"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Mechanisburg]

And why would the 14-fold increase account for foetal death, when the study is on maternal mortality?

Because then it is not counting the tens of thousands killed in abortion procedures intentionally.

Are you saying the foetuses are pregnant mothers?

If not, why would any person with two neurons to bang together include them in a study about maternal mortality?

[Hashirajima]

And why would the 14-fold increase account for foetal death, when the study is on maternal mortality?

Because then it is not counting the tens of thousands killed in abortion procedures intentionally.

Allow me to to repeat myself: The study is on...

wait for it...

MATERNAL MORTALITY

There is literally NO USE for foetal death figures because that is NOT the POINT OF THE STUDY!

If you were doing a research on foetal death rates in abortions (lemme help you here, 100%), THEN you would use foetal death figures.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I doubt that "14-fold increase in death" accounts for the death of the fetus.

And the death of the foetus would be relevant in a study about relative mortality of pregnancy vs abortion, why... ?

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

[Mechanisburg]

And the death of the foetus would be relevant in a study about relative mortality of pregnancy vs abortion, why... ?

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

MATERNAL mortality.

The foetuses are irrelevant.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

MATERNAL mortality.

The foetuses are irrelevant.

You just said mortality.

800 people die from pregnancy, compared to 664,000 from abortions.

Seems like abortions kill more than pregnancy to me.

[Neutraligon]

And the death of the foetus would be relevant in a study about relative mortality of pregnancy vs abortion, why... ?

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

And why is that relevant to a study about maternal mortality?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

And why is that relevant to a study about maternal mortality?

The poster said nothing about maternal mortality, they said mortality.

[Mechanisburg]

MATERNAL mortality.

The foetuses are irrelevant.

You just said mortality.

800 people die from pregnancy, compared to 664,000 from abortions.

Seems like abortions kill more than pregnancy to me.

Dreadfully sorry. I assumed, mistakenly, that you would have been able to garner the meaning of my phrase from context, or that you would have followed the link to read at least the abstract of the study, or that you might have listened to the three people telling you foetal deaths were irrelevant in a study about maternal mortality.

Here are the relevant parts of the abstract, for your convenience.

RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

[Neutraligon]

MATERNAL mortality.

The foetuses are irrelevant.

You just said mortality.

800 people die from pregnancy, compared to 664,000 from abortions.

Seems like abortions kill more than pregnancy to me.

Are you unable to follow a line of discussion. This entire damned time we have been talking about the risk of pregnancy to the mother. Risks which by the way include far more then just dying.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You just said mortality.

800 people die from pregnancy, compared to 664,000 from abortions.

Seems like abortions kill more than pregnancy to me.

Are you unable to follow a line of discussion. This entire damned time we have been talking about the risk of pregnancy to the mother. Risks which by the way include far more then just dying.

And I say 664,000 deaths is worse than the collective complications of every pregnancy in the country.

[Luminesa]

You just said mortality.

800 people die from pregnancy, compared to 664,000 from abortions.

Seems like abortions kill more than pregnancy to me.

Dreadfully sorry. I assumed, mistakenly, that you would have been able to garner the meaning of my phrase from context, or that you would have followed the link to read at least the abstract of the study, or that you might have listened to the three people telling you foetal deaths were irrelevant in a study about maternal mortality.

Here's the relevant parts of the abstract, for your convenience.

RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

Sure, less mothers might die from abortions than pregnancies, but more humans overall die from abortions than pregnancies.

[Hashirajima]

Dreadfully sorry. I assumed, mistakenly, that you would have been able to garner the meaning of my phrase from context, or that you would have followed the link to read at least the abstract of the study, or that you might have listened to the three people telling you foetal deaths were irrelevant in a study about maternal mortality.

Here's the relevant parts of the abstract, for your convenience.

Sure, less mothers might die from abortions than pregnancies, but more humans overall die from abortions than pregnancies.

Lum. Do yourself a favour and read up this thread. Trust me, you would want to.

[Mechanisburg]

Are you unable to follow a line of discussion. This entire damned time we have been talking about the risk of pregnancy to the mother. Risks which by the way include far more then just dying.

And I say 664,000 deaths is worse than the collective complications of every pregnancy in the country.

And I say those 664'000 deaths are not nearly enough. No foetus should be born.

What right do you have to impose your viewpoint on the world, by removing the rights of women? Do tell. I bet it would allow me to do the same.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And I say 664,000 deaths is worse than the collective complications of every pregnancy in the country.

And I say those 664'000 deaths are not nearly enough. No foetus should be born.

What right do you have to impose your viewpoint on the world, by removing the rights of women? Do tell. I bet it would allow me to do the same.

Then I think you're most likely evil for wanting to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[Neutraligon]

Are you unable to follow a line of discussion. This entire damned time we have been talking about the risk of pregnancy to the mother. Risks which by the way include far more then just dying.

And I say 664,000 deaths is worse than the collective complications of every pregnancy in the country.

Not your decision to make for the woman who are actually facing the risks. The only person who can decide if she is willing to face the risks is the woman. Any attempt you make to "save the lives just place more in danger as women take matters into their own hands. Hope you enjoy the deaths of both on your hands.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And I say 664,000 deaths is worse than the collective complications of every pregnancy in the country.

Not your decision to make for the woman who are actually facing the risks. The only person who can decide if she is willing to face the risks is the woman. Any attempt you make to "save the lives just place more in danger as women take matters into their own hands. Hope you enjoy the deaths of both on your hands.

Fewer people would die, so I would take it.

