- Joined
- Jul 20, 2023
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 4,419
- Location
- The North Pole
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, you are describing as a health risk a risk of life, not health.
If a health issue isn't dangerous to one's life, then it's not a risk by definition. It's an ailment, a symptom, or a minor condition, but not a risk.
If you're claiming there's a difference between a health risk and a health-related risk to one's life, then you're going to have to explain the difference. In the medical world, something is only determined to be risky if it somehow poses a risk of immediate or long-term danger to life, or irreversible damage to one's long-term health.
Otherwise, it's not a risk. We have different levels of care for a reason.
Throwing up due to nausea is a health risk if it happens continuously and often because you cannot take in enough nutrition.
Throwing up repeatedly and lacking nutrition is most-definitely a risk to one's life.
Pre-eclampsia and cancer and internal bleeding are risks of life, not just health.
Yes, that was my entire point.
Same old overemphasis on life and insufficient emphasis on health.
Health maintenance and risk management of serious health conditions are separate concepts. Literally everything one does affects health maintenance, not just going through a pregnancy.
Sickening in and of itself.
Stop with the hysterical bullshit. "Life of the mother" is the well known as the established standard on this topic. Trying to make a case that minor health symptoms that occur in everyday life for everyone makes an abortion a "health risk" issue is goddamned silly.