4 ms·

> despite all those bogus studies Citation required. Numerous legitimate studies show that limited/no access to abortions leads to more at-home/back-alley abo

• nathanaldensr 4y ago
  > Numerous legitimate studies show that limited/no access to abortions leads to more at-home/back-alley abortions[1,2]. Abortions don't just spontaneously happen. Your style of carefully-worded rhetoric is intentional in that it gives people an impression like they just do. They don't; the mother makes knowing decisions to terminate the life of her child. Now, several states greatly restrict these intentional, knowing, conscious decisions.
  • ryneandal 4y ago
    That's quite the leap. No one is arguing that elective abortions occur spontaneously (because those are miscarriages [1]), hence the moniker pro-CHOICE. And considering pregnancy is often incredibly dangerous[2], not always a consciously made decision[3], and in many cases will bear no fruit (pun intended)[4], there is ample reason to allow someone to make a decision about their pregnancy. 1: https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/abnormalities-of-pregnancy/spontaneous-abortion https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obs... 2: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020... 3: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/understanding-RRP-inUS.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/unders... 4: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298#:~:text=About%2010%20to%2020%20percent%20of%20known%20pregnancies%20end%20in%20miscarriage.%20But%20the%20actual%20number%20is%20likely%20higher%20because%20many%20miscarriages%20occur%20very%20early%20in%20pregnancy%20%E2%80%94%20before%20you%20might%20even%20know%20about%20a%20pregnancy https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-los....
• cato_the_elder 4y ago
  I looked at the abstracts of the references you provided, and the first two seem to share the general biases of these kind of studies. The first Lancet one has this as a finding: > The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05) They don't seem to have corrected for other factors like rule of law, income, and level of economic development. The second Lancet one also suffers from the same issue (though at least acknowledge the rule if income), and the authors reveal their biases very soon: > We developed a new statistical model that jointly estimated unintended pregnancy and abortion that aimed to better inform efforts towards global equity in sexual and reproductive health and rights. The last one's [1] conclusions seem like they could be broadly correct. If no abortion is allowed at all, you'd expect more maternal deaths. However, the actual amount is disputable as this is based on modelling not concrete data. Additionally, they seem to be assuming a total ban on abortion, which doesn't seem realistic to me. > But go off and pat yourself on the back for fetuses having more value than the incubation receptacle they're within. Finally, we need to avoid personal attacks if we are going to have a fruitful discussion. [1]: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7g29k https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7g29k
  • ryneandal 4y ago
    So you're dismissing the studies because they don't meet your arbitrary metrics. No reason to continue further.