Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[Timothy17]

But you have not even attempted to navigate the actual logic. All your analogies involve crimes or assaults upon other persons. Reproductive rights is about protecting one's own right to their own body.

Now, I can anticipate a response about the fetus's "rights": but a fetus' full-fledged humanity is not an issue on which we can all agree.

Whereas we do all agree that sexual assault, theft, etc are attacks on another fully-fledged human being.

Fully-fleged human being? I am curious, what determines that? I know, for instance, that in times past what the law presumes to be a fully-fleged human being can be pretty perverted; take, for instance, slavery or the status of women or fascist notions in regards to race superiority, etc. In fact, the justification for such discrimination was often supported by the intelligencia who liked to spin and pervert science or theories (e.g., Darwinism) to justify their deplorable practices. Now, if tomorrow a study were to be released that said a human is a human at the moment of conception, would every single abortion then be murder? What if psychologists determine that we are not "fully-fledged" human beings until the age of, oh, three? Is the fact the child is breathing, crying, smiling evidence enough? Or does it require a "fully-fleged" ability to reason in order to qualify as a member of the human race?

No, a human fetus is a human being exactly because the human fetus is living and destined to become a human being. The very fact that an intervention is required to prevent the fetus from becoming a "fully-fledged" human being proves what it is.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Timothy17

[bloodyminded]

Fully-fleged human being? I am curious, what determines that? I know, for instance, that in times past what the law presumes to be a fully-fleged human being can be pretty perverted; take, for instance, slavery or the status of women or fascist notions in regards to race superiority, etc. In fact, the justification for such discrimination was often supported by the intelligencia who liked to spin and pervert science or theories (e.g., Darwinism) to justify their deplorable practices. Now, if tomorrow a study were to be released that said a human is a human at the moment of conception, would every single abortion then be murder? What if psychologists determine that we are not "fully-fledged" human beings until the age of, oh, three? Is the fact the child is breathing, crying, smiling evidence enough? Or does it require a "fully-fleged" ability to reason in order to qualify as a member of the human race?

No, a human fetus is a human being exactly because the human fetus is living and destined to become a human being. The very fact that an intervention is required to prevent the fetus from becoming a "fully-fledged" human being proves what it is and meant to be.

But this is not the argument here. The argument is that we do not all agree that a fetus is a human being. (You disagree; and many people do. I understand that.) On the other hand, all of us do agree that stealing from someone, or, worse, raping them, per your analogies, is an assault on another human being.

The difference here is that of parameters of discussion: we can all agree on this, but we cannot all agree on the other; therefore, they're poor analogies.

They're not poor analogies to you; again, I get that. But a discussion is a two-way street.

[Timothy17]

But this is not the argument here. The argument is that we do not all agree that a fetus is a human being. (You disagree; and many people do. I understand that.) On the other hand, all of us do agree that stealing from someone, or, worse, raping them, per your analogies, is an assault on another human being.

No, I undermined your logic by demonstrating that a human life is not subject to human opinion, and I provided historical reference for when the life of humans was subjected to human fallacy; namely, in justifications for the practice of slavery and in genocide justified by racist arguments.

The difference here is that of parameters of discussion: we can all agree on this, but we cannot all agree on the other; therefore, they're poor analogies.

Alright, but if I provided scientific data combined with a philosophical treatise that powerfully argued arbitrary qualifiers for what should define a human being, would your notion that "we all agree" be undermined? Are mentally unstable or challenged or incapacitated people truly "fully-fledged" human beings? Does it matter if they are "fully-fledged"? Should not the fact they are human be enough? But if I argued that the above people were not "fully-fledged human beings", and backed up my opinions with evidence, would their status as "fully-fledged human beings" be undermined? Indeed it would, because I would have provided evidence to support an opinion that the popular notion of what is a "fully-fledged human being" is somehow erroneous. And, that being done, would the question that all human beings have rights be jeopardized? Yes it would, exactly because we subjected the qualifications for human life, and the right there-to, to human opinion, which is ever prone to fallacy and error, as we have seen with the justifications for slavery and genocide, for example.

