More like, Schrodinger’s kids. I genuinely hope you find peace and learn to not let being pro-birth justify letting others suffer and/or die. Red tape and bans kill when it comes to healthcare, without solving anything.
That wouldn’t magically change the death rate, though, which was my point, don’t change the subject. If you’re not smart enough to understand basic math I’m not sure we should even pretend to respect your opinions on things more complicated than that, like basic science
Science points to a foetus being a life- whether or not we value that life is a philosophical, moral and ethical issue. Biological, Physical and Chemical science isn’t the answer to everything.
Why does that matter? If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb due to genetic defects, why would I care about that when I could care about the health of the mother?
If you are absolutely certain the foetus cannot survive, and carrying it to term will give the mother a high probability of dying after giving birth due to physical complications, then an abortion is a valid medical procedure. However, this accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so unless we are arguing against that, it’s not a valid talking point.
I’m saying that red tape and bans gets in the way of that happening for that specific scenario. By your morals, I hold the, “Let 100 guilty people go free before jailing one innocient” stance, also I’m not ok with the government being in charge of deciding when that is appropriate. Thank you for actually treating this like a discussion. I feel like it’s important to have.
Whenever the israelis bomb the buildings, they don’t know for certain there are kids in there. They are just theoretical kids in the moment to them.
More like, Schrodinger’s kids. I genuinely hope you find peace and learn to not let being pro-birth justify letting others suffer and/or die. Red tape and bans kill when it comes to healthcare, without solving anything.
A successful abortion always has at least a 100% fatality rate.
Oh, so the mother’s die every time?
Even under your bad definition it’d be only 50-60% (accounting for the fact that some mothers do die)
That’ll make it 200% if they did
You can’t have a higher than 100% death rate, that means more people died than were involved in what happened
By reasonable definition that’s 1 death: the mother
By your own poor definition it’s 2: mother and fetus
So where are we getting extra from?
The fundamental core issue is: do we count the foetus as a life? If so, there’s no such thing as a “safe abortion”
We do not, simple as, because it’s not
That wouldn’t magically change the death rate, though, which was my point, don’t change the subject. If you’re not smart enough to understand basic math I’m not sure we should even pretend to respect your opinions on things more complicated than that, like basic science
Science points to a foetus being a life- whether or not we value that life is a philosophical, moral and ethical issue. Biological, Physical and Chemical science isn’t the answer to everything.
Why does that matter? If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb due to genetic defects, why would I care about that when I could care about the health of the mother?
If you are absolutely certain the foetus cannot survive, and carrying it to term will give the mother a high probability of dying after giving birth due to physical complications, then an abortion is a valid medical procedure. However, this accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so unless we are arguing against that, it’s not a valid talking point.
I’m saying that red tape and bans gets in the way of that happening for that specific scenario. By your morals, I hold the, “Let 100 guilty people go free before jailing one innocient” stance, also I’m not ok with the government being in charge of deciding when that is appropriate. Thank you for actually treating this like a discussion. I feel like it’s important to have.
Got it I’ll just stop paying my taxes that’ll fix everything
What about when they carefully aim and shoot a child?