Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

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.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

---

That's not what I said.

Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.

That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.

---

You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.

The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?

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.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/

---

You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.

That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!

The other side?

Quote:

---

This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?

---

Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.

Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.

---

Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?

---

"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.

I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).

---

Bull ****

You are very pro-abortion

I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.

No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.

Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.

How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.

But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.

---

Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.

Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.

End of story.

---

Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.

You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.

You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.

Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?

Answer the question.

---

If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.

And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.

You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.

The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.

Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.

Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?

---

I am against every abortion. Ever. Every single one is a tragedy. Some may be necessary. Some, I don't know if I can blame someone for not wanting to carry their rapist's child to term. But I am so SO glad that I will never have to make that decision myself and I don't feel comfortable making it for others.

And your point doesn't stand, because if the fetus isn't viable, it's still an abortion. It's not a miscarriage in any sense of the law. Morally speaking? Yes. Agreed. Legally? No. And that's what 99% of late term abortions are. Literally. 99% are nonviable fetuses.

You agree with this law 99% of the time.

---

Dont bs. The vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. To maintain lifestyle because raising a kid is hard.

And you will vote Democrat and eventually help them pass infantacide after birth which is an intent many have already endorsed.

Your hand is in the cookie jar. You keep telling everyone their stance against abortion is immoral. You're changing minds and helping prevent lives. Let's see what God thinks of your behavior.

Death is not circumstancial to God.

---

The majority of late-term abortions are done out of convenience?

Yikes. How are you coming to that conclusion?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

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.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

---

That's not what I said.

Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.

That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.

---

You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.

The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?

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.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/

---

You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.

That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!

The other side?

Quote:

---

This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?

---

Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.

Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.

---

Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?

---

"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.

I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).

---

Bull ****

You are very pro-abortion

I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.

No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.

Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.

How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.

But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.

---

Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.

Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.

End of story.

---

Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.

You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.

You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.

Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?

Answer the question.

---

If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.

And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.

You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.

The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.

Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.

Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?

---

I am against every abortion. Ever. Every single one is a tragedy. Some may be necessary. Some, I don't know if I can blame someone for not wanting to carry their rapist's child to term. But I am so SO glad that I will never have to make that decision myself and I don't feel comfortable making it for others.

And your point doesn't stand, because if the fetus isn't viable, it's still an abortion. It's not a miscarriage in any sense of the law. Morally speaking? Yes. Agreed. Legally? No. And that's what 99% of late term abortions are. Literally. 99% are nonviable fetuses.

You agree with this law 99% of the time.

---

Dont bs. The vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. To maintain lifestyle because raising a kid is hard.

And you will vote Democrat and eventually help them pass infantacide after birth which is an intent many have already endorsed.

Your hand is in the cookie jar. You keep telling everyone their stance against abortion is immoral. You're changing minds and helping prevent lives. Let's see what God thinks of your behavior.

Death is not circumstancial to God.

---

The majority of late-term abortions are done out of convenience?

Yikes. How are you coming to that conclusion?

---

Here are the statistics on all abortions:



http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#10

A study from 2013 found that most women seeking late abortions "fit at least one of five profiles: They 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 see actual health issues which account for less than 1% of all abortions should always be an attempt to save both the mother and the baby, and if not possible then you may have a case. The likelihood of this happening is nearly zero.

How do you not understand that most abortions are out of convenience?

We've had nearly 8 million abortions in this country. My tax dollars go towards funding it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

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.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

---

That's not what I said.

Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.

That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.

---

You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.

The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?

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.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/

---

You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.

That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!

The other side?

Quote:

---

This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?

---

Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.

Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.

---

Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?

---

"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.

I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).

---

Bull ****

You are very pro-abortion

I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.

No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.

Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.

How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.

But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.

---

Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.

Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.

End of story.

---

Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.

You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.

You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.

Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?

Answer the question.

---

If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.

And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.

You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.

The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.

Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.

Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?

---

I am against every abortion. Ever. Every single one is a tragedy. Some may be necessary. Some, I don't know if I can blame someone for not wanting to carry their rapist's child to term. But I am so SO glad that I will never have to make that decision myself and I don't feel comfortable making it for others.

And your point doesn't stand, because if the fetus isn't viable, it's still an abortion. It's not a miscarriage in any sense of the law. Morally speaking? Yes. Agreed. Legally? No. And that's what 99% of late term abortions are. Literally. 99% are nonviable fetuses.

