Also, my question started "BBL, you seem to...."BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
BBL, you seem to have failed to address my "wife-beater" scenario.
Right now, it appears your running from the comment.
Wait. You were serious? Am I supposed to respond to every stupid question I'm asked?
LIB,MR BEARS said:I wasn't serious. But, this ladies boyfriend was. So how about an answer.BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
BBL, you seem to have failed to address my "wife-beater" scenario.
Right now, it appears your running from the comment.
Wait. You were shttps://nypost.com/2018/06/26/woman-had-boyfriend-punch-stomach-to-terminate-pregnancy-cops/erious? Am I supposed to respond to every stupid question I'm asked?
https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/woman-had-boyfriend-punch-stomach-to-terminate-pregnancy-cops/
LIB,MR BEARS said:Also, my question started "BBL, you seem to...."BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
BBL, you seem to have failed to address my "wife-beater" scenario.
Right now, it appears your running from the comment.
Wait. You were serious? Am I supposed to respond to every stupid question I'm asked?
It did not start "Stupid, you seem to..."
I certainly understand your confusion.
Canada2017 said:ValhallaBear said:
Pretty sobering
That comparison truly saddens me.
my scenario happens every week across the country. Don't pretend like it doesn't. Here it is again for you. Address, deflect or run away.BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:I wasn't serious. But, this ladies boyfriend was. So how about an answer.BrooksBearLives said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
BBL, you seem to have failed to address my "wife-beater" scenario.
Right now, it appears your running from the comment.
Wait. You were shttps://nypost.com/2018/06/26/woman-had-boyfriend-punch-stomach-to-terminate-pregnancy-cops/erious? Am I supposed to respond to every stupid question I'm asked?
https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/woman-had-boyfriend-punch-stomach-to-terminate-pregnancy-cops/
That's assault and murder. He's not a doctor. This law has nothing to do with your insipid question.
Neither of us should pretend you're serious anymore.
No you stupid slanderous liar.ScottS said:
Cinque, Jinx, and 1947 will celebrate too
Waco1947 said:No you stupid slanderous liar.ScottS said:
Cinque, Jinx, and 1947 will celebrate too
What women and their doctors decide is none of your business
One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
Waco1947 said:No you stupid slanderous liar.ScottS said:
Cinque, Jinx, and 1947 will celebrate too
What women and their doctors decide is none of your business
What does a baby have to do with this? It's a woman's body!YoakDaddy said:Waco1947 said:No you stupid slanderous liar.ScottS said:
Cinque, Jinx, and 1947 will celebrate too
What women and their doctors decide is none of your business
I thought you'd be happy for this new law. You're all for infanticide and makes your dream fully legal.
Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
I'm glad to read you are againstBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
"Hsppy". Of course not.YoakDaddy said:Waco1947 said:No you stupid slanderous liar.ScottS said:
Cinque, Jinx, and 1947 will celebrate too
What women and their doctors decide is none of your business
I thought you'd be happy for this new law. You're all for infanticide and makes your dream fully legal.
Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
BaylorOkie said:
Maybe I should have had a couple of misspellings to make that more authentic.
Flexible standard.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
What isn't?
the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician's assistants.Quote:
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Osodecentx said:Flexible standard.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
What isn't?
From Snopes on NY abortion bill
The RHA states that "A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially "authorize abortion up until the moment of birth" because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician's assistants.Quote:
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
I'm not comfortable with the process. A nurse practitioner, midwife or a PA will decide if the patient's age, economic, social and emotional factors justify a late term abortion. I think there ought to be more than that.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Flexible standard.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
What isn't?
From Snopes on NY abortion bill
The RHA states that "A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially "authorize abortion up until the moment of birth" because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician's assistants.Quote:
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Okay. I'm not sure what point you're making.
My understanding was that it has more to do with indemnity on the part of the practitioner than anything else. But whatever.Osodecentx said:I'm not comfortable with the process. A nurse practitioner, midwife or a PA will decide if the patient's age, economic, social and emotional factors justify a late term abortion. I think there ought to be more than that.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Flexible standard.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
What isn't?
From Snopes on NY abortion bill
The RHA states that "A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially "authorize abortion up until the moment of birth" because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician's assistants.Quote:
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Okay. I'm not sure what point you're making.
Your acquaintance could have had the abortion in NY without the change in the law. I don't condemn her decision. Sounds like a horrible case.BrooksBearLives said:My understanding was that it has more to do with indemnity on the part of the practitioner than anything else. But whatever.Osodecentx said:I'm not comfortable with the process. A nurse practitioner, midwife or a PA will decide if the patient's age, economic, social and emotional factors justify a late term abortion. I think there ought to be more than that.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Flexible standard.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
What isn't?
From Snopes on NY abortion bill
The RHA states that "A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially "authorize abortion up until the moment of birth" because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician's assistants.Quote:
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Okay. I'm not sure what point you're making.
I'm not in favor of abortion, period. My beliefs lead me to believe it is never a good thing. Although, if I'm truly trying to be empathetic, I could imagine how someone could see it as the least bad situation. If I had to choose between losing my child and my wife, or both, I don't know what decision I would make. I personally know someone who had to terminate a pregnancy in the situation where her body wasn't providing enough amniotic fluid. She was going to crush her child to death within her own womb. She didn't want to do that, and she wasn't going to be able to carry her child to term, so she had to make a horrible choice. She shared the hoops she had to jump through (she's from the south) and it made a horrible situation even more traumatic.
