Guess I missed it. Would you direct me to the link (I assume it is this thread, just specify the time/date)?BrooksBearLives said:Anyone else notice that you've never presented your own links to refute the information? Just a genetic fallacy argument attacking the source of the information backing up the argument?Osodecentx said:Still no link? Name calling isn't an argumentBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:This is from your twitter research?BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
Actually, the child COULD have technically "survived" birth, so doctors wouldn't take the chance. Also, i believe there was a straight ban on late term abortions unless of "life of the mother." She had to fly to another state to have the procedure -which is effing ridiculous.
That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to. You guys are trying to make this about moral absolutes, but they don't exist in this realm. The universe of your God may be as simple as your idea of him. Mature minds know that isn't the case.
So you love the person and do your best by them. New York's law -at least in this case- does right by women. The versions people like you have forwarded, do not.
Do you lie all the time? Or just when you don't have an argument.
Snopes or nothing, right?
How sad of a human being do you have to be that you care more about internet point scoring than learning a little more about the world and trying to better yourself?
I have.
Abortion up until Birth passed by NY Dems
87,986 Views |
837 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Edmond Bear
I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
Are you pro choice?BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
BrooksBearLives said:Anyone else notice that you've never presented your own links to refute the information? Just a genetic fallacy argument attacking the source of the information backing up the argument?Osodecentx said:Still no link? Name calling isn't an argumentBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:This is from your twitter research?BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
Actually, the child COULD have technically "survived" birth, so doctors wouldn't take the chance. Also, i believe there was a straight ban on late term abortions unless of "life of the mother." She had to fly to another state to have the procedure -which is effing ridiculous.
That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to. You guys are trying to make this about moral absolutes, but they don't exist in this realm. The universe of your God may be as simple as your idea of him. Mature minds know that isn't the case.
So you love the person and do your best by them. New York's law -at least in this case- does right by women. The versions people like you have forwarded, do not.
Do you lie all the time? Or just when you don't have an argument.
Snopes or nothing, right?
How sad of a human being do you have to be that you care more about internet point scoring than learning a little more about the world and trying to better yourself?
I have.
24 pages of posts and one thing is consistent, people who defend abortion just gloss over the baby....as if a human life is not even part of the discussion...or if it is, it is just a trifling thing.
Edmond Bear said:BrooksBearLives said:Anyone else notice that you've never presented your own links to refute the information? Just a genetic fallacy argument attacking the source of the information backing up the argument?Osodecentx said:Still no link? Name calling isn't an argumentBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:This is from your twitter research?BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
Actually, the child COULD have technically "survived" birth, so doctors wouldn't take the chance. Also, i believe there was a straight ban on late term abortions unless of "life of the mother." She had to fly to another state to have the procedure -which is effing ridiculous.
That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to. You guys are trying to make this about moral absolutes, but they don't exist in this realm. The universe of your God may be as simple as your idea of him. Mature minds know that isn't the case.
So you love the person and do your best by them. New York's law -at least in this case- does right by women. The versions people like you have forwarded, do not.
Do you lie all the time? Or just when you don't have an argument.
Snopes or nothing, right?
How sad of a human being do you have to be that you care more about internet point scoring than learning a little more about the world and trying to better yourself?
I have.
24 pages of posts and one thing is consistent, people who defend abortion just gloss over the baby....as if a human life is not even part of the discussion...or if it is, it is just a trifling thing.
Amazing isn't ?
Check out any sonogram of a baby in the womb .....it's so obviously alive....so obviously a human being.
Abortion is murder....plain and simple .
And BBL still has no link regarding the health of the mother standard.Edmond Bear said:BrooksBearLives said:Anyone else notice that you've never presented your own links to refute the information? Just a genetic fallacy argument attacking the source of the information backing up the argument?Osodecentx said:Still no link? Name calling isn't an argumentBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:This is from your twitter research?BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
Actually, the child COULD have technically "survived" birth, so doctors wouldn't take the chance. Also, i believe there was a straight ban on late term abortions unless of "life of the mother." She had to fly to another state to have the procedure -which is effing ridiculous.
That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to. You guys are trying to make this about moral absolutes, but they don't exist in this realm. The universe of your God may be as simple as your idea of him. Mature minds know that isn't the case.
So you love the person and do your best by them. New York's law -at least in this case- does right by women. The versions people like you have forwarded, do not.
Do you lie all the time? Or just when you don't have an argument.
Snopes or nothing, right?
