Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your statement isn't accurate. Go to the Guttmacher link in the post before yours.
For discussion sake, let's say only 10 states have laws like NY's new law, which allows abortions after 24 weeks to protect the woman's life orhealth. The words orhealth must mean something other than the woman's life. Though I won't bother asking again, nobody has shown that abortions after 24 weeks are all, almost all, or mostlydone to protect the woman's life and/or because the fetus has a severe abnormality Rather than for the generic 'health' standard.
Do you have any sources that say that pregnancy termination after 24 weeks is "all, or mostly done" for trivial reasons?
Why can't you understand that when a pregnancy must be delivered after 24 weeks for a maternal indication - which will not include a mere desire to not have a baby - that every effort will be made to protect the fetus and get a living, healthy baby? The "generic 'health' standard" is not going to be for things like a stubbed toe.
Terminations after 24 weeks for fetal indications are not done for trivial reasons, either. There are few abortion centers that even offer them, because they require technical expertise that not even most obstetricians have.
Several posters here have given examples of maternal and fetal indications for late term abortion. You might want to review the thread.
Your statement isn't accurate. Go to the Guttmacher link in the post before yours.
My statement is accurate. Most states ban abortions after 24 weeks, unless the mother's health is at risk. You should read the Guttmacher link more carefully.
So a study to determine if abortions that occur after 24 weeks are for the sake of the mother's health would be pointless. Because if an abortion did happen at that point, the law requires it to be for the sake of the mother's health.
Do you have any sources that say that pregnancy termination after 24 weeks is "all, or mostly done" for trivial reasons?
Why can't you understand that when a pregnancy must be delivered after 24 weeks for a maternal indication - which will not include a mere desire to not have a baby - that every effort will be made to protect the fetus and get a living, healthy baby? The "generic 'health' standard" is not going to be for things like a stubbed toe.
Terminations after 24 weeks for fetal indications are not done for trivial reasons, either. There are few abortion centers that even offer them, because they require technical expertise that not even most obstetricians have.
Several posters here have given examples of maternal and fetal indications for late term abortion. You might want to review the thread.
You might want to grasp what issue I'm asking about. I know that fetal anomalies and/or a woman's life in jeopardy are reasons for later term abortions. I'm questioning the repeated claim that late term abortions are always, almost always, or mostly due to life endangerment/severe fetal anomaly. I'm not denying that claim is true, but I have yet to see empirical evidence.
The thread morphed from the failed federal bill to the NY law, back and forth. Why would states like NY and others add the words 'or health' to their laws regarding 24+ week abortions, if the words are superfluous.
You might want to grasp what issue I'm asking about. I know that fetal anomalies and/or a woman's life in jeopardy are reasons for later term abortions. I'm questioning the repeated claim that late term abortions are always, almost always, or mostly due to life endangerment/severe fetal anomaly. I'm not denying that claim is true, but I have yet to see empirical evidence.
The thread morphed from the failed federal bill to the NY law, back and forth. Why would states like NY and others add the words 'or health' to their laws regarding 24+ week abortions, if the words are superfluous.
They are doing this for the same reason that other states are passing laws which strictly limit or even prohibit late-term abortions - they want to codify their policies and practices in state law because they anticipate that SCOTUS will either overturn Roe v Wade or severely limit its scope, thus returning abortion regulation to the states.
Statistics on the reasons given for abortion are simply irrelevant in the particular argument over the NY law in question. The question is whether the government should decide whether/how to treat them, or whether their parents should decide whether/how to treat them, no matter how many or how few there are.
You might want to grasp what issue I'm asking about. I know that fetal anomalies and/or a woman's life in jeopardy are reasons for later term abortions. I'm questioning the repeated claim that late term abortions are always, almost always, or mostly due to life endangerment/severe fetal anomaly. I'm not denying that claim is true, but I have yet to see empirical evidence.
The thread morphed from the failed federal bill to the NY law, back and forth. Why would states like NY and others add the words 'or health' to their laws regarding 24+ week abortions, if the words are superfluous.
Because there are medical conditions that can seriously impair a pregnant woman's health without killing her, such as a stroke due to eclampsia. Treatment of some cancers may be successful for the mother but cause the pregnancy to abort. For women with some types of heart disease pregnancy can be lethal or result in worsening of the long term prognosis of their condition.