You agree with this law 99% of the time.

---

Dont bs. The vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. To maintain lifestyle because raising a kid is hard.

And you will vote Democrat and eventually help them pass infantacide after birth which is an intent many have already endorsed.

Your hand is in the cookie jar. You keep telling everyone their stance against abortion is immoral. You're changing minds and helping prevent lives. Let's see what God thinks of your behavior.

Death is not circumstancial to God.

---

The majority of late-term abortions are done out of convenience?

Yikes. How are you coming to that conclusion?

---

Here are the statistics on all abortions:



http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#10

A study from 2013 found that most women seeking late abortions "fit at least one of five profiles: They 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 see actual health issues which account for less than 1% of all abortions should always be an attempt to save both the mother and the baby, and if not possible then you may have a case. The likelihood of this happening is nearly zero.

How do you not understand that most abortions are out of convenience?

We've had nearly 8 million abortions in this country. My tax dollars go towards funding it.

---

Those are for LATE TERM?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.

Man up.

TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."

Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.

---

I believe this is your quote: "No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion."

I'm saying there most certainly can be an ethical argument supporting an abortion.

---

** sigh **

OK, I will highlight the part you missed:

"No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion"

The whole statement must be considered, not cherry-picked so you can pretend something else was said.

Now, care to try again?

---

Yes, there can be an ethical argument for an abortion or abortion.

---

OK then. I made it clear that I do not believe there is an argument to make for abortion being virtuous or good in its character. I repeated that point and you continue to say such an argument exists.

So please present your argument. Not that abortion is necessary, or acceptable, nor that abortion is about rights .

Please present your argument abortion is a morally good act, valuable to both the individual and society and something which should be encouraged.

I look forward to reading your argument.

---

What I read you to say is that "no moral pro-abortion argument exists." I'm saying there are instances where there is a moral argument for an abortion. A fetus that is not viable, or a fetus that is not alive should not be illegal to abort. Example - I know of a late second trimester/early third trimester pregnancy where the heartbeat stopped. It would have been unethical and immoral to force the mother to carry until she went into labor.

The first five categories in Doc's post above all lend themselves to moral and ethical reasons to allow an abortion.

I don't know if you just refuse to listen/read, or if you're just that dishonest, but here are the stats:
Less than 1.5% of all abortions are done late term -which is what we're talking about (where you keep calling me a murderer because your simple mind can't comprehend nuance).

https://www.livestrong.com/article/193363-facts-on-late-term-abortion/

And almost ALL late-term abortions (99%) are done because of health of the mother or viability. There are certain genetic disorders and illnesses that only show themselves in the late terms which drives most of that number as well.

It doesn't make sense for women to go 24 weeks carrying a child just to call it quits after you can feel kicks.

I know that really pokes a giant hole in your narrative about this law, but it was a stupid ****ing narrative, devoid of facts, to begin with.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I don't know if you just refuse to listen/read, or if you're just that dishonest, but here are the stats:
Less than 1.5% of all abortions are done late term -which is what we're talking about (where you keep calling me a murderer because your simple mind can't comprehend nuance).

https://www.livestrong.com/article/193363-facts-on-late-term-abortion/

And almost ALL late-term abortions (99%) are done because of health of the mother or viability. There are certain genetic disorders and illnesses that only show themselves in the late terms which drives most of that number as well.

It doesn't make sense for women to go 24 weeks carrying a child just to call it quits after you can feel kicks.

I know that really pokes a giant hole in your narrative about this law, but it was a stupid ****ing narrative, devoid of facts, to begin with.

---

Your 1.5% is actually high. The most recent data from the CDC had late term rate of 1.3%; however, this number is inflated because the CDC includes 21-24 week abortions with the late term group (which is generally considered to be 24+ since that's the age of viability).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm

DioNoZeus said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I don't know if you just refuse to listen/read, or if you're just that dishonest, but here are the stats:
Less than 1.5% of all abortions are done late term -which is what we're talking about (where you keep calling me a murderer because your simple mind can't comprehend nuance).

https://www.livestrong.com/article/193363-facts-on-late-term-abortion/

And almost ALL late-term abortions (99%) are done because of health of the mother or viability. There are certain genetic disorders and illnesses that only show themselves in the late terms which drives most of that number as well.