How sad of a human being do you have to be that you care more about internet point scoring than learning a little more about the world and trying to better yourself?
I have.
24 pages of posts and one thing is consistent, people who defend abortion just gloss over the baby....as if a human life is not even part of the discussion...or if it is, it is just a trifling thing.
Doc Holliday said:Are you pro choice?BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
I think I'm making out a "yyyyeeeesssss" from the deafening cricket chirping
I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
But those pesky facts hurt his feelings!D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Yes, I've read the study. Your argument has been that late-term abortions are done only or pretty much only when the fetus is unviable or the mother's life is in danger. This is false according to Guttmacher's research. The study cited by NRO doesn't discount medically necessary abortions. It acknowledges that they happen, however, they are outside the scope of the study. Two other papers are cited for the fact that most late-term abortions are not medically necessary. This matters because of what the Guttmacher study concludes: legal prohibitions do make a significant difference in the number of late-term abortions. Even though the laws contain exceptions for medical necessity, most women seeking late-term abortions will not be able to claim the exception.BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
Doc Holliday said:Are you pro choice?BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
No. Every abortion is a tragedy. Every single one.
But there are absolutely instances where one is the lesser of two evils. Late term abortions in the case of health of the mother should be legal and safe.
We can have a policy discussion about whether or not a ban on abortion would do any good on another thread. But here, we are talking about the New York law that we all agree with 98% on.
D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
I'm sorry you have cancer, BBL.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
As it happens., I was diagnosed myself in 2006, and mine is treatable but incurable.
My cancer. like your own, is also completely irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
Facts, you know.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Have you seen BBL's twitter research? His personal communications with unnamed OBs?Sam Lowry said:Yes, I've read the study. Your argument has been that late-term abortions are done only or pretty much only when the fetus is unviable or the mother's life is in danger. This is false according to Guttmacher's research. The study cited by NRO doesn't discount medically necessary abortions. It acknowledges that they happen, however, they are outside the scope of the study. Two other papers are cited for the fact that most late-term abortions are not medically necessary. This matters because of what the Guttmacher study concludes: legal prohibitions do make a significant difference in the number of late-term abortions. Even though the laws contain exceptions for medical necessity, most women seeking late-term abortions will not be able to claim the exception.BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
Oldbear83 said:I'm sorry you have cancer, BBL.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
As it happens., I was diagnosed myself in 2006, and mine is treatable but incurable.
My cancer. like your own, is also completely irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
Facts, you know.
I've been in remission for some time.
Your ability to miss a point is another illness altogether.
Truly amazing is this new Democratic Party celebrates the killing of newborn babies yet opposes the death penalty for convicted murderers and will fight for them tooth and nail. They are one flawed, twisted bunch of folks at this point.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
I'm glad you are in remission.BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:I'm sorry you have cancer, BBL.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
As it happens., I was diagnosed myself in 2006, and mine is treatable but incurable.
My cancer. like your own, is also completely irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
Facts, you know.
I've been in remission for some time.
Your ability to miss a point is another illness altogether.
Your second sentence is false and reflects a disappointing pettiness for this subject.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Facts and logic make one of three parts of a successful argument.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
You haven't done a particularly good job with any of those three, including "facts and logic."
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:I'm sorry you have cancer, BBL.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
As it happens., I was diagnosed myself in 2006, and mine is treatable but incurable.
My cancer. like your own, is also completely irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
Facts, you know.
I've been in remission for some time.
Your ability to miss a point is another illness altogether.
You have a cancerous soul
No remission is possible for that FYI
D. C. Bear said:Facts and logic make one of three parts of a successful argument.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
You haven't done a particularly good job with any of those three, including "facts and logic."
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
^^^ BBL will never address this, never
Florida, that's not cool.Florda_mike said:BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:I'm sorry you have cancer, BBL.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
As it happens., I was diagnosed myself in 2006, and mine is treatable but incurable.
My cancer. like your own, is also completely irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
Facts, you know.
I've been in remission for some time.
Your ability to miss a point is another illness altogether.
You have a cancerous soul
No remission is possible for that FYI
BBL is being rude, but ... just no, please.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I think with all of us, we have to weigh whether or not the right to kill is superior to the right to live.
Man, both good and evil, have struggled to be on the morally right side of that conundrum for centuries.
Man, both good and evil, have struggled to be on the morally right side of that conundrum for centuries.
