pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

[BIG APPLE CAT]

It's almost like - and this is a sizzling hot take here - but it's almost as if for most of the pro-life folks, it wasn’t ever really about the value of human life. Almost like maybe it’s more about being able to control women and what they can and cannot do with their bodies

[CNS]

It's almost like - and this is a sizzling hot take here - but it's almost as if for most of the pro-life folks, it wasn’t ever really about the value of human life. Almost like maybe it’s more about being able to control women and what they can and cannot do with their bodies

Guys, it’s about religion. Even when someone fails to admit that, it’s religion. Why is a cluster of a dozen cells a human, the soul. How do you know? Faith. Why would it not be admitted that this is the case? Because people are smart enough to understand how the rest of that discussion would go as far as having solid ground for pro-life to be a reasonable approach in a society that isn’t supposed to force religion.

Ppl have either not thought the issue through, they are religious, or they have enough religion pounded into them during their formative years that they have enough residual feels left over to act religious.

[DQ12]

To your point CNS, I believe very much that the pro-abortion rights people (and you, specifically) haven’t thought the issue through very much.  I base that on you dismissing every anti-abortion rights argument as “religious” when I haven’t appealed to religion at all.  I’m willing to follow the thread and have a secular discussion on this if you are.

A human (or fertilized egg or zygote or whatever you want to call it) has a dozen cells about 3-4 days after conception.  I think that “thing” is a human because it was conceived by human parents, has human dna, and is growing.  Why don’t you think it’s a human?

[CNS]

To your point CNS, I believe very much that the pro-abortion rights people (and you, specifically) haven’t thought the issue through very much.  I base that on you dismissing every anti-abortion rights argument as “religious” when I haven’t appealed to religion at all.  I’m willing to follow the thread and have a secular discussion on this if you are.

A human (or fertilized egg or zygote or whatever you want to call it) has a dozen cells about 3-4 days after conception.  I think that “thing” is a human because it was conceived by human parents, has human dna, and is growing.  Why don’t you think it’s a human?

You start this discussion with belief. 

Those cells have zero chance of survival removed. This discussion you want to have has been had by people for a long time and leads nowhere because belief. What governs your belief. What informs that?  Scientifically?  Uninformed belief is either faith or ignorance.

FYI, I am all for a limit on abortion. One that isn’t absolute. One that recognizes a viable fetus.  One that limits timelines scientifically.

You and I can’t honestly have this convo because you will never have evidence enough to overcome your faith from a gE conversation. 

Do you believe in a soul?  At what point does your faith say a soul begins to inhabit a body? 

[DQ12]

To your point CNS, I believe very much that the pro-abortion rights people (and you, specifically) haven’t thought the issue through very much.  I base that on you dismissing every anti-abortion rights argument as “religious” when I haven’t appealed to religion at all.  I’m willing to follow the thread and have a secular discussion on this if you are.

A human (or fertilized egg or zygote or whatever you want to call it) has a dozen cells about 3-4 days after conception.  I think that “thing” is a human because it was conceived by human parents, has human dna, and is growing.  Why don’t you think it’s a human?

You start this discussion with belief. 

Those cells have zero chance of survival removed. This discussion you want to have has been had by people for a long time and leads nowhere because belief. What governs your belief. What informs that?  Scientifically?  Uninformed belief is either faith or ignorance.

FYI, I am all for a limit on abortion. One that isn’t absolute. One that recognizes a viable fetus.  One that limits timelines scientifically.

You and I can’t honestly have this convo because you will never have evidence enough to overcome your faith from a gE conversation. 

Do you believe in a soul?  At what point does your faith say a soul begins to inhabit a body? 

When have I discussed Faith as part of the abortion discussion?  I don’t. It’s irrelevant in my view.  If I was talking to Catholics/Christians about the theological morality of abortion, I’d talk faith, but I’m not so I’m not.  You’re the only one bringing God into this discussion. 