Here is your "empirical evidence", fetal indications, straight from a physician who does third trimester abortions.
"No one ever called me to terminate a healthy pregnancy or even a pregnancy with minor abnormalities. First of all, with no indication insurance won’t pay so it is $20k cash."
My statement is accurate. Most states ban abortions after 24 weeks, unless the mother's health is at risk. You should read the Guttmacher link more carefully.
So a study to determine if abortions that occur after 24 weeks are for the sake of the mother's health would be pointless. Because if an abortion did happen at that point, the law requires it to be for the sake of the mother's health.
You continue to believe the phrases 'woman's health' and 'woman's physical health' mean the same thing. Wrong.
Notice the Guttmacher chart on late term abortions has separate column for life of the mother, physical health of the woman, and general health of the woman. I could get into what general health means according to Guttmacher and SC decisions, but it wouldn't get us anywhere.
The CDC reported an increase in the maternal mortality ratio in the United States from 18.8 deaths per 100,000 births to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 births between 2000 and 2014, a 26.6% increase; It is estimated that 20-50% of these deaths are due to severe high blood pressure, embolism (blood clots), hemorrhage (bleeding),pre-eclampsia, infection, and cardiomyopathy.
Postpartum depression is widely untreated and unrecognized, leading to suicide. Suicide is one of the most significant causes of maternal mortality, and reported to be the number one cause by many studies.
You continue to believe the phrases 'woman's health' and 'woman's physical health' mean the same thing. Wrong.
Notice the Guttmacher chart on late term abortions has separate column for life of the mother, physical health of the woman, and general health of the woman. I could get into what general health means according to Guttmacher and SC decisions, but it wouldn't get us anywhere.
And you think it is a good idea to rely on people like you and a bunch of legislators to turn such things into a "one size fits all" scenario rather than rely on highly trained professionals who are actually there on a case by case basis to decide the best course of action?
Can we assume when you are faced with a healthcare decision you take the advice of an untrained stranger over the advice of your doctor?
Maybe we should have a designated representative of the pro-life community present in every pregnancy crisis situation, you know, so doctors can ask them what they should do.
And you think it is a good idea to rely on people like you and a bunch of legislators to turn such things into a "one size fits all" scenario rather than rely on highly trained professionals who are actually there on a case by case basis to decide the best course of action?
Can we assume when you are faced with a healthcare decision you take the advice of an untrained stranger over the advice of your doctor?
Maybe we should have a designated representative of the pro-life community present in every pregnancy crisis situation, you know, so doctors can ask them what they should do.
People like me would like a Planned Parenthood on every corner, free contraception for every female and their sexmates, and at least ne later-term abortion facility in every Congressional district.. A woman can have 0,1, 5, 10 abortions if she wants or needs them.
Why are there any restrictions at all ? If a woman can have an abortion on demand early in pregnancy, why should meddling legislators and pro-choicers care what the reasons are post-viability, at 24 weeks, or 28 weeks. Bunch of no good busybodies
Last edited by jazzarama; 03-09-2019 at 05:00 PM..
People like me would like a Planned Parenthood on every corner, free contraception for every female and their sexmates, and at least ne later-term abortion facility in every Congressional district.. A woman can have 0,1, 5, 10 abortions if she wants or needs them.
Why are there any restrictions at all ? If a woman can have an abortion on demand early in pregnancy, why should meddling legislators and pro-choicers care what the reasons are post-viability, at 24 weeks, or 28 weeks. Bunch of no good busybodies
Are women getting abortions on demand at 7 -8 months a problem in this country? NO.
You cannot legislate every single possible circumstance that can arise when it comes to late term abortion. The generic terminology you are objecting to cannot take the place of hands on, highly trained physicians who many times have to make life and death decisions within seconds. I certainly don't want a physician who has my life in his hands second guessing his judgement for fear of prosecution when my life in on the line.
Perfectly healthy babies are not being killed right before or after delivery.....but hey, don't let the facts get in the way.
And when it comes to deciding if a severely deformed, terminal fetus or newborn should or shouldn't be subjected to futile, invasive treatments there is no place in the room for legislators and the general public.
That is an extremely private decision that should be made by the parent/s with the guidance of their doctors.
I have a question for you.
If a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer.....should she get to decide how to proceed or should complete strangers and legislators make that decision for her?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
