Jump to content
bsjkki

MWEG and their lack of a statement standing up for life

Recommended Posts

Just now, bluebell said:

I realize that's your point, I'm saying I disagree.  When a mother has to induce birth for a baby that has congenital defects (say, at 30 weeks for example), and the baby dies because it cannot survive outside of the womb because of those defects, that does not mean that the mother aborted the baby.

I don't see the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Gray said:

After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

The key words are “or” and “health”

Or means fetal viability can be Ignored if the “health” of the mother is a factor. 

In Doe vs Bolton, the court defined health as, 

“Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

In the Teen Vogue article, the woman had an abortion at 28 weeks because she wasn’t ready to have a baby. Her PCOS and irritable bowel syndrome are definitely not left threatening during pregnancy nor cause any serious complications.

One other item from your quote, a doctor is no longer required to make these judgements. It can be anyone authorized by the state even in the 3rd trimester. That does not sound safe for the mothers.

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The key words are “or” and “health”

Or means fetal viability can be Ignored if the “health” of the mother is a factor. 

In Doe vs Bolton, the court defined health as,  

“Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

In the Teen Vogue article, the woman had an abortion at 28 weeks because she wasn’t ready to have a baby. Her PCOS and irritable bowel syndrome are definitely not left threatening during pregnancy nor cause any serious complications.

One other item from your quote, a doctor is no longer required to make these judgements. It can be anyone authorized by the state even in the 3rd trimester. That does not sound safe for the mothers.

Heaven forbid doctors and patients are allowed to make decisions regarding health. Someone ought to interfere.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with bsjkki that the "or health" part is the really damning part of the legislation.  What constitutes "health" is WAY to broad.  This leaves the door open for practitioners perform abortions for almost any reason, including anxiety about being a mother, or nausea from pregnancy, etc. 

No longer is a physician required to make the judgment, even a midwife can make the determination and perform the abortion in New York for any reason he/she deems a risk to the mothers health.

Also, it should be known that as of Jan. 22, 2019, abortion is no longer in the state's penal code. This means there is no criminal liability.

Also,

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-abortion-laws.html

A mother can kill her fetus at any stage and not be held liable.  Who needs a doctor anymore?  Lets give mothers the right to  induce miscarriage and kill her fetus at any stage of pregnancy on her own by ingesting drugs!  Makes sense!

They have removed criminal code language regarding illegal abortions.  There really isn't any punishment for mother's, father's, or practitioners performing unlawful abortions.

This law is IMMORAL. I don't care to argue about the legalities of it.  It is immoral. 

 

That's rather alarmist. The law is in keeping with the Roe v Wade decision. Should women have no say about their own health? What about men? Should the state stop men from protecting their own health too?

 

Quote

Defining ‘health’ and ‘viability’

Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

 

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid doctors and patients are allowed to make decisions regarding health. Someone ought to interfere.

When another life is being impacted, and that life has no voice, then it makes sense that more people should be involved in whether or not it's o.k. to end that life than just the woman and her doctor.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

When another life is being impacted, and that life has no voice, then it makes sense that more people should be involved in whether or not it's o.k. to end that life than just the woman and her doctor. 

Who has better judgement than the attending physician? An anti abortion activist with with a scary sign? A politician trying to keep his base riled up to hold on to power?

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid doctors and patients are allowed to make decisions regarding health. Someone ought to interfere.

Yes, when it comes to abortion, a thousand times YES!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who has better judgement than the attending physician? An anti abortion activist with with a scary sign? A politician trying to keep his base riled up to hold on to power?

It's no longer a physician so that is inaccurate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who has better judgement than the attending physician? An anti abortion activist with with a scary sign? A politician trying to keep his base riled up to hold on to power?

A woman doesn't need a doctor's permission in New York, she can kill the baby for any reason without punishment.  So could the husband, even without the mother's permission and not be charged for any crime against the termination of the viable fetus' life.  There is no protection for the baby or the mother.   

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Gray said:

Heaven forbid doctors and patients are allowed to make decisions regarding health. Someone ought to interfere.

Heaven forbid that someone stand up for the life and health of the viable baby.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who has better judgement than the attending physician? An anti abortion activist with with a scary sign? A politician trying to keep his base riled up to hold on to power?

That congressman who said that in cases of legitimate rape the body shuts down to prevent pregnancy maybe? He seems to know what he is talking about.

I agree that there should be standards selected by the government as to when it is and is not permissible but these standards would have to be broad enough to allow a physician to do their job.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who has better judgement than the attending physician? An anti abortion activist with with a scary sign? A politician trying to keep his base riled up to hold on to power?

You don't seem to understand that it is not about protecting the life of the mother anymore.  It is about any minor, acute health condition that will not impact the mother significantly.  Good judgment has already flown out the window in this case!   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That congressman who said that in cases of legitimate rape the body shuts down to prevent pregnancy maybe? He seems to know what he is talking about.

I agree that there should be standards selected by the government as to when it is and is not permissible but these standards would have to be broad enough to allow a physician to do their job.

Well, now they’re broad enough for a planned parenthood employee to terminate a late term pregnancy ( viable baby) because of nausea or anxiety. 

It is immoral.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Well, now they’re broad enough for a planned parenthood employee to terminate a late term pregnancy ( viable baby) because of nausea or anxiety. 

It is immoral.

 

So is adultery and fornication and lying and a host of other things but we have not criminalized them all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

So is adultery and fornication and lying and a host of other things but we have not criminalized them all.

Well, it is clear where you stand on this. Abortion=lying, adultery and fornication. Ok

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, pogi said:

Did I exaggerate anything?  Is anything I said untrue?  I agree, what I said is extremely alarming...if that makes me an alarmist, so be it, but I didn't create the law. 

Should a woman have a say about her own health?  Sure, but that doesn't include killing a viable baby if there is no serious health concerns and if her life is not in danger.  We should not be allowed to infringe upon/murder the viable life of another to ease our minor health concerns and anxieties.  That is immoral.

Do you honestly think it is moral to kill a viable baby at 39 weeks gestation because of anxiety or acute nausea?  Again, I don't care about the legal argument, I am more interested in the morality of it. 

Abortion is no longer in the states penal code. 

It doesn't really matter what the law says anyway when their is no punishment for breaking it.  Immoral.  

 

This is where the alarmism comes in. Your interpretation doesn't fit in with the actual law, but it does match the fear mongering used to turn people into one-issue voters. It's all about power.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to understand that it is not about protecting the life of the mother anymore.  It is about any minor, acute health condition that will not impact the mother significantly.  Good judgment has already flown out the window in this case!   

Says who?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...