What kind of limit on abortion are you “all for” and why? Is the line you draw “viability”?

[cfbandyman]

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws, with 6000 kids up for adoption, and almost 30,000 in the foster care system. I wonder how many of the people who pushed for such strict abortion laws are licensed to foster? Or tried to adopt? Or at the very least, donated time/money to helping kids get adopted?

I recognize that it’s a bad thing that those 36,000 kids don’t have good situations with stable, loving families.  The community and government ought to do a better job taking care of them.

But I cannot reconcile that it would be a better result if those 36,000 kids were dead.- I think it’s good they’re alive, even if their circumstances may be unimaginably rough right now.

Doing stuff like supporting education, sex ed, childcare, paid paternity/maternity leave, universal healthcare etc etc etc is a great rough ridin' place to start then essentially condemning them to a life of being told they're not worth it. Which is what pubs do every. rough ridin'. Time.

I want all those things.  But more than all those things, I want those kids not to be killed.  If it’s a choice between the two (and it apparently is, for now) I opt for not killing them.

But that's my point, I never hear any of those options ever spouted. Cause to me, and I tend to agree with you on this, my ideal world is 0 abortions. But how do you get there? Simply telling people to either not have sex or have the child cruelly also completely ignores the woman.

Will the pregnancy kill her? Is the fetus even viable? Was she raped? Why isn't she allowed to get BC? Why don't we teach proper sex ed? Why do we not hold men accountable for their actions in this too? I think what pro-life people want is admirable, but completely unrealistic in how they want it done. I think they overarchingly see it as people wanting unwanted pregnancies and just will nilly doing it cause "oops, I am a young woman who simply don't want to be a mom and I got knocked up by some dude on a random one night stand, YOLO".

I think of my cousin who very much wanted to be mom, and grew up Catholic. She still calls herself that. But when her and her husband found out their child was basically going to die hours after being born, or else live a painful and short life, they made the very hard decision of terminating it. Should they have done that? Are you going to be the one to tell her to do that? Do you think that maybe her and her husband should make that decision without you and others telling her what she should or should not do? I also only say this on here cause she went very public with it during the Kansas vote a few years back cause it mattered that much to her.

These are the realities. Think about how forcing yourself, or anyone into that decision making process sounds. You willing to tell people what they can or cannot do in that situation.

[CNS]

If I was a person who was forming policy, I would be open to using the time that a fetus is able to live outside the womb. I would also be open to using the timeline for when pain could be felt which seems to be either at 12 weeks according to some studies and 24-25 weeks according to OBs and Gynos professional association.

You are intelligent enough to understand that your experiences to date heavily help inform your view of the world. You are intelligent enough to understand that the subconscious mind does quite a bit of our decision making for us. Faith will, at very least, subconsciously help form opinions utilizing the scaffolding provided as a component of that faiths religion. If we are going to have a conversation about this, honestly, you have to acknowledge that.

[catastrophe]

It's almost like - and this is a sizzling hot take here - but it's almost as if for most of the pro-life folks, it wasn’t ever really about the value of human life. Almost like maybe it’s more about being able to control women and what they can and cannot do with their bodies

The “controlling women” talking point has always stuck me as dumb.

Set aside the politicians who are willing to say anything to take advantage of single issue voters. They belong in their own category.

I think most pro-lifers sincerely believe that abortion ends a human life, and that ending a human life should never be a personal choice (although it can arise from necessity). I also think most pro-lifers don’t think in terms of controlling women as either the point or even a consequence of banning abortion.

However, I do think most pro-lifers support banning abortion because it is the absolute easiest thing they can do to “fix” an issue that they aren’t personally impacted by. It’s similar to banning homeless from panhandling on street corners, it makes people feel better about a tragic situation if they can just go back to ignoring it.

Obviously there’s exceptions, and many groups do focus on actually helping families. But I think for most single issue voters, it’s about being able wipe their hands clean and feel good that now all the baby killing is either happening in private or in another state.