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I'm not "desperate to change the subject." Abortion is the subject, it includes abortions that are due to "the life and health" of the mother and/or unborn child at any time during pregnancy, as well as the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either. Most prolife advocates would trade a legitimate "life and health" exception for prohibiting the 90 percent of abortions that are for other reasons.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground ignoring the 90 percent of abortions that have nothing to do with either the life or health of the mother and nothing to do with the life or health of her unborn offspring.BrooksBearLives said:Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Osodecentx said:Thanks. Health seems to be a broader standard than the life of the mother.Sam Lowry said:Roe v. Wade: "For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."Osodecentx said:I'm interested in the 'health of the mother' standard. Do you have a link for the court language?Sam Lowry said:
The right to abortion to preserve the health of the mother, broadly interpreted, is the law of the land according to the US Supreme Court. New York's revisions have simply brought New York state law up to date with federal law.
Doe v. Bolton: "We agree with the District Court...that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."
Wiki:
The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her health. The Court defined "health" as follows:
Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.htmlQuote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
She was happily married, the mother of a 2-year-old boy and thrilled to be pregnant again. She read stories and wrote a journal to the baby, and she relished when her son rolled his toy cars over her growing belly. Because she was over 35 and in "advanced maternal age," she said, her care included additional sonograms later in her pregnancy.
When she and her husband went in for one at 29 weeks, they were told that the ventricles, or network of cavities, in their baby's brain were larger than normal, she said. The doctor and technician said they weren't "outrageously larger," Weinstein remembered, so she didn't worry. They could deal with whatever this was, she and her husband reasoned. Plus, everything else about their baby was perfect.
Still, she was sent to the Children's National in Washington for further testing. Weinstein, who lives in Rockville, Maryland, was at 31 weeks, well into her third trimester, when they got an appointment. Then came the gut punch.
There are hard-to-spell words for the brain abnormalities their baby had: agenesis of the corpus callosum and polymicrogyria. In simpler terms, as Weinstein described it, a special MRI showed that the baby didn't have the part of the brain that connects the right and left hemispheres. And where a healthy brain "looks like a cauliflower," she said, their baby's brain had concave areas and "pockets of empty."
"What does this mean? What does this mean?" she kept asking, before they were whisked off to specialists who could explain.
Doctors expected their baby would not be able to suck or swallow, Weinstein recalled. They said she most likely would suffer from uncontrollable seizures upon birth and, because of that, a resuscitation order would be necessary. For as long as she lived, doctors predicted, their baby would require medical intervention. And, as Weinstein understood it, she'd have no mental capacity to dream, love or enjoy life.
Her questions came fast. Couldn't rehab help? What if they took stem cells from her son's umbilical cord blood that she'd banked? Maybe they could regrow what her daughter needed?
Their baby's brain was destined to be this way from the start, experts said. It could not have been detected earlier and would not improve. They never could have seen it coming. The multiple doctors she surveyed, searching for hope, told her the same.
"It's just a fluke," Weinstein said. "Basically, anyone who could get pregnant could be that fluke."
They heard what a resuscitation order would entail. They listened to what an existence, short-lived or otherwise, would look like. They were briefed on hospice care.
At first, no one talked about the possibility of abortion this late in her pregnancy. Weinstein believes this was in part because the doctor to whom the hospital had referred rare patients like her in the past, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, had been murdered by an anti-abortion extremist weeks earlier.
She could carry the baby for six more weeks and deliver it, she was told. But that extended the nightmare she was living in, she said, one in which they had to choose how their daughter would die. She worried about what their choice would do to their son, their family, their marriage.
The endless kicks in Weinstein's belly, the persistent movements that had given her so much joy, became unbearable. She feared that the baby was simply seizing and, worse yet, might be suffering. She fell apart and couldn't sleep. While she had proudly worn cute maternity clothes to show off her bump, she now hid in her husband's clothes. She dreaded the well-meaning question from strangers -- "When are you due?" -- and refused to leave the house.
"That agony of every moment till I could end her pain was just awful," Weinstein said. Together with her husband, they decided to get an abortion. For this baby they loved, she said, it felt like the "more peaceful path for her passing."
She had to fly across the country to Colorado to get the procedure. She felt lucky to have supportive parents who were able to charge the abortion expense, $17,500, on their credit card. She traveled with her husband, her mother and her son so she could have him to hold while at the hotel.
The doctor used a sonogram to find the baby's heart. He gave Weinstein an injection through her stomach to stop its beating. She felt her daughter's last movements before she passed away. A few days later, on the very day that marked her 32nd week of pregnancy, she delivered their deceased baby.