It doesn't make sense for women to go 24 weeks carrying a child just to call it quits after you can feel kicks.

I know that really pokes a giant hole in your narrative about this law, but it was a stupid ****ing narrative, devoid of facts, to begin with.

---

Your 1.5% is actually high. The most recent data from the CDC had late term rate of 1.3%; however, this number is inflated because the CDC includes 21-24 week abortions with the late term group (which is generally considered to be 24+ since that's the age of viability).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm

---

I've heard it's actually lower than 1% but I went with the most conservative number I saw.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I don't know if you just refuse to listen/read, or if you're just that dishonest, but here are the stats:
Less than 1.5% of all abortions are done late term -which is what we're talking about (where you keep calling me a murderer because your simple mind can't comprehend nuance).

https://www.livestrong.com/article/193363-facts-on-late-term-abortion/

And almost ALL late-term abortions (99%) are done because of health of the mother or viability. There are certain genetic disorders and illnesses that only show themselves in the late terms which drives most of that number as well.

It doesn't make sense for women to go 24 weeks carrying a child just to call it quits after you can feel kicks.

I know that really pokes a giant hole in your narrative about this law, but it was a stupid ****ing narrative, devoid of facts, to begin with.

---

Your 1.5% is actually high. The most recent data from the CDC had late term rate of 1.3%; however, this number is inflated because the CDC includes 21-24 week abortions with the late term group (which is generally considered to be 24+ since that's the age of viability).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm

---

I've heard it's actually lower than 1% but I went with the most conservative number I saw.

---

There's a lot of confusion about "late term abortions." It's an ill-defined term that gets manipulated to fit agendas. Technically, the CDC defines 21 weeks or later as late term; however this includes a portion of second trimester pregnancies. Unfortunately, this number is frequently manipulated to imply that all of the abortions in this group are of viable babies in the third trimester (27 weeks or greater). I cannot find any data on the number of abortions that actually occur in the third trimester but I would suspect that it is exceedingly low.

So, are we all going to church this morning?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?

Yes or no please?

---

^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???

---

And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?

---

Waco, you're being dishonest

You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it

Now answer my question please

---

Women indicate that you are simply stupid and barbaric to think you can deny a civil right and demand a woman carry to term. I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.

---

Killing is not a civil right.

---

Barbaric treatment of women is not your right either.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?

Yes or no please?

---

^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???

---

And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?

---

Waco, you're being dishonest

You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it

Now answer my question please

---

Women indicate that you are simply stupid and barbaric to think you can deny a civil right and demand a woman carry to term. I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.

---

Killing is not a civil right.

---

Barbaric treatment of women is not your right either.

---

Are the women who are opposed to abortion also sexist and misogynistic?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?

Yes or no please?

---

^^^ Hey, Waco, I'm waiting patiently on above???

---

And I am just patiently waiting for your answer. Is it barbaric for you to demand a woman carry a pregnancy to term?

---

Waco, you're being dishonest

You never asked this question til now. But my answer is no, of course it's not barbaric to ask a woman to have her baby instead of doing the really barbaric thing which would be to kill it

Now answer my question please

---

Women indicate that you are simply stupid and barbaric to think you can deny a civil right and demand a woman carry to term. I'll go with the women on this one some misogynistic and sexist white guy from Florida.

---

Killing is not a civil right.

---

Barbaric treatment of women is not your right either.

---

Even if treating women barbarically was my right, I would not do so. It is not barbaric to say that killing is not a civil right.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

Not for the victim of the abortion, it's not.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

---

late-term abortion means a heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, to undergo terror.

trivializing the matter by calling the child only an 'unviable fetus' is inhuman beyond words I can use in polite conversation.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

---

I will rephrase. No, it isn't SAFER. In late-term abortions (defined as those after 21-24 weeks gestation), at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer. You make the argument that the law makes no real difference, and you simultaneously make the argument that the "health" standard also makes it "safer." You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Your use of insulting profanity does nothing to help your case.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

---

I will rephrase. No, it isn't SAFER. In late-term abortions (defined as those after 21-24 weeks gestation), at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer. You make the argument that the law makes no real difference, and you simultaneously make the argument that the "health" standard also makes it "safer." You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Your use of insulting profanity does nothing to help your case.