[DQ12]

If I was a person who was forming policy, I would be open to using the time that a fetus is able to live outside the womb. I would also be open to using the timeline for when pain could be felt which seems to be either at 12 weeks according to some studies and 24-25 weeks according to OBs and Gynos professional association.

You are intelligent enough to understand that your experiences to date heavily help inform your view of the world. You are intelligent enough to understand that the subconscious mind does quite a bit of our decision making for us. Faith will, at very least, subconsciously help form opinions utilizing the scaffolding provided as a component of that faiths religion. If we are going to have a conversation about this, honestly, you have to acknowledge that.

Why is viability your demarcation line? 

Of course faith helps inform my view.  All sorts of things help inform my view and your view.  But what informs our respective views doesn't really impact the conversation if we're not appealing to them in the conversation.  What informs our view doesn't invalidate our ultimate point.  If Rusty brought up the violinist thought experiment and said he found that convincing, it would be nonsense for me to respond with "you only bring that up because you lived in libville San Francisco for so long."  Him having lived in SF for a while may have informed his view, but it's completely irrelevant to things like bodily autonomy.  Likewise, yeah, my view is impacted by my faith and upbringing, but when I say "I think (1) killing innocent humans without proper justification is wrong, (2) beings in the womb are human, and therefore (3) it's wrong to kill them without proper justification" that's not an appeal to Christianity per se.  It's an appeal to the general mo

[CNS]

 Viability as a human is a pretty good litmus test as to if something has become human.  Pain is a great litmus test for humanity. 

I continue to bring religion to this as it should be kmportant to both of us that political policy not be created around religious beliefs.  Surely you can admit that you would not like to live under such policies of other religions.

You haven’t addressed my questions regarding the soul.

[DQ12]

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws, with 6000 kids up for adoption, and almost 30,000 in the foster care system. I wonder how many of the people who pushed for such strict abortion laws are licensed to foster? Or tried to adopt? Or at the very least, donated time/money to helping kids get adopted?

I recognize that it’s a bad thing that those 36,000 kids don’t have good situations with stable, loving families.  The community and government ought to do a better job taking care of them.

But I cannot reconcile that it would be a better result if those 36,000 kids were dead.- I think it’s good they’re alive, even if their circumstances may be unimaginably rough right now.

Doing stuff like supporting education, sex ed, childcare, paid paternity/maternity leave, universal healthcare etc etc etc is a great rough ridin' place to start then essentially condemning them to a life of being told they're not worth it. Which is what pubs do every. rough ridin'. Time.

I want all those things.  But more than all those things, I want those kids not to be killed.  If it’s a choice between the two (and it apparently is, for now) I opt for not killing them.

But that's my point, I never hear any of those options ever spouted. Cause to me, and I tend to agree with you on this, my ideal world is 0 abortions. But how do you get there? Simply telling people to either not have sex or have the child cruelly also completely ignores the woman.

Will the pregnancy kill her? Is the fetus even viable? Was she raped? Why isn't she allowed to get BC? Why don't we teach proper sex ed? Why do we not hold men accountable for their actions in this too? I think what pro-life people want is admirable, but completely unrealistic in how they want it done. I think they overarchingly see it as people wanting unwanted pregnancies and just will nilly doing it cause "oops, I am a young woman who simply don't want to be a mom and I got knocked up by some dude on a random one night stand, YOLO".

I think of my cousin who very much wanted to be mom, and grew up Catholic. She still calls herself that. But when her and her husband found out their child was basically going to die hours after being born, or else live a painful and short life, they made the very hard decision of terminating it. Should they have done that? Are you going to be the one to tell her to do that? Do you think that maybe her and her husband should make that decision without you and others telling her what she should or should not do? I also only say this on here cause she went very public with it during the Kansas vote a few years back cause it mattered that much to her.