"I'm not going to talk through that part of it," said Weinstein, who stayed calm on the phone but predicted she'd break down right after we hung up. "But I would like to say it was not a baby being ripped limb to limb. I delivered an outward-looking beautiful baby."
Now 47, she and her husband went on to have two healthy daughters. The first one, now 8, Weinstein refers to as her "rainbow baby."
"We call her that," she said, "because after a storm, what's more beautiful than a rainbow?"
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
I get why you're so ****ing desperate to change the subject. But we're talking about late term abortions.
Stop trying to make Fetch happen.
Why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor?
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
Brooks
Very sorry to read you have cancer . Hope it never re appears .
Canada2017
Oldbear83 said:Florida, that's not cool.Florda_mike said:BrooksBearLives said:Oldbear83 said:I'm sorry you have cancer, BBL.BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:I don't think it weakens your argument, I know it weakens your argument.BrooksBearLives said:If you think it weakens my ****ing argument, then you don't know how a ****ing argument works.D. C. Bear said:The fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information. A number of abortions that can be characterized as "late term" also fall into this category.BrooksBearLives said:
Why do you consistently get wrapped around the axle on tangential information that has no bearing on the subject at hand?
Who gives a ****? What does my being an ******* matter in regards to the veracity of my argument?
The success of an argument depends on three elements. Your credibility is damaged by the tone of your argument, making both your logical appeals and your emotional appeals less effective.
The question remains: why do you feel compelled to consistently use words that get filtered out by the site's automated censor? There are to real possibilities: (1) you may not care that it weakens your arguments or (2) you may not know that it weakens your arguments.
Your style-over-substance approach is ****ing telling.
Back to the point, the fact that 90 percent of abortions have nothing to do with the life and health of the mother is not tangential information.
Facts are facts. Logic is logic.
I had cancer.
I have ****ing cancer.
The only people who see the difference between the two are those addicted to dogma and pratter.
****ing get over it, or don't. Your call.
As it happens., I was diagnosed myself in 2006, and mine is treatable but incurable.
My cancer. like your own, is also completely irrelevant to the ethics of abortion.
Facts, you know.
I've been in remission for some time.
Your ability to miss a point is another illness altogether.
You have a cancerous soul
No remission is possible for that FYI
BBL is being rude, but ... just no, please.
Don't quote him. Then I have to see his stupid posts. I placed him on ignore a while ago. Ignorance of his ignorance is a blessing.
Let's consider the statement in bold above.BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
You are basically implying that a late term abortion shouldn't really be considered a late term abortion if the mother had wanted to get one earlier or didn't know she was pregnant or couldn't find an abortion clinic. Whatever external factors might be at play, it still is what it is. The fact that these women existed to study undercuts the argument that women do not seek "late term" abortions except for medical reasons.
You argued earlier that the law made no real difference. That may or may not be true. Laws that make things easier or more acceptable tend to create environments where the behavior increases. Killing at 15 weeks isn't any less evil than killing at 25 weeks.
BTW, there is a huge difference between I "had" cancer and I "have" cancer, without regard for any censored adjectives. I hope that it is the former for you and remains so.
Heard a guy on talk radio the other day that came up with a spectacular idea. He said the Republicans should submit a bill stating that any baby that survives a botched abortion should immediately be declared an illegal alien. That should get a unanimous YES vote from the Dems to save the baby.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"
-- Barack Obama
-- Barack Obama
D. C. Bear said:Let's consider the statement in bold above.BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
You are basically implying that a late term abortion shouldn't really be considered a late term abortion if the mother had wanted to get one earlier or didn't know she was pregnant or couldn't find an abortion clinic. Whatever external factors might be at play, it still is what it is. The fact that these women existed to study undercuts the argument that women do not seek "late term" abortions except for medical reasons.
You argued earlier that the law made no real difference. That may or may not be true. Laws that make things easier or more acceptable tend to create environments where the behavior increases. Killing at 15 weeks isn't any less evil than killing at 25 weeks.
BTW, there is a huge difference between I "had" cancer and I "have" cancer, without regard for any censored adjectives. I hope that it is the former for you and remains so.
****. Not what I'm ****ing saying.
I'm saying some women are considered late-term because of blocks put in their way. They had to wait because the systems they're in have made it harder.
That's the point. The study Sam quoted showing reasons women get late-term abortions. It's not because they're waiting and then deciding late. It's because of other situations force them to wait. People are demonizing them for waiting when they're being forced to.
I don't know, man. I think this is all so easy for some to stand in your tower and act high and mighty and better than.