I am arguing that "opinion" is irrelevant to a human's right to life. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of right and wrong, no different than rape or theft is not a matter of opinion. I would hope that, regardless of even the finest sophistry people would resist any rationalizations for rape or theft becoming morally acceptable, and especially from becoming objective rights. We know that undoubtedly there is powerful temptation to rape or steal; nonetheless, we resist it. Abortion, likewise, should be resisted, not only because it robs a human of life, but also because it endangers all of us when we subject the right to life to arbitrary human opinions or qualifications.

[Molly]

You are correct. They are not forbidden..completely. But the amount of abortions that are approved would be miniscule.

So it wouldn't cost much at all to maintain a policy consistent with national law, and the money would all be spent saving lives....

Or should it just be the Canadian pervue to simply say, "Too bad, Darlin'. Canadian politicians have decided that it would be immoral to save your life, so you are just going to have to suck it up and die." to women less wealthy than ourselves? (What a vicious 'let them eat cake' policy and justification!)

[M.Dancer]

Or should it just be the Canadian pervue to simply say, "Too bad, Darlin'. Canadian politicians have decided that it would be immoral to save your life, so you are just going to have to suck it up and die." to women less wealthy than ourselves? (What a vicious 'let them eat cake' policy and justification!)

No the Canadian postion should be we are allocating 100% of the funds to mothers...

[bloodyminded]

No, I undermined your logic by demonstrating that a human life is not subject to human opinion, and I provided historical reference for when the life of humans was subjected to human fallacy; namely, in justifications for the practice of slavery and in genocide justified by racist arguments.

Alright, but if I provided scientific data combined with a philosophical treatise that powerfully argued arbitrary qualifiers for what should define a human being, would your notion that "we all agree" be undermined? Are mentally unstable or challenged or incapacitated people truly "fully-fledged" human beings? Does it matter if they are "fully-fledged"? Should not the fact they are human be enough? But if I argued that the above people were not "fully-fledged human beings", and backed up my opinions with evidence, would their status as "fully-fledged human beings" be undermined? Indeed it would, because I would have provided evidence to support an opinion that the popular notion of what is a "fully-fledged human being" is somehow erroneous. And, that being done, would the question that all human beings have rights be jeopardized? Yes it would, exactly because we subjected the qualifications for human life, and the right there-to, to human opinion, which is ever prone to fallacy and error, as we have seen with the justifications for slavery and genocide, for example.

I am arguing that "opinion" is irrelevant to a human's right to life. It is not a matter of opinion but a matter of right and wrong, no different than rape or theft is not a matter of opinion. I would hope that, regardless of even the finest sophistry people would resist any rationalizations for rape or theft becoming morally acceptable, and especially from becoming objective rights. We know that undoubtedly there is powerful temptation to rape or steal; nonetheless, we resist it. Abortion, likewise, should be resisted, not only because it robs a human of life, but also because it endangers all of us when we subject the right to life to arbitrary human opinions or qualifications.

You are making several grievous errors. First of all, you're assuming, again, that we all agree with you on the status of the fetus. We decidedly do not.

Your stance is this: My "opinion" is irrelevant to our discussion; whereas you are not offering an "opinion," but merely reporting the facts.

In fact, if we can agree on any point here, this is the one: that we do not all agree on your premise.

And you know this is true. We agree on this. Unlike your hypothesis about "scientific data combined with a philosophical treatise," sometime in the future, perhaps, this (the fact that we don't agree) is a real-world, existing-in-the-present-reality trusim.

Surely to Godzilla we can agree on this single point, if no other.

Now, running with your speculation, what if some profound "scientific data" coupled "with a philosophical treatise" informed us unequivocally that you were wrong? Well, the answer is that it doesn't matter; you have already determined, with pure surety, that a fetus is to be categorized as a human being, even as you raise the spectre of new science and philosophy--which so far hasn't been able to settle the matter--that potentially could prove it.

