New York State Senate Passes Bill Permitting Abortions up to Birth

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 hours ago, eieio said:

 

It doesn't exclude mental health.  Makes a loophole in the law that will allow an abortion up to birth as long as the mother feels her mental health is going to suffer. Would not be to hard for her to find a doctor that agrees that she will go crazy if not allowed to abort.

 

    Where exactly are you getting that this would be allowed for mental health? 

[eieio 1,594]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Where exactly are you getting that this would be allowed for mental health? 

 

 

Health definition is - the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain.

[eieio 1,594]

Quote

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

 

Mental health is part of health. If they wanted to exclude mental health then they would need to spell it out.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, eieio said:

 

 

Health definition is - the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain.

 

   

Just now, eieio said:

 

Mental health is part of health. If they wanted to exclude mental health then they would need to spell it out.

 

   From my own experience, kids do test the limits of mental health at times. That is not a risk, it's a consequence.

 

   However the law says "health risk". It doesn't specifically include or exclude anything by design. The risk to health must be determined by a physician. You are speculating that a physician would agree that there some sort of increased risk to mental health by carrying a baby form 24 weeks to 36 weeks?  I don't see it.

 

 

   

[eieio 1,594]

29 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   

 

   From my own experience, kids do test the limits of mental health at times. That is not a risk, it's a consequence.

 

   However the law says "health risk". It doesn't specifically include or exclude anything by design. The risk to health must be determined by a physician. You are speculating that a physician would agree that there some sort of increased risk to mental health by carrying a baby form 24 weeks to 36 weeks?  I don't see it.

 

 

   

I may be speculating....but so are you. I am just going by what the definition of health is.

 

The increased risk of mental problems is not just from carrying a baby from 24 to 36 weeks, but mostly from actually having the baby and caring for it or giving it up for adoption. I personally think if a woman chooses between keeping the child or giving it up...it would have a huge likelihood of effecting her mental health. Its not a decision I would want to make.

 

If I follow your argument that you have laid out about the law change you basically say not much has changed. If I understand what happened when the law was signed....huge applause broke out.   Why would that happen?   

[Steeleballz 7,550]

54 minutes ago, eieio said:

I may be speculating....but so are you. I am just going by what the definition of health is.

 

The increased risk of mental problems is not just from carrying a baby from 24 to 36 weeks, but mostly from actually having the baby and caring for it or giving it up for adoption. I personally think if a woman chooses between keeping the child or giving it up...it would have a huge likelihood of effecting her mental health. Its not a decision I would want to make.

 

If I follow your argument that you have laid out about the law change you basically say not much has changed. If I understand what happened when the law was signed....huge applause broke out.   Why would that happen?   

 

  Could be because they passed legislation that they have been working on for a long time to protect a women's right to health care. Or maybe it's because they hate babies and want to be able to kill them with impunity. IDK. Pick whichever one floats your boat. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

Fuuny thing is about 70% of the nation could agree on the basic rules of abortion.  Our elected officials keep us divided on junk like this so we dont realize how bad they put the hammer to us 

 

So much misinformational outrage on this issue 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Nature Boy 2.0

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 2/3/2019 at 12:58 PM, ALFKAD said:

Not arguing with the rest of your narrative, my ex was a nurse, and I have several nurse friends, one is a L&D, so I get some pretty graphic tales over dinners.

 

But the way the law is written now, the woman’s life does not have to be in danger. (Words have meaning, and I have spent a lifetime interpreting laws and regulations as an outhouse lawyer)  She just has to want to preserve her life.  That has different meanings to different people.  Your interpretation will be somewhat different than mine, and ours will be different from a woman who comes to realize her life will be completely different from what she has come to expect up to that point.  

 

21 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Where exactly are you getting that this would be allowed for mental health? 

 

21 hours ago, eieio said:

 

 

Health definition is - the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit; especially : freedom from physical disease or pain.

 

21 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   

 

   From my own experience, kids do test the limits of mental health at times. That is not a risk, it's a consequence.

 

   However the law says "health risk". It doesn't specifically include or exclude anything by design. The risk to health must be determined by a physician. You are speculating that a physician would agree that there some sort of increased risk to mental health by carrying a baby form 24 weeks to 36 weeks?  I don't see it.

 

 

   

As I was saying to you before, and still say the same now... the law opens up loopholes with the broad definition they use.  It doesn’t have to be a risk to life.  She just has to want to preserve her live.  Preserve.  Not save.  

