Texas bans abortion.

[Warp12]

I proposed in a recent comment risks of twice or ten times the risk of death of terminating the pregnancy as options for him to choose from. To be fair, it's totally a "trap" since that falls well below the estimated increase in risk of death if choosing to go to term.

Based on 2018 data, the overall death rate per live births was 0.0174%. Or, 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births.

What is the estimated risk of death to the fetus if an abortion is performed? Do we have any hard numbers on that?

 

[lobosrul5]

Based on 2018 data, the overall death rate per live births was 0.0174%. Or, 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births.

What is the estimated risk of death to the fetus if an abortion is performed? Do we have any hard numbers on that?

Thats an irrelevant statistic. It includes normal uncomplicated pregnancies and pregnancies terminated because of a serious complication thereby lowering the overall risk of pregnancy. But its rather meaningless for someone facing a complication with a (for example) 50/50 risk of death to say "well overall death due to pregnancy/birthing has become quite rare so just suck it up princess".

 

[Warp12]

Thats an irrelevant statistic. It includes normal uncomplicated pregnancies and pregnancies terminated because of a serious complication thereby lowering the overall risk of pregnancy. But its rather meaningless for someone facing a complication with a (for example) 50/50 risk of death to say "well overall death due to pregnancy/birthing has become quite rare so just suck it up princess".

Yeah, math doesn't matter. Good argument.

 

[lobosrul5]

Yeah, math doesn't matter. Good argument.

1+1=2! That matters! Also completely ******* irrelevant to the argument just like the statistic you referenced.

 

[Warp12]

1+1=2! That matters! Also completely ******* irrelevant to the argument just like the statistic you referenced.

Based on 2018 data, the overall death rate per live births was 0.0174%. Or, 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births.

What is the estimated risk of death to the fetus if an abortion is performed? Do we have any hard numbers on that?

Math is your friend.

Any estimate on the risk of death to the fetus if an abortion is performed? Just shoot from the hip, if you will.

 

[catsmate]

It certainly isn't grounded in science since siblings do share DNA, but not from each other. They share DNA that they each inherited from their parents. Thus they are literally part of their parents, but not part of each other. Simple logic and biology.

It's also complete, ignorant, bollocks. (The "50% DNA in common with sibling" bit).

Any given human has >80% of their DNA in common with any given cow, >60% with an average fruit-fly or banana, ~90% with cats and ~98.7% with chimps and bonobos (curiously we have ~1.6% common with one and not the other).

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I thought the genetic contributions of the parents were 50/50.

Is your statement considering mitochondrial DNA in the mix?

Just asking out of curiosity, not to make a point.

Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited through the mother line; and it does differ from person to person, allowing for accurate ancestry research. So yeah, you should count it in terms of genetic familiarity.
And, in the case of a male embryo, the mother's X-chromosome is larger than the father's Y-chromosome.

 

[catsmate]

I thought the genetic contributions of the parents were 50/50.

Is your statement considering mitochondrial DNA in the mix?

Just asking out of curiosity, not to make a point.

Of the ~1.3% of our DNA that is "human" (to simplify) somewhat more is inherited from the mother. As you say it's down to the mitochondria, organelles that live within your cells which you only receive from your mother.

 

[lobosrul5]

Math is your friend.

Any estimate on the risk of death to the fetus if an abortion is performed? Just shoot from the hip, if you will.

For 2018, the maternal mortality rate is 17.4 per 100,000 live births in the United States.

The overall maternal death rate is irrelevant to women facing serious life threatening complications. Its also a number that is lower than it would have been if abortions weren't offered in such cases.

The fact that a fetus dies when an abortion is performed, is again, irrelevant to your referenced statistic. Its 1 per 1, btw, happy?

 

[Warp12]

It's also complete, ignorant, bollocks. (The "50% DNA in common with sibling" bit).

Any given human has >80% of their DNA in common with any given cow, >60% with an average fruit-fly or banana, ~90% with cats and ~98.7% with chimps and bonobos (curiously we have ~1.6% common with one and not the other).

I am pretty sure they are referring to 50% of the unique DNA. Not what we have in common with chimps. I figured this to be obvious, but apparently to some it is not.

 

[catsmate]

I proposed in a recent comment risks of twice or ten times the risk of death of terminating the pregnancy as options for him to choose from. To be fair, it's totally a "trap" since that falls well below the estimated increase in risk of death if choosing to go to term.

I offered options from a 25% to an 800% increase. Naturally neither he, Warp12 nor that other anti-abortion poster (whose name I forget) deigned to answer.

It is interesting that the real increase in death rate is approximately 15x (depending on access to medical services).

 

[catsmate]

Thats an irrelevant statistic. It includes normal uncomplicated pregnancies and pregnancies terminated because of a serious complication thereby lowering the overall risk of pregnancy. But its rather meaningless for someone facing a complication with a (for example) 50/50 risk of death to say "well overall death due to pregnancy/birthing has become quite rare so just suck it up princess".