[Mechanisburg]

Dreadfully sorry. I assumed, mistakenly, that you would have been able to garner the meaning of my phrase from context, or that you would have followed the link to read at least the abstract of the study, or that you might have listened to the three people telling you foetal deaths were irrelevant in a study about maternal mortality.

Here's the relevant parts of the abstract, for your convenience.

Sure, less mothers might die from abortions than pregnancies, but more humans overall die from abortions than pregnancies.

Ok. Do you want no more abortions to happen?

I have a humble proposal.

Mandatory sterilization following sperm cryostorage, for all fertile men, should be put in place to avoid this genocide of unborn babies.

There are a few reasons for this proposal:

• We already know that banning abortion won't be enough to stop it, just putting it underground;
• This proposal, on the contrary, would completely put a stop to unwanted pregnancies;
• No unborn babies would be affected by this bill, but grown 11-years old boys who certainly can take a little Burdizzo;
• This investment would be a long term one, greatly improving health and crime rates after an initial slump.

The only problems I can see with this, beyond the obvious (having to create all-female castration squads, finding the money to pay and equip them), is the fact the right to bodily autonomy of all men would be infringed on in the name of the Great Cause: but luckily, even if it goes directly against the right to bodily integrity/autonomy this is not enshrined in the US Constitution, and there's already precedent for its violation in the form of this, and other abortion bills - this one subordinating the right of the mother to the will of the father.

This bill might be criticized because it unfairly targets men: but even if men are unwilling to go through such a simple operation like bilateral orchidectomy - and for the life of me I can't think of any good reason - this bill only targets men because sterilizing them is easier and cheaper, their genitals and gonads being easily accessed.

[Ifreann]

And the death of the foetus would be relevant in a study about relative mortality of pregnancy vs abortion, why... ?

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

Debatable. If we're counting the unborn as people, untold millions are dying by failing to implant in the uterine wall, or implanting but dying in some other way before the pregnancy is noticed. Every time a woman has her period after unprotected sex, or sex where the protection failed, the tampons or pads she disposes of could well be the final resting place a still microscopic human being.

[Salandriagado]

False. One of the first things first aiders are taught: Do NOT risk yourself to save someone's life. You'll more likely then not just end up creating two casualties.

The risk is already small. You could argue that you are risking your life tending to a bleeding man, because you are at risk of HIV or some other bloodborne pathogen.

Small is non-zero. You are risking your life tending to a bleeding man. Which is why we don't force people to do that.

As for your answer, Neutraligon, doctors are often required to take risks to give care to patients.

But they consent to doing so.

[Mechanisburg]

And I say those 664'000 deaths are not nearly enough. No foetus should be born.

What right do you have to impose your viewpoint on the world, by removing the rights of women? Do tell. I bet it would allow me to do the same.

Then I think you're most likely evil for wanting to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

But that's irrelevant to the question I asked. How do you have the right to impose your viewpoint on the world, by removing the rights of women? I am very interested in knowing this - it would likely allow me to do the same with mandatory abortions.

[Neutraligon]

And I say those 664'000 deaths are not nearly enough. No foetus should be born.

What right do you have to impose your viewpoint on the world, by removing the rights of women? Do tell. I bet it would allow me to do the same.

Then I think you're most likely evil for wanting to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

And I think you are evil for forcing women to take on risks they do not wish against their will. I think you are evil since you making abortions illegal will simply place the mother in more danger as she uses back ally abortions or self abortions, while the rich women get to go off to some other country to have an abortion. I think you are evil since clearly the decisions of the mother and the body of the mother are less important then what is essentially a parasite.

[Hashirajima]

Not your decision to make for the woman who are actually facing the risks. The only person who can decide if she is willing to face the risks is the woman. Any attempt you make to "save the lives just place more in danger as women take matters into their own hands. Hope you enjoy the deaths of both on your hands.

Fewer people would die, so I would take it.

Feel free to take the option for yourself. Doesn't give you the right to impose it on the unwilling.

And if you are thinking of using the same old I'm-not-even-counting-how-many-times-you-used-it "But it is morally right" point to counter this:
YOU *THINK* it's morally right.
You are human. Therefore you are not infallible. Therefore you may be wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

Debatable. If we're counting the unborn as people, untold millions are dying by failing to implant in the uterine wall, or implanting but dying in some other way before the pregnancy is noticed. Every time a woman has her period after unprotected sex, or sex where the protection failed, the tampons or pads she disposes of could well be the final resting place a still microscopic human being.

And I accept that as being the case. There's not really anything we can do about that.

[Mechanisburg]

Because it would add to the mortality rate of abortions.

Far more human beings die in abortion procedures in the United States than throughout the process of pregnancy.

Debatable. If we're counting the unborn as people, untold millions are dying by failing to implant in the uterine wall, or implanting but dying in some other way before the pregnancy is noticed. Every time a woman has her period after unprotected sex, or sex where the protection failed, the tampons or pads she disposes of could well be the final resting place a still microscopic human being.

Extremely debatable. I linked upthread to a source pointing out at about 50% of implantations ending in spontaneous abortion.

[Salandriagado]

Seems to me they cannot be forced to take the risk. Although...funny thing they are not striking about risk they are striking for better wages. Oh and I thought it would be pretty clear this was talking about in the US.

Then police officers are not allowed to go on strike. They are required to work.

Soldiers are also required to take risks against their ongoing will, and in the old days, against their will entirely.

Nope. They can quit whenever they like, within the bounds of practicality. Might involve a less than honourable discharge, but they can quit.