In other words, you rely on a "what-if" hypothesis that you presume would undermine my argument; yet you don't rely at all on this hypothesis to hold to your own argument. You also summon slavery and eugenics, in the same manner as the (discredited) Jonah Goldberg thesis tried to paint liberals as the heirs of fascism.

Of course, I could summon the dicatorial ethos of some societies that do not allow women freedom of choice. And this would be a good argument by your standards here.

[Molly]

No the Canadian postion should be we are allocating 100% of the funds to mothers...

And a maternal health policy that includes abortion would not be in conflict with that position.

[M.Dancer]

And a maternal health policy that includes abortion would not be in conflict with that position.

So childless woman would be excluded from abortions then?

No she's quite maternal, she aborted everyone one of her kids...[/

indent]

[Muddy]

So we are talking about Africa and how we should be forcing those societies to accept abortion as normal rights. Is that correct? If so what right do we have entering their culture and telling them how wrong they are when it comes to womens rights.Africa is underpopulated at this moment in history. Do we want to force our norms on a people who find abortion sinful? Are we trying to control Black Africa`s population ? We won`t stand up to what we percieve as terrible practices of forced marriage and female circumscion but we think we should dictate abortion rights? I don`t appreciate people coming into my house and saying my life style is wrong! Why should Africans feel any different?

[Timothy17]

You are making several grievous errors. First of all, you're assuming, again, that we all agree with you on the status of the fetus. We decidedly do not.

Your stance is this: My "opinion" is irrelevant to our discussion; whereas you are not offering an "opinion," but merely reporting the facts.

In fact, if we can agree on any point here, this is the one: that we do not all agree on your premise.

And you know this is true. We agree on this. Unlike your hypothesis about "scientific data combined with a philosophical treatise," sometime in the future, perhaps, this (the fact that we don't agree) is a real-world, existing-in-the-present-reality trusim.

Surely to Godzilla we can agree on this single point, if no other.

Now, running with your speculation, what if some profound "scientific data" coupled "with a philosophical treatise" informed us unequivocally that you were wrong? Well, the answer is that it doesn't matter; you have already determined, with pure surety, that a fetus is to be categorized as a human being, even as you raise the spectre of new science and philosophy--which so far hasn't been able to settle the matter--that potentially could prove it.

In other words, you rely on a "what-if" hypothesis that you presume would undermine my argument; yet you don't rely at all on this hypothesis to hold to your own argument. You also summon slavery and eugenics, in the same manner as the (discredited) Jonah Goldberg thesis tried to paint liberals as the heirs of fascism.

Of course, I could summon the dicatorial ethos of some societies that do not allow women freedom of choice. And this would be a good argument by your standards here.

My argument is not a pure "what-if" hypothesis. My hypothesis rests on the well known phenomenon of history repeating itself, and the hope that, from witnessing trial and error, we would not make the same mistakes. One justification for eugenics was based on a philosophical treatise coupled with scientific theory; namely, Nietzshe's idea of the "uber-mensch" combined with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Perversion as that combination was, it was still enough justification for some to undermine an entire race's right to life, and categorically deprive other persons of it too. Now, again, this new phenomenom of imagining a woman is not pregnant when she becomes pregnant; that, in fact, she is somehow only "a little pregnant" with something that may not be "human" permits another mass genocide of sorts; namely, abortion.

Frankly, abortion does not have a moral leg to stand on, and so novelties like trying to determine when a human fetus becomes truly a human being must be employed in order to create the appearance of an argument. This screams of post-rationalization: something wrong was done and now we must race to produce some argument to make it okay, or at least create an exception to the rule.

So, no, I won't enter into a debate about whether or not a human fetus is a human being, anymore than you would entertain a debate about whether or not a slave is truly a person or a Jew truly a human being. That people have in times past entertained such ideas resulted in unimaginable suffering on one hand, and mass slaughter on the other, and that is reason enough to oppose it.

[waldo]

No, you are reigning psychic..

