• 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

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                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.

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

                  Science points to a foetus being a life

                  No, science absolutely does not point to a fetus being “a life”

                  Biological, Physical and Chemical science isn’t the answer to everything.

                  True, but when you clearly don’t understand them at all (as you proved with your laughable statement in that very comment) then you also don’t have the answer, as they’re relevant to the discussion