---

Too bad BBL has infested poliboard

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

---

late-term abortion means a heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, to undergo terror.

trivializing the matter by calling the child only an 'unviable fetus' is inhuman beyond words I can use in polite conversation.

---

Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Sincerely. That wasn't my intent.

But there are MANY situations in which women have children who will not live to term. Many times, such as severe hydrocephalus, don't make themselves known until late term.

It is a fetus. That is the term. There are real situations such as a woman I know who was not producing enough amniotic fluid and was essentially crushing her child to death.

So yes. She stopped it's heart. It wasn't viable. It was a tragedy. But neither you or I have any place in telling her she couldn't do her unborn child the kindness of doing so.

Move your mind. There is obviously **** you won't understand.

We're officialky going in circles because you can't comprehend that 1) there ARENT women just waiting until 25 weeks to terminate a pregnancy for no reason and 2) THATS what we are talking about. Late term abortions for the health of the mother that 99% of us agree with 99% of the time.

You keep trying to change the focus of the conversation. Don't know if you just have ADD or what.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

---

What facts? Not your opinion, just facts

---

The facts don't back up the extreme opinion you posted -in bad faith- as fact. Opinion The fact that the difference between "health" of the mother and "life of the mother" isn't what you desperately need to believe it is to sustain your sense of grievance. Opinion

I've asked you all this question more than once. Please answer.

Do you believe that a mother should Have to carry fetus that is dead or will not live to term? No

Do you believe that a mother should be able to have an abortion if her life is in danger? Yes

Please respond.

---

Answered above in Bold

Facts
1. Under old NY abortion law a woman could get an abortion if her life were in danger.
2. The standard was 'life of the mother'.
3.. Only a physician could could perform the abortion under the old law.
4. NY changed the standard to 'health of the mother',l a much broader standard.
5. NY changed the law so non-physicians can perform abortions, a much broader standard.

Are any of the facts 1-5 above incorrect?

Please respond

---

5. Is false. It is not a MUCH BROADER standard. "Life of the mother" is an impossible standard. You cannot say absolutely that someone's "life is in danger" unless that someone is dead. Legally speaking, someone COULD be prosecuted under that standard if the person was still alive.

"How can you say her life was in danger? She's still here. It's just your opinion, baby murderer."

This isn't difficult to understand.

Now. Answer my question please. I've been waiting for quite a while.

---

I answered your 2 questions. Did I miss one?

You want abortion to be permissible when the life of the mother is endangered. That was the standard of the old NY bill. "Health" of the mother is a much broader standard. RHA repealed that standard and exchanges 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.

The NY law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. This is much more permissive than the old, very permissive abortion law. See Snopes below on this portion of the bill.

In a nutshell, the RHA does three things:
1) It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

2) It expands the list of health care professionals who can perform abortions beyond physicians to also encompass highly trained nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and physician assistants.

---

Remember. The law was only changed to update it in the case that ROE is overturned. That's the only reason it was touched.

The expansion of those allowed to do them was purely to protect those who are actually making decisions. Many women are not going the traditional hospital route for births. Also, healthcare has changed substantially as well. Those listed are all experts and capable of doing the procedure safely.

You keep going back to this faulty idea that there's a significant operational difference between "health" and "life." Every doctor and lawyer I've asked about this has said it was done because it was a better legal standard.

Also. I sincerely apologize for missing your comments in bold above. It was all collapsed in the mobile version, but I should have caught it. I was harsh in that and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.

If you agree with those two things, then you should be FOR this law.

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

---

I will rephrase. No, it isn't SAFER. In late-term abortions (defined as those after 21-24 weeks gestation), at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer. You make the argument that the law makes no real difference, and you simultaneously make the argument that the "health" standard also makes it "safer." You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Your use of insulting profanity does nothing to help your case.

---

**** **** **** ****. Spare me the pearl-clutching.

You're being disingenuous in your use of "safety." In this case, it IS safer. Because -by definition- if the Heath of the mother is in danger, then so is the child.

So you're literally choosing between 1 life or two.

Wake up.

BBL proves my point twice after everyone goes to bed

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

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.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

---

That's not what I said.

Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.

That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.

---

You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.

The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?

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.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/

---

You're cherry-picking. You LITERALLY took the example from the article of the biased commentary from the pro-life argument.