If you have stats that are apropos to Africa, now id the time to present them. Barring that, we are left to assume that 94% out of 100 abortions would be forbidden in 90% of africa

I wouldn't have expected that the 'vaunted' Dancer rigor would have settled for U.S. stats published on a Canadian web-site... and presuming to extrapolate them to apply to Africa. Your rigor also seems to have settled into some suggestion that only a few countries in Africa allow legal abortions to the strictest categorizations you highlight (i.e. your statistics most broad and generalized designation of "Woman has health problem")... which is not the case, according to the same source attributed to the stats you offered (Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH) and the Guttmacher Institute - concerning the legality of abortion in Africa: source document here).

note: the qualification added to 'Reason #3', reads: "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health". Accordingly, following your penchant for across the board sweeping statistical designation:

- one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for 30 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reasons #3, 4, 5 & 6": Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

- of course, even if we adhere to the strictest of your designations (i.e. "Woman has health problem"), we could also say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for an additional 9 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #2": Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

- notwithstanding, one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would offer tacit support for the continued outright ban on abortion within the remaining 14 African countries associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #1".

Legality Reason 						Countries

1. Prohibited altogether, or no explicit legal exception to save the life of a woman =>  								
							Angola, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo,
							Egypt, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius,
							São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Somalia
2. To save the life of a woman => 								
							Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda
3. To preserve physical health (and to save a woman’s life) => 								
							Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, 
							Ethiopia, Guinea, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Togo, Zimbabwe
4. To preserve mental health (and all of the above reasons)  => 								
							Algeria, Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Namibia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland
5. Socioeconomic grounds (and all of the above reasons) => 								
							Zambia
6. Without restriction as to reason =>								
							Cape Verde, South Africa, Tunisia

so, don't worry Dancer... your reigning hold on psychic prowess remains strong, remains intact!

[bloodyminded]

My argument is not a pure "what-if" hypothesis. My hypothesis rests on the well known phenomenon of history repeating itself, and the hope that, from witnessing trial and error, we would not make the same mistakes. One justification for eugenics was based on a philosophical treatise coupled with scientific theory; namely, Nietzshe's idea of the "uber-mensch" combined with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Perversion as that combination was, it was still enough justification for some to undermine an entire race's right to life, and categorically deprive other persons of it too. Now, again, this new phenomenom of imagining a woman is not pregnant when she becomes pregnant; that, in fact, she is somehow only "a little pregnant" with something that may not be "human" permits another mass genocide of sorts; namely, abortion.

Frankly, abortion does not have a moral leg to stand on, and so novelties like trying to determine when a human fetus becomes truly a human being must be employed in order to create the appearance of an argument. This screams of post-rationalization: something wrong was done and now we must race to produce some argument to make it okay, or at least create an exception to the rule.

So, no, I won't enter into a debate about whether or not a human fetus is a human being, anymore than you would entertain a debate about whether or not a slave is truly a person or a Jew truly a human being. That people have in times past entertained such ideas resulted in unimaginable suffering on one hand, and mass slaughter on the other, and that is reason enough to oppose it.

I find your stance the worst type of quietism, of collusion with what you perceive as mass murder.

According to you, abortion is a "genocide of sorts"; but unlike genocides taking place in foreign lands, you are personally bearting witness to mass murder of children all around you, every day.

But actually, no: i don't think you DO see it as mass murder. Otherwise your collusion would be unforgiveable.

So you should probably not so dishonestly use words like "genocide" and "murder."

[Timothy17]

Otherwise your collusion would be unforgiveable.

Mea culpa.

Though I'm not so sure about the unforgiveable part.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Timothy17

[bloodyminded]

Mea culpa.

Though I'm not so sure about the unforgiveable part.

This civility is a little disarming, so I feel compelled to retract a pretty harsh post. Apologies.

[M.Dancer]

I wouldn't have expected that the 'vaunted' Dancer rigor would have settled for U.S. stats published on a Canadian web-site...

I would expect you to format your posts in a non torturous way....

So out of the 53 nations of Africa, what I cold gather from your post...

42 will only allow abortions if a woman's health and to a greater extent, a woman's life is in danger.

No mention regarding problems with the fetus...

If the stats are transferable, that would mean 3 out of 100 abortions would be allowed in 80% of africa...