These are the realities. Think about how forcing yourself, or anyone into that decision making process sounds. You willing to tell people what they can or cannot do in that situation.

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of paid maternity and paternity leave (480 days total).  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

[Stupid Fitz]

I'm starting to think no-one is going to change their mind on their view of abortion.

[DQ12]

Viability as a human is a pretty good litmus test as to if something has become human.  Pain is a great litmus test for humanity. 

I continue to bring religion to this as it should be kmportant to both of us that political policy not be created around religious beliefs.  Surely you can admit that you would not like to live under such policies of other religions.

You haven’t addressed my questions regarding the soul.

What do you mean by viability though?  My 4 month old would die pretty quickly if we stopped giving him food.  Is he viable?  There are dozens of premature babies over at children's mercy that are only surviving with the help of machines and nurses and doctors.  Are they viable?  Are people in comas who can't feel pain humans? There are people who have a condition called "congenital insensitivity to pain."*  Are they humans?  That's why I don't think "viability" and "sensitivity to pain" are very good litmus tests.

On the topic of viability, I think as of today, the earliest born human to survive was at 21 weeks and 1 day.  An interesting (at least I think it's interesting) thing to think about is this: let's say tomorrow, there's some medical breakthrough where an artificial womb is invented that makes it so fetuses can be extracted at...I don't know, 4 weeks and survive and grow in the artificial womb.  Would you be willing to lower the abortion threshold to 4 weeks in that hypothetical?

Yes, we agree that religion (Christianity or otherwise), in and of itself, isn't a good basis to create policy.  I don't think there should be a law requiring any particular religious belief or requiring people to go to church or to pray or whatever.  We definitely agree on that.

As to your question, my personal belief is that someone get's a soul when their life begins.  I still don't know how that has anything to do with what we're talking about -- since the concept of a soul has nothing to do with any point I've made about why I think abortion is wrong. 

*https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3564101/#:~:text=Congenital%20insensitivity%20to%20pain%20and%20anhydrosis%20(CIPA)%20is%20a%20very,that%20receive%20the%20pain%20messages.

[Institutional Control]

It could easily be the difference in the way Sweden collects and reports abortion statistics.  I can imagine many abortions in the US being reported as "miscarriages" due to the legality of abortion in the particular state where it may have been performed. Sweden has one of the lowest maternal fatality rates in the world, the US the worst among wealthy nations.

[cfbandyman]

Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws, with 6000 kids up for adoption, and almost 30,000 in the foster care system. I wonder how many of the people who pushed for such strict abortion laws are licensed to foster? Or tried to adopt? Or at the very least, donated time/money to helping kids get adopted?

I recognize that it’s a bad thing that those 36,000 kids don’t have good situations with stable, loving families.  The community and government ought to do a better job taking care of them.

But I cannot reconcile that it would be a better result if those 36,000 kids were dead.- I think it’s good they’re alive, even if their circumstances may be unimaginably rough right now.

Doing stuff like supporting education, sex ed, childcare, paid paternity/maternity leave, universal healthcare etc etc etc is a great rough ridin' place to start then essentially condemning them to a life of being told they're not worth it. Which is what pubs do every. rough ridin'. Time.

I want all those things.  But more than all those things, I want those kids not to be killed.  If it’s a choice between the two (and it apparently is, for now) I opt for not killing them.

But that's my point, I never hear any of those options ever spouted. Cause to me, and I tend to agree with you on this, my ideal world is 0 abortions. But how do you get there? Simply telling people to either not have sex or have the child cruelly also completely ignores the woman.

Will the pregnancy kill her? Is the fetus even viable? Was she raped? Why isn't she allowed to get BC? Why don't we teach proper sex ed? Why do we not hold men accountable for their actions in this too? I think what pro-life people want is admirable, but completely unrealistic in how they want it done. I think they overarchingly see it as people wanting unwanted pregnancies and just will nilly doing it cause "oops, I am a young woman who simply don't want to be a mom and I got knocked up by some dude on a random one night stand, YOLO".