I am against every ****ing abortion. Every one. But they have always happened, and they always will So long as we refuse to try to understand why they happen and address that in earnest.
Or we can just keep treating people like **** and ****ing make them all have clean mouths and never ****ing curse. Some people just like to fight.
Man, must be tough living in your head!
Geez
Geez
Life is tough sometimes, but at least it's not death.
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
BrooksBearLives said:D. C. Bear said:Let's consider the statement in bold above.BrooksBearLives said:I'm sorry, but if you had actually read this study, you would realize how incredibly misleading this statement and the excerpt is.Sam Lowry said:This is incorrect.BrooksBearLives said:That is my point. Women aren't lining up to kill babies in their 3rd trimester. They're ONLY doing it because they have to.Osodecentx said:Are you now saying that the psychological health of the mother is included in the NY abortion law? The CNN case also cited financial reasons. I agree that the new "health" standard includes these things and othersBrooksBearLives said:
Explain to me how -in this instance- the "health of the mother" shouldn't be taken into account?Quote:
She had to choose how her daughter would die
When people ask how many kids she has, Dana Weinstein tells them she has three living children. That's because the daughter she lost 9 years ago remains part of her.
I am sick to death of those who are so invested in having what they feel is the moral high ground blindly refusing to engage in the kind of empathy that would lead them to see the pain of others.
In the case cited by CNN, wouldn't fetal viability justify the abortion without having to rely on the "health" standard?
"Data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. Five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample...were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."
I'm flummoxed, honestly. You usually at least attempt to be an honest prevaricator, but this is pretty off-base. Have you actually read the Guttmacher study (I just did early this morning).
The (tiny) sample of women who took part in this study, first of all, were not women who would have been allowed to under the New York law, which is clearly what I meant. All the women surveyed were at abortion clinics seeking them.
EVEN STILL 94% of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were requesting them because something held them up, including not knowing they were pregnant (43%), inability to find an abortion clinic (38%) and having a partner who would not let them (20%). One woman said she had to wait until her abusive partner was in jail before she could get it done.
So despite the fact that this group of women are not the ones I was speaking about, it should say a lot that nearly ALL of the women who were seeking late-term abortions were only technically late-term because they had external factors keeping them from it.
The data that that this study covers specifically discounted women who were looking for medically-needed abortions. Those would almost be completely kept out of the study as it only surveyed women who went voluntarily to abortion clinics. Medically-required abortions are usually done in hospitals.
Also of note, there is a study right now that actually calls how "abortion ambivalence" is measured in the first place. It can be found, for free, right here. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2019/02/misclassification-ambivalence-pregnancy-intentions-mixed-methods-analysis
You are basically implying that a late term abortion shouldn't really be considered a late term abortion if the mother had wanted to get one earlier or didn't know she was pregnant or couldn't find an abortion clinic. Whatever external factors might be at play, it still is what it is. The fact that these women existed to study undercuts the argument that women do not seek "late term" abortions except for medical reasons.
You argued earlier that the law made no real difference. That may or may not be true. Laws that make things easier or more acceptable tend to create environments where the behavior increases. Killing at 15 weeks isn't any less evil than killing at 25 weeks.
BTW, there is a huge difference between I "had" cancer and I "have" cancer, without regard for any censored adjectives. I hope that it is the former for you and remains so.
****. Not what I'm ****ing saying.
I'm saying some women are considered late-term because of blocks put in their way. They had to wait because the systems they're in have made it harder.
That's the point. The study Sam quoted showing reasons women get late-term abortions. It's not because they're waiting and then deciding late. It's because of other situations force them to wait. People are demonizing them for waiting when they're being forced to.
I don't know, man. I think this is all so easy for some to stand in your tower and act high and mighty and better than.
I am against every ****ing abortion. Every one. But they have always happened, and they always will So long as we refuse to try to understand why they happen and address that in earnest.
Or we can just keep treating people like **** and ****ing make them all have clean mouths and never ****ing curse. Some people just like to fight.
Remember, you are better educated than than the rest of us. You have told us that numerous times.
BrooksBearLives said:
I don't know, man. I think this is all so easy for some to stand in your tower and act high and mighty and better than.
I am against every ****ing abortion. Every one. But they have always happened, and they always will So long as we refuse to try to understand why they happen and address that in earnest.
Or we can just keep treating people like **** and ****ing make them all have clean mouths and never ****ing curse. Some people just like to fight.