That's infuriating! That's so incredibly misleading!

The other side?

Quote:

---

This is only true if you do not trust medical professionals to make informed, professional decisions for which they have been extensively trained and licensed, in consultation with the women in their care. Do we honestly believe that doctors and other medical care providers will risk their licensure and professional lives to perform medically unnecessary procedures because pregnant women wake up one day at six months or seven months pregnant and decide that they don't want to be pregnant anymore? Do we show the same mistrust of any other medical professionals who perform other medical procedures?

---

Basically, if a doctor follows through on the bad-faith aspersion you just cast, they would risk their licensure.

Shame on you. Wow. You've repeated that a number of times, so who knows how many people thought it was a good argument. But it's clearly not.

---

Why did NY change the law from 'life' of the mother to 'health'?

---

"Health of the mother" is a better standard as "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define. It's a clearer way to state the standard without changing the meaning substantially.

I asked that question (from a lawyer with conservative politics, fwiw) and had it explained in this way if carrying this child to term is going to give you a stroke, you will still likely live. My sister-in-law had to roll this very dice -and I'm glad she did. But if she had lost, it could have been my brother, 4 kids under 6 and a mother who is in a vegetative state (I would rather be dead than a burden, personally).

---

Bull ****

You are very pro-abortion

I've given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't called you names are doubted you good faith.

No more. You are defending a bill that allows the killing of a baby 1 hour before birth.

Nobody disagrees with that assessment of that description, including the bill sponsor and the governor who signed it

---

Listen man. I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you. And you don't get to claim the moral high-ground after you've been quoting the literal example of biased opinion cited by snopes.

I'm not pro-abortion. I am pro-truth. You're taking a maximalist approach to this and the facts do not support your opinion. YOUR facts don't even support your opinion.

How is this so hard to understand? I get that you're super invested in this idea that Liberals are 100% evil. It provides clarity for lives complexities.

But it's a dream. Life is complicated. Deal with it. The rest of us are.

---

Just admit that you're fine with someone else choosing to murder and you'll even help them do it by voting for people that will make sure it's an option.

Your hands aren't clean in this scenario. You play an active role in the murder of gods creations.

End of story.

---

Your need for simplicity drives your bigotry. Life isn't simple. Sorry if that hurts your brain.

You think in the binary because it allows you to label me a murderer. I don't know if it's because you're stupid or just lazy. I'd love to say it's YOUR problem, but your constant verbal (written) diarrhea affects anyone on this board.

You're quibbling over points and missing the forest for the trees.

Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it is dead or will not live? Do you think a mother should be able to abort her fetus if it will kill her?

Answer the question.

---

If the baby in fetus form is dead or is expected to die it's not an abortion, it's essentially a miscarriage.

And no I don't think in binary. You just need to admit the truth about yourself and you can't because you are fearful of being judged more by society than not thinking for yourself.

You see, there is no way to spin abortion. You are either fine with destroying a being that will live a full life or not. There is no in between. A rarity between choosing the mothers or the babies life is making a decision on whose is more valuable.

The grey area you think exists is simply your minds way of justification. God doesn't operate in grey. It's his way or the highway.

Your endorsement of abortion along with millions of others will increase abortion.

Let's make a hypothetical scenario: the last woman on earth is pregnant and she wants an abortion...for it or against it?

---

I am against every abortion. Ever. Every single one is a tragedy. Some may be necessary. Some, I don't know if I can blame someone for not wanting to carry their rapist's child to term. But I am so SO glad that I will never have to make that decision myself and I don't feel comfortable making it for others.

And your point doesn't stand, because if the fetus isn't viable, it's still an abortion. It's not a miscarriage in any sense of the law. Morally speaking? Yes. Agreed. Legally? No. And that's what 99% of late term abortions are. Literally. 99% are nonviable fetuses.

You agree with this law 99% of the time.

---

Dont bs. The vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience. To maintain lifestyle because raising a kid is hard.

And you will vote Democrat and eventually help them pass infantacide after birth which is an intent many have already endorsed.

Your hand is in the cookie jar. You keep telling everyone their stance against abortion is immoral. You're changing minds and helping prevent lives. Let's see what God thinks of your behavior.

Death is not circumstancial to God.