Like I said, if you have stats that are applicable to africa, feel free...

[Timothy17]

This civility is a little disarming, so I feel compelled to retract a pretty harsh post. Apologies.

And mine in turn.

Though, to be frank, when you brought up Quietism I had a disturbing recollection: When I was a young boy in history class, I remember asking myself how the German people could have allowed themselves to, via the actions of their government, be complicit in such terrible crimes against humanity. There was this begging "Why?" and "How?" ringing in my head. I dare say, in the future, it is not implausible some student, somewhere, may be looking back on us, and our government, with the figures and all those "0s" of the death toll before them, and begging to know the same.

[bloodyminded]

And mine in turn.

Though, to be frank, when you brought up Quietism I had a disturbing recollection: When I was a young boy in history class, I remember asking myself how the German people could have allowed themselves to, via the actions of their government, be complicit in such terrible crimes against humanity. There was this begging "Why?" and "How?" ringing in my head. I dare say, in the future, it is not implausible some student, somewhere, may be looking back on us, and our government, with the figures and all those "0s" of the death toll before them, and begging to know the same.

I know just what you mean. I can't very well throw out such accusations without a careful and sober look in the mirror.

[Molly]

So we are talking about Africa and how we should be forcing those societies to accept abortion as normal rights. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct.

[waldo]

I would expect you to format your posts in a non torturous way....

So out of the 53 nations of Africa, what I cold gather from your post...

42 will only allow abortions if a woman's health and to a greater extent, a woman's life is in danger.

No mention regarding problems with the fetus...

If the stats are transferable, that would mean 3 out of 100 abortions would be allowed in 80% of africa...

Like I said, if you have stats that are applicable to africa, feel free...

well, of course, the return of the silly-buggar Dancer was most anticipated. It's clear you have difficulty with stats as drawn from your own listed reference. It's only 9 African countries that, on a legal basis, limit abortion strictly to considerations of, "saving the life of a woman" (follow along now, Dancer... that would be those associated with the tabled reference, Reason #2).

in your self-serving silly-buggar mode, you can also choose to ignore, to negate, the associated qualification to the tabled reference, Reason #3; specifically that it, "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health".

as stated Dancer:

Accordingly, following your penchant for across the board sweeping statistical designation:

- one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for 30 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reasons #3, 4, 5 & 6": Algeria, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

- of course, even if we adhere to the strictest of your designations (i.e. "Woman has health problem"), we could also say the Harper Conservative G8 position would have affecting considerations to access based on a denial of funding...

for an additional 9 African countries

; specifically, those associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #2": Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

- notwithstanding, one can say the Harper Conservative G8 position would offer tacit support for the continued outright ban on abortion within the remaining 14 African countries associated with the following tabled "Legality Reason #1".

and as I stated, Dancer... don't worry... your reigning hold on psychic prowess remains strong, remains intact!

Edited May 13, 2010 by waldo

[WIP]

No, you are reigning psychic..

I extrapolate.

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/facts/Why_Women_choose_abortion.html

If you have stats that are apropos to Africa, now id the time to present them. Barring that, we are left to assume that 94% out of 100 abortions would be forbidden in 90% of africa

How about the evidence provided by Harper and his cabinet ministers themselves! They say they want to fund maternal healthcare in Africa, which in some countries such as Ethiopia have a situation where most women have another child every year. A break from reproduction doesn't come until their health is degraded to the level where they are no longer able to bear children, or they die in childbirth and complications from pregnancy.

Now, would this maternal care crisis and high mortality rates from pregnancy be as big a problem if steps were taken to lower pregnancy and birth rates? The example here in the West from all of the white nationalists who frequently bemoan the fact that women here don't have enough babies -- is that if you give women the choice over when and/or if they will have a child, they have a lot fewer children! It doesn't take mass sterilization campaigns or one child policies to slow population growth and its secondary effects in the Third World -- all it takes is giving women there the options that are available to women in the West (that conservatives are trying to take away).

