Sure you can:
1)-read the article
Sure you can:
1)-read the article
Some would argue that all 55K were for the mother’s health. Or, at least, you can bet that there will be doctors willing to say that any given abortion he does will be for the his client’s health – be it financial health, emotional health, or some other “health” factor.
It’s a great deflection point, to harp on the word “thousands”.
More to the point, has there been ANY?
its not reasonable to assume at all
I don’t know the numbers, I don’t have the research at the tips of my fingers, but, I don’t believe that 100 mother’s aborted their babies due to their health in ant state.
I’ve made it to a ripe age and I have know 1 mother in my lifetime that would fit that criteria and she gave her life for her child. She was diagnosed with brain cancer while she was pregnant and decided to to save her child’s life and take her chances waiting to be treated. She did pass when her son was 4 months old. Women who “want” their babies don’t kill them.
I don’t believe that many of you honestly believe that 99% of abortions are not performed out of convenience. It is a stain on our society.
I won’t disagree that the health of the mother may be just an excuse for many. But not for all 55,000.
Today that’s the case. But when “health” becomes the easy exception to a stricter ban, doctors will come out of the woodwork willing to sign off on all sorts of creative “health” reasons to keep their abortion businesses flowing.
It is until you provide some stats proving different.
In the absence of data, any assumption could be reasonable to one person or another. And the argument subsequently shifts from the assumption to the definition of “reasonable”. And that argument won’t be worth the time it takes to engage it.
Right now, with the legality of abortion on demand, no reason needs to be given. Thus there is no need to couch one’s decision to abort in any legal pigeonhole like “mother’s health”.
A lot of this discussion point came from my assertion that “Some would argue that all 55K were for the mother’s health.” Once stricter limits on “on-demand” abortions get set, the exception clauses will become battlegrounds. Any abortion could be argued necessary (whether ethically so or not) for the mother’s health. Maybe she says she can’t tolerate morning sickness. Maybe stretch marks threaten her career. Maybe a doctor would certify that the baby would threaten her financial health. Or emotional health. Or maybe her baby daddy threatens to leave her.
I wasn’t saying that any of the 55K in 2017 were specifically for the mother’s health. I was suggesting that in the future, when “health” is an exception, any abortion could still be legally justified. And once that’s in place, THEN we will start getting data about that category.
I get what your saying and don’t disagree that people will ‘adjust’ their perspective to get what they want however the rules are written (remember the Mom that used to say, “Tell them you’re 12”).
That said, I suspect the number is out there somewhere already (or somebody’s best guess), but I haven’t seen it… nor am I inclined to try to find it since it’s not readily available.
Using the maternal death rate (inflated) of 19 per 1,000 live births, we get 1,045.
That appeared quite high.
The National Center for Health Statistics reported 658 maternal deaths, 277 late maternal deaths, and 3,791,712 live births in 2018, yielding an maternal mortality rate of 17.4 per 100,000 live births and a late maternal mortality rate of 7.2 per 100,000 live births.8
So that would make only about 10.
Yeah, 19 is high. They played with how they are coded to get the numbers they wanted. Even using the bigger number, it’s not high.
WHO estimates that in a developed region what they consider an unsafe abortion will result in 30 deaths of the women for every 100,000 abortions. In undeveloped regions that rate rises to 220 per 100,000.
Maternal deaths don’t tell us how many abortions are done for the sake of the mother’s health.
At best it tells us who did NOT get an abortion, else they would not have died from childbirth.
It tells us how many mothers die trying to carry to term. Which gives us an idea of how many times a woman’s life is in danger.
A woman who aborts her baby for convenience is not a “mother”.
That was how I was looking at it.
Knew a family that ALMOST lost the Mom due to AME. Amniotic embolism. Barely saved her. Lost her leg. Many surgeries afterward. Almost impossible to detect and prevent.
Maternal death. The number of women who die of amniotic fluid embolism (mortality rate) is very high. The numbers vary, but as many as 20 percent of maternal deaths in developed countries may be due to amniotic fluid embolisms.
You think an abortion would prevent the maternal death for that diagnosis?
No. That is 20% of the maternal fatalities we do have.
Just like a lynch mob aren’t “neighbors”.