---

The majority of late-term abortions are done out of convenience?

Yikes. How are you coming to that conclusion?

---

Here are the statistics on all abortions:



http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#10

A study from 2013 found that most women seeking late abortions "fit at least one of five profiles: They 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 see actual health issues which account for less than 1% of all abortions should always be an attempt to save both the mother and the baby, and if not possible then you may have a case. The likelihood of this happening is nearly zero.

How do you not understand that most abortions are out of convenience?

We've had nearly 8 million abortions in this country. My tax dollars go towards funding it.

---

Those are for LATE TERM?

---

These stats include all abortion including late term.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I am opposed to the NY law. Allowing non-physicians to perform abortions under a more permissive law is progress.

'Health of the mother' is much more lax than the 'life of the mother'

Thanks for the apology

---

Operationally, that standard isn't really different. Remember, this is 1% of all abortions and I've quoted multiple doctors who perform them in this thread. They say -unequivocally- they've never performed a purely voluntary abortion in their entire careers and don't know anyone who has (this one was in a state with no gestational age limit).

If you believe a woman should be able to get an abortion when she medically needs one, then you should have NO problem with this law (past the fact that it's even needed -which is a tragedy).

That's where I started in on this thread before the simpletons (not you) called me a murderer.

People weren't operating with the facts.

---

If it isn't different, why change it?

We must be talking to different doctors (I've never had the opportunity to speak with docs who perform abortions).

Do a little legal research. The 'health of the mother' is a much lower standard, much more permissive.

---

I have said, more than once, it isn't operationally different. The legal definition of "life" is just a bad definition, so it got changed. Other states have done it as well. The AMA has already weighed in on this as it gives doctors cover and will cut down on the possibility of a rogue prosecutor bringing up charges to try and make a name for themselves. If you're a doctor having to ask yourself "is her life in danger? What if she's only to have a stroke? Or lose a leg to blood clotting? Etc etc etc." The standard of "health" is much cleaner and trusts professionals to make the call. Their licenses clearly are on the line if they push to a frivolous standard that you keep inferring they will. Doctors won't be doing more or fewer abortions because of this.

And, for the love of God, I HAVE done the research. You've quoted the "what not to do" example from Snopes and hoped no one would check you on it.

---

'Health' is a much more permissive standard.

Docs who were unsure obtained certainty when the act was removed from the criminal code. They can't be criminally prosecuted for a lapse in judgement, but with 'health of the mother' standard I don't see how a lapse is ever possible. And now midwife can perform abortions.

Would you provide a link to publications where you did your research?.

---

"Health" is not MUCH more permissive. It's SAFER.

---

No, it isn't SAFER. In abortion, at least half the people involved end up dead. The law is designed to make killing unborn human offspring easier, not safer.

---

This is about late-term abortion *******. Keep the **** up.

I know you're just swooping in and ****ting everywhere out of some sort of arrogance, but it's not entertaining. You look ****ing stupid if you don't think that an abortion to terminate an unviable fetus is somehow less safe than attempting to carry a dead fetus to term.

Please, show us the respect of at least TRYING to pay attention.

Thanks so much.

---

late-term abortion means a heartbeat, the ability to feel pain, to undergo terror.

trivializing the matter by calling the child only an 'unviable fetus' is inhuman beyond words I can use in polite conversation.

---

Sorry if it hurts your feelings. Sincerely. That wasn't my intent.

But there are MANY situations in which women have children who will not live to term. Many times, such as severe hydrocephalus, don't make themselves known until late term.

It is a fetus. That is the term. There are real situations such as a woman I know who was not producing enough amniotic fluid and was essentially crushing her child to death.

So yes. She stopped it's heart. It wasn't viable. It was a tragedy. But neither you or I have any place in telling her she couldn't do her unborn child the kindness of doing so.

Move your mind. There is obviously **** you won't understand.

We're officialky going in circles because you can't comprehend that 1) there ARENT women just waiting until 25 weeks to terminate a pregnancy for no reason and 2) THATS what we are talking about. Late term abortions for the health of the mother that 99% of us agree with 99% of the time.

You keep trying to change the focus of the conversation. Don't know if you just have ADD or what.

---

BBL, binary world will never understand complexity. But hang in there.

Don't worry Waco as BBL is never gone

Never!