One of the reasons I feel so strongly against abortion is that my wife and I faced this issue with our first daughter when multiple doctors told us to abort because there was a chance that the pregnancy could impact my wife's health. But, we were talking about a baby. You see, there was. a baby involved. Did I mention the baby?
That baby is a freshman at Baylor now. And, she has a friend at Baylor that was planned to be aborted by my wife's Baylor roommate who changed her mind at the last moment.
So, two babies. Real live actual babies. People. Humans that were given a chance to live.
I'm not speaking from a tower.
Babies.
....hoping that at some point the fact that babies are involved will enter the "progressive" equation...
Edmond Bear said:BrooksBearLives said:
I don't know, man. I think this is all so easy for some to stand in your tower and act high and mighty and better than.
I am against every ****ing abortion. Every one. But they have always happened, and they always will So long as we refuse to try to understand why they happen and address that in earnest.
Or we can just keep treating people like **** and ****ing make them all have clean mouths and never ****ing curse. Some people just like to fight.
One of the reasons I feel so strongly against abortion is that my wife and I faced this issue with our first daughter when multiple doctors told us to abort because there was a chance that the pregnancy could impact my wife's health. But, we were talking about a baby. You see, there was. a baby involved. Did I mention the baby?
That baby is a freshman at Baylor now. And, she has a friend at Baylor that was planned to be aborted by my wife's Baylor roommate who changed her mind at the last moment.
So, two babies. Real live actual babies. People. Humans that were given a chance to live.
I'm not speaking from a tower.
Babies.
....hoping that at some point the fact that babies are involved will enter the "progressive" equation...
Yep
You'd think that might get through to the murderers, but noooooooo
Edmond Bear said:BrooksBearLives said:
I don't know, man. I think this is all so easy for some to stand in your tower and act high and mighty and better than.
I am against every ****ing abortion. Every one. But they have always happened, and they always will So long as we refuse to try to understand why they happen and address that in earnest.
Or we can just keep treating people like **** and ****ing make them all have clean mouths and never ****ing curse. Some people just like to fight.
One of the reasons I feel so strongly against abortion is that my wife and I faced this issue with our first daughter when multiple doctors told us to abort because there was a chance that the pregnancy could impact my wife's health. But, we were talking about a baby. You see, there was. a baby involved. Did I mention the baby?
That baby is a freshman at Baylor now. And, she has a friend at Baylor that was planned to be aborted by my wife's Baylor roommate who changed her mind at the last moment.
So, two babies. Real live actual babies. People. Humans that were given a chance to live.
I'm not speaking from a tower.
Babies.
....hoping that at some point the fact that babies are involved will enter the "progressive" equation...
I'm really glad for your miracle. Sincerely. It's why I am against every abortion as I've said a million times.
Not every situation is yours.
BrooksBearLives said:Edmond Bear said:
One of the reasons I feel so strongly against abortion is that my wife and I faced this issue with our first daughter when multiple doctors told us to abort because there was a chance that the pregnancy could impact my wife's health. But, we were talking about a baby. You see, there was. a baby involved. Did I mention the baby?
That baby is a freshman at Baylor now. And, she has a friend at Baylor that was planned to be aborted by my wife's Baylor roommate who changed her mind at the last moment.
So, two babies. Real live actual babies. People. Humans that were given a chance to live.
I'm not speaking from a tower.
Babies.
....hoping that at some point the fact that babies are involved will enter the "progressive" equation...
I'm really glad for your miracle. Sincerely. It's why I am against every abortion as I've said a million times.
Not every situation is yours.
Maybe not every situation. But, many are.
Health of the mom was in doubt. Health of the baby was for sure in doubt. My wife had to quit her job early in the pregnancy which killed a second income. We were young and not well off financially.
You can go down the list of why people have abortions and we were staring at many of them.
Our difference was....we valued the baby.
Saying 'I'm against abortion' is a big bag of nothing. Everyone is against abortion. Nobody really wants to kill babies. The difference is how much a person values a human life versus how difficult that human life will make their own lives. It's an equation where pro-abortion people place little value on the life of a baby and more value on the life of the person who did the things to create the human.
My wife and I made difficult sacrifices because we valued the baby. Other people, even though they took the actions to create a baby, don't seem to be willing to make sacrifices because they don't value a human life. Even worse, 3rd parties come alongside them and tell them 'it's okay' or even actively promote it because they are so involved in their cause that they value their cause more than a human life.
Hopefully, you can understand why those 3rd parties seem so reprehensible from my point of view.