at that late stage has to undergo what is likely a barrage of tests to see whether she qualifies on the basis of individual fetal viability for an abortion or not, thus making what is likely a traumatic experience even worse.

That's unfortunate for the woman, but not something I am ready to accept as a justification of the law being such.

In contrast to the current situation where she doesn't have to go through that trauma? No thanks...

The convenience of the woman on whether or not to experience further trauma over tests to see whether she qualifies on the basis of individual fetal viability or not is not particularly relevant to me.

Lovely.

Reason for that being, if you're going to die on the hill of medicine, you cannot at the same time say that making a woman go to her doctor to have tests to determine the viability of the fetus is traumatizing and medically unnecessary because the woman will be traumatized.

It is in contrast to the current situation whereby she doesn't have to do that. It is adding a hurdle for no real reason.

The same thing will happen after 24 weeks anyways, so you're just delaying it by 3 weeks.

No, the woman isn't subject to a barrage of tests after 24 weeks.