The abortion she had to have put her into therapy. I refuse to think it was a "good" thing. But I can't disagree with her decision.
It helped me realize that maybe our attention is better spent creating a world where unwanted pregnancies happen less, people are educated, and women/young family have support for the children they raise.
Youre against abortion but vote for those that actively try to increase it. Why?BrooksBearLives said:My understanding was that it has more to do with indemnity on the part of the practitioner than anything else. But whatever.Osodecentx said:I'm not comfortable with the process. A nurse practitioner, midwife or a PA will decide if the patient's age, economic, social and emotional factors justify a late term abortion. I think there ought to be more than that.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:Flexible standard.BrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:I agree with the decisionBrooksBearLives said:Osodecentx said:One of my concerns is that you won't say "I oppose an abortion 1 day before the child is born". That isn't a logical fallacy, it is a baby.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.BrooksBearLives said:90sBear said:"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."BrooksBearLives said:Doc Holliday said:
5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.
Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.
I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.
Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?
Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.
I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.
It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.
The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.
I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.
But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.
So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?
Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.
I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.
I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.
I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?
Point out my "decrying" statement.
Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.
I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.
For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.
To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.
You say it is a straw man. If it is, what harm to your argument if you oppose a (very) late term abortion?
What? I'm against all abortions. All. How can I be more clear on that?
All.
But there has to be a consideration for the mother's life. Look at the girl who had the miscarriage that nearly killed her due to her baby's genetic abnormality. The next time she got pregnant, they discovered the baby had the same abnormality that would keep it from being viable and would endanger her life. She didn't find out she would need an abortion until 20-some weeks.
Is this an extreme case? Sure. But it's a real one as well. And one that this law was meant to help.
I shared the girl's story with a link earlier.
That isn't what the NY law says
What isn't?
From Snopes on NY abortion bill
The RHA states that "A health care practitioner, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health."
Pro-life critics contended that provision would essentially "authorize abortion up until the moment of birth" because its health exception might be broadly interpreted beyond just issues of physical health:the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician's assistants.Quote:
Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
Okay. I'm not sure what point you're making.
I'm not in favor of abortion, period. My beliefs lead me to believe it is never a good thing. Although, if I'm truly trying to be empathetic, I could imagine how someone could see it as the least bad situation. If I had to choose between losing my child and my wife, or both, I don't know what decision I would make. I personally know someone who had to terminate a pregnancy in the situation where her body wasn't providing enough amniotic fluid. She was going to crush her child to death within her own womb. She didn't want to do that, and she wasn't going to be able to carry her child to term, so she had to make a horrible choice. She shared the hoops she had to jump through (she's from the south) and it made a horrible situation even more traumatic.
The abortion she had to have put her into therapy. I refuse to think it was a "good" thing. But I can't disagree with her decision.
It helped me realize that maybe our attention is better spent creating a world where unwanted pregnancies happen less, people are educated, and women/young family have support for the children they raise.
They're weren't going to happen by paramedical personnel un til NY law passed. I don't think a late term abortion by a midwife is what you contemplateBrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
Shootings are going to happen anyway, let anyone who wants a gun get one.BrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
Baby. Bathwater.Osodecentx said:They're weren't going to happen by paramedical personnel un til NY law passed. I don't think a late term abortion by a midwife is what you contemplateBrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
You're really comparing "anyone" with a medical health professional?LIB,MR BEARS said:Shootings are going to happen anyway, let anyone who wants a gun get one.BrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
People are going to drive drunk anyway so let anyone who want to drink and drive do so.
LIB,MR BEARS said:Shootings are going to happen anyway, let anyone who wants a gun get one.BrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
People are going to drive drunk anyway so let anyone who want to drink and drive do so.
xiledinok said:
Different strokes OF THE KNIFE for different MURDERERS. The Republicans use it as a political weapon in elections but they don't have to even bother with returns.
Obama trade that smart protectionist oil embargo for abortion rights and pork in Republican districts.
Ain't nothing happening on these political issues.
MD physician. Midwife.BrooksBearLives said:Baby. Bathwater.Osodecentx said:They're weren't going to happen by paramedical personnel un til NY law passed. I don't think a late term abortion by a midwife is what you contemplateBrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
Waco1947 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Shootings are going to happen anyway, let anyone who wants a gun get one.BrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
People are going to drive drunk anyway so let anyone who want to drink and drive do so.
Rare! You missed the word Rare! How do you make abortions rare?
Waco1947 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Shootings are going to happen anyway, let anyone who wants a gun get one.BrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
People are going to drive drunk anyway so let anyone who want to drink and drive do so.
Rare! You missed the word Rare! How do you make abortions rare?
#1 most effective way to make them rare is to limit the amount of unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. Free/cheap birth control and actual comprehensive sex education. The return on investment there is astronomical.YoakDaddy said:Waco1947 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Shootings are going to happen anyway, let anyone who wants a gun get one.BrooksBearLives said:
They're going to happen either way. I think they should be as rare as possible, but safe.
People are going to drive drunk anyway so let anyone who want to drink and drive do so.
Rare! You missed the word Rare! How do you make abortions rare?
How do make abortions rare? A respect for all life which is a topic you never advocated from your pulpit.
