• Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Those two examples are wildly different from eachother. One is a medical procedure involving theoretical children, and the other has real kids getting injured and killed.

    Edit: wanted to add that the medical procedure is always to prevent a major health issue when being funded by state taxes.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          24 hours ago

          A successful abortion always has at least a 100% fatality rate.

          • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            14 hours ago

            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?

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              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.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            24 hours ago

            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)

              • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 hours ago

                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?

                • Flax@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  The fundamental core issue is: do we count the foetus as a life? If so, there’s no such thing as a “safe abortion”

                  • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    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