It's also badly out of date and (I suspect) deliberately cherry-picked. The most recent maternal death rate in the USA is 20.1 (per 100k) which is shockingly high for the "developed" world. We're concerned when it gets over 2.

 

[JoeMorgue]

1+1=2! That matters! Also completely ******* irrelevant to the argument just like the statistic you referenced.

You know what this thread needs? Jabba.

 

[Warp12]

I offered options from a 25% to an 800% increase. Naturally neither he, Warp12 nor that other anti-abortion poster (whose name I forget) deigned to answer.

Who cares about the percentage increase? The total number is what is important. With the 2018 number of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births, is it really significant?

I mean, hey there is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth on a Wednesday, but it is 800x that on a Sunday. Who cares?

 

[psionl0]

Perhaps there is a rejoinder to my point below, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

So why do identical twins have their own individual personhood? They are lacking the attribute you propose for personhood - unique DNA - compared to each other. By that rationale, we should consider them the same person. What is the rationale that gives them separate personhood compared to each other?

There are too many angry dictionary bashers here for me to have a sensible discussion about individual or separate "personhood". Suffice to say that even if identical twins have identical DNA, their DNA is still human, unique and different from that of either their mother or father. Exactly what makes them separate individuals is probably beyond my level of biological knowledge.

Rather than unique DNA, isn't it the physical separateness that defines personhood? When you said it's a separate living thing, you really meant unique, I suppose, because a fetus is literally not separate - it is physically attached to the mother, until birth.

As I understand it, the unbiblical cord transports nourishment to the growing zygote/embryo/foetus. Whether that means that it is still just a part of the mother or something different (remember it still has its own DNA and chromosomes) is something for the battle of the dictionaries to resolve.

 

[lobosrul5]

Who cares about the percentage increase? The total number is what is important. With the 2018 number of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births, is it really significant?

I mean, hey there is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth on a Wednesday, but it is 800x that on a Sunday. Who cares?

Dude what in the actual ****? Are you being intentionally obtuse are do you actually not understand statistics? 17.4 per 100,000 is meaningless to A SPECIFIC PERSON with a much much higher chance of death. It would be like hearing a loud bang on an airplane, looking out the window and upon seeing the engine on fire, the guy next to you says "lol don't worry there's only like a 1 per 100,000 risk of death when traveling by jet".

 

[Warp12]

Dude what in the actual ****? Are you being intentionally obtuse are do you actually not understand statistics? 17.4 per 100,000 is meaningless to A SPECIFIC PERSON with a much much higher chance of death. It would be like hearing a loud bang on an airplane, looking out the window and upon seeing the engine on fire, the guy next to you says "lol don't worry there's only like a 1 per 100,000 risk of death when traveling by jet".

Completely incorrect. The whining from liberals in this thread is about the increased chance of death from carrying a baby to term. It is obviously very, very small in real numbers of dead people.

I don't care about your diabetic leukemia patient who got pregnant after a wild night on the town. That is the outlier, not the norm.

 

[cosmicaug]

If you go back you will see that any mention of even personal accountability is generally scoffed at, much less responsibility.

If I go back, you are extremely vague & unwilling to clearly define what "accountability" is supposed to mean. The one post you point us to to prove your clarity could even be saying something no different than what anyone else is saying. It is not clear.

The idea of proactive vs reactive measures is also ridiculed. Instead, people say things like, "you want to punish women for having sex". It is ridiculous.

I have pointed out (as have others) that if "accountability" does not include the use of abortion as a tool, then we are probably talking about some weird notion of punishment (punishing those sluts for having sex). It is not clear that you are communicating anything meaningful at all by "accountability" but your lack of clarity was easy to misconstrue as this. Later you seem to have clarified that abortion is such a tool (if so, I am not even sure what you are arguing about).

Other than that, your presumed attempts at dialogue on the proactive vs reactive theme would seem to suggest that you have some notion that it is a popular position (at least on this forum) that contraception should be discouraged in order to expose as many women as possible to the joys of abortion. You seem to be arguing against this. I am not sure where you got this idea.

 

[sphenisc]

There are too many angry dictionary bashers here for me to have a sensible discussion about individual or separate "personhood". Suffice to say that even if identical twins have identical DNA, their DNA is still human, unique and different from that of either their mother or father. Exactly what makes them separate individuals is probably beyond my level of biological knowledge.

As I understand it, the unbiblical cord transports nourishment to the growing zygote/embryo/foetus. Whether that means that it is still just a part of the mother or something different (remember it still has its own DNA and chromosomes) is something for the battle of the dictionaries to resolve.

Oh boy... you've done it now...

 

[cosmicaug]

I offered options from a 25% to an 800% increase. Naturally neither he, Warp12 nor that other anti-abortion poster (whose name I forget) deigned to answer.

It is interesting that the real increase in death rate is approximately 15x (depending on access to medical services).

To be clear (for their benefit), a doubling in risk is a 100% increase in risk. 15x is a 1400% increase in risk.