And so what if abortions are illegal in most African countries! This is where our governments, who are never shy about using aid to get favourable economic and political deals, can use that aid to lean on backward patriarchs who are looking to the West for help, to do something to improve the quality of life in their countries.

[M.Dancer]

well, of course, the return of the silly-buggar Dancer was most anticipated. It's clear you have difficulty with stats as drawn from your own listed reference. It's only 9 African countries that, on a legal basis, limit abortion strictly to considerations of, "saving the life of a woman" (follow along now, Dancer... that would be those associated with the tabled reference, Reason #2).

Actually, read long now...that would be reason 1 and 2

Prohibited altogether, or no explicit legal exception to save the life of a woman

Angola, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho,Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Somalia2.

To save the life of a woman

Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

in your self-serving silly-buggar mode, you can also choose to ignore, to negate, the associated qualification to the tabled reference, Reason #3; specifically that it, "Includes countries with laws that refer simply to "health" or "therapeutic" indications, which may be interpreted more broadly than physical health".

Now read along...I included #3 in my count....

Maybe if you spent less time formatting your posts so they are unintellable and read the posts of other more carefully, you wouldn't make so many blunders.

[WIP]

The rational reason is called respecting other people's cultures. Hilary doesn't: not ours or her own.

Outdated? I'm sorry, I didn't know justice had an expiration date.

"Reproductive freedom"? That's a fancy spin. Ladies deserve reproductive freedom; okay, next Masculinists might argue that men have "Natural-needs" rights; that is, because nature makes them want to have sex with women, they should be allowed to with whomever they want whenever they want, regardless of the other person's rights. We'll call this "reproductive freedom" or simply, "Natural needs acquisitions." Now, most Canadians might call that rape, but they just need to leave "their outdated socially conservative mentality" behind, right?

Damn straight! Most men (except for social conservatives) are still smart enough to recognize that spending nine months in pregnancy and going through the risks and rigors of giving birth should give pregnant women the right to say whether another new life is brought into this world. Otherwise there would be a legitimate argument that men who do the impregnating should have equal say. But that's not nature's design.

Most pregnant women have babies, while some will continue to have abortions whether it is legal or not. The American example that has been playing out over the last 30 years is to make abortion a class issue -- where middle and upper class women still have access to abortion, even if they claim to be pro life; while lower class women have lost access to nearby clinics and funding, so they have to bring another child into the world, even if they are drug-addicted or do not have the financial resources to look after the child. The last thing we need here is conservatives up here deciding that we should be following this American model.

[M.Dancer]

I would expect you to format your posts in a non torturous way....

So out of the 53 nations of Africa, what I cold gather from your post...

42 will only allow abortions if a woman's health and to a greater extent, a woman's life is in danger.

No mention regarding problems with the fetus...

If the stats are transferable, that would mean 3 out of 100 abortions would be allowed in 80% of africa...

Like I said, if you have stats that are applicable to africa, feel free...

Maybe if I formatted it with lots of indentations and coloured fonts he would have been able to read it...

[Molly]

If the stats are transferable, that would mean ......

As if!

Here's a couple: http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/index_41814.htm

Unicef, 2005: the maternal death rate in sub-Saharan Africa was 920/100,000 births, compared to 8/100,000 in industrialized countries.

Lifetime risk of maternal death is 1/8000 in inudstrialized nations vs. 1/22 in sub-Saharan Africa (1/17 in west central Africa).

Edited May 13, 2010 by Molly

[M.Dancer]

As if!

Here's a couple: http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/index_41814.htm

Unicef, 2005: the maternal death rate in sub-Saharan Africa was 920/100,000 births, compared to 8/100,000 in industrialized countries.

And how does that figure relates to the reason a woman has an abortion?

Never the less, funding to improve the health of expectant mothers and to bring a semblance of modernance to childbirthing is what the G8 proposal is all about, but instead, abortion advocates wnat to divert funds away from that.

According to the pie chart, abortions only account for 4% of maternal deaths.

http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/images/pfc6_mdg5_per_cent_distribution_of_maternal_deaths_in_Africa_by_cause.gif