[Unidentified 2,930]

Yeah, weed is not that much better than cigarettes. You're still inhaling a bunch of ####### and ruining your brain. Sorry but I still think weed should only be prescribed to people with end-stage cancer or people on chemo. Just my personal opinion. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

 

 

 

As I was saying to you before, and still say the same now... the law opens up loopholes with the broad definition they use.  It doesn’t have to be a risk to life.  She just has to want to preserve her live.  Preserve.  Not save.  

 

   It has to be a risk to life or health. Again, you are speculating, and maybe using the word "preserve" makes the speculation sound better but it is what it is. Part of a physicians training is how to determine what is a risk to health and what is not. That the law doesn't define it doesn't mean a patient will get to make up what that is. At any rate, seems like this discussion is going in circles now. Let me know if you find anything new. If not, I think we have covered it all with speculation by now. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It has to be a risk to life or health. Again, you are speculating, and maybe using the word "preserve" makes the speculation sound better but it is what it is. Part of a physicians training is how to determine what is a risk to health and what is not. That the law doesn't define it doesn't mean a patient will get to make up what that is. At any rate, seems like this discussion is going in circles now. Let me know if you find anything new. If not, I think we have covered it all with speculation by now. 

It's not speculation to put forth the difference between the terms "risk to life or health" and "to preserve her life".  It can mean one thing to a doctor, and another to a mother who has decided she no longer wants the being growing inside her.  If you cannot admit there is a difference,  and that the law allows a woman to abort her child to preserve her life in any way she defines it, then yes, we should stop wasting bandwidth over it.  

 

Two things to take note of:

1) A woman who wishes to preserve her life is not limited by the 24 week thing like a doctor is.

 

2) This is only the beginning, not the end.  Read what the next steps are desired to be here: https://www.rhavote.com

 

Let's see what happens with the VA bill, eh?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, ALFKAD said:

It's not speculation to put forth the difference between the terms "risk to life or health" and "to preserve her life".  It can mean one thing to a doctor, and another to a mother who has decided she no longer wants the being growing inside her.  If you cannot admit there is a difference,  and that the law allows a woman to abort her child to preserve her life in any way she defines it, then yes, we should stop wasting bandwidth over it.  

 

Two things to take note of:

1) A woman who wishes to preserve her life is not limited by the 24 week thing like a doctor is.

 

2) This is only the beginning, not the end.  Read what the next steps are desired to be here: https://www.rhavote.com

 

Let's see what happens with the VA bill, eh?

 

  Sure there is a difference in those phrases. However the NY law does not say "to preserve her life" so I'm not sure why you keep arguing it. "Preserve life and health" is the wording used by the supreme court in the Roe vs Wade decision. 

 

   It is not simply the woman's decision after 24 weeks. The law does not allow a woman to define what constitutes a risk to health or life. It allows her to see a physician 

 

   

 

  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

It's not speculation to put forth the difference between the terms "risk to life or health" and "to preserve her life".  It can mean one thing to a doctor, and another to a mother who has decided she no longer wants the being growing inside her.  If you cannot admit there is a difference,  and that the law allows a woman to abort her child to preserve her life in any way she defines it, then yes, we should stop wasting bandwidth over it.  

 

Two things to take note of:

1) A woman who wishes to preserve her life is not limited by the 24 week thing like a doctor is.

 

2) This is only the beginning, not the end.  Read what the next steps are desired to be here: https://www.rhavote.com

 

Let's see what happens with the VA bill, eh?

 

   Reading this again, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding something you said. If you are referring to the fact that the new law is different from the old law, yes I agree. I said that a few pages back. They added the phrase "health or life" instead of just "life" to make the law compliant with the Roe vs Wade ruling. I wasn't disputing that part changed.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Did you happen to visit the link I posted above?  Did you see what the next goal is, now that the RHA is in effect?

 

• NO LIMITS: there should be no gestational limits restricting access to abortion care

• NO REASONS: why a person seeks an abortion, at any point, is none of our business, and should not be the basis for a restriction

• NO PROSECUTIONS: we must ensure no person is prosecuted for the outcome of their pregnancy

• NO PARENTS: minors need access to abortion care without parental consent

[TBoneTX 45,076]

This entire discussion has been very high-class on everyone's part -- so different from those in years past.  Thank you to everyone for such respectful reasoning, regardless of the position taken on this issue.