I think of my cousin who very much wanted to be mom, and grew up Catholic. She still calls herself that. But when her and her husband found out their child was basically going to die hours after being born, or else live a painful and short life, they made the very hard decision of terminating it. Should they have done that? Are you going to be the one to tell her to do that? Do you think that maybe her and her husband should make that decision without you and others telling her what she should or should not do? I also only say this on here cause she went very public with it during the Kansas vote a few years back cause it mattered that much to her.

These are the realities. Think about how forcing yourself, or anyone into that decision making process sounds. You willing to tell people what they can or cannot do in that situation.

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of maternity/paternity leave.  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

We could do that for heavily Catholic countries, why are El Salvador so high? Columbia? (27 per 1000), Panama (30 per 1000)? Puerto Rico? Mexico (31). Sweden is 18 to US 14.4. That's pretty close. My take? Is ask what/where are those abortions coming from. Are they due to "I don't want a kid" or are they coming from the incidents of "requiring" one? I think looking at infant mortality provides some of this answer. Sweden for example is super low, 2.6, US is 6.3. Add those numbers together you get a suspiciously close number to the same infant death rate. Which makes me think, that we're probably near the bottom no matter what we do. Sweden is being, proactive, if you want to say it that way. And also Sweden's healthcare is leaps and bounds better, so they are actually giving those who are born a better chance. So then it comes down to, what are we trying to do to reduce it more? At least try and give yourself the chance to do it that way, but we probably are near the limit the lowest amounts you're going to have. I still never see that coming from pro-life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

[DQ12]

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of maternity/paternity leave.  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

We could do that for heavily Catholic countries, why are El Salvador so high? Columbia? (27 per 1000), Panama (30 per 1000)? Puerto Rico? Mexico (31). Sweden is 18 to US 14.4. That's pretty close. My take? Is ask what/where are those abortions coming from. Are they due to "I don't want a kid" or are they coming from the incidents of "requiring" one? I think looking at infant mortality provides some of this answer. Sweden for example is super low, 2.6, US is 6.3. Add those numbers together you get a suspiciously close number to the same infant death rate. Which makes me think, that we're probably near the bottom no matter what we do. Sweden is being, proactive, if you want to say it that way. And also Sweden's healthcare is leaps and bounds better, so they are actually giving those who are born a better chance. So then it comes down to, what are we trying to do to reduce it more? At least try and give yourself the chance to do it that way, but we probably are near the limit the lowest amounts you're going to have. I still never see that coming from pro-life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

22% more abortions isn't "pretty close," imo.  That's a significant difference. 

And I'm not saying improving education and social policies (e.g. parental leave) wouldn't help. I think economics and education and all that have lots to do with whether someone decides to have a baby or seek an abortion (hence the Central American rates you listed).  But if the goal is "maximally reduce abortions," massively increasing social policies/education etc. isn't really a panacea, and I think Sweden proves that.

I don't follow your discussion on the infant mortality rate at all.  Are you crediting Sweden's higher abortion rate for their lower infant mortality rate?  I think that's pretty tenuous.  I may be totally missing the point there.

[Cire]

Pro life people should be enrolled in foster programs

Problem solved

I’d say let Catholic Churches take the lead but that would probably lead to even more pedophelia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cartierfor3]

Pro life people should be enrolled in foster programs

Problem solved

I’d say let Catholic Churches take the lead but that would probably lead to even more pedophelia


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure if the stat holds up, but a 2013 study found practicing Christians 3 times more likely to adopt and foster than the general population. My personal experience would back this up.

[cfbandyman]

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of maternity/paternity leave.  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

We could do that for heavily Catholic countries, why are El Salvador so high? Columbia? (27 per 1000), Panama (30 per 1000)? Puerto Rico? Mexico (31). Sweden is 18 to US 14.4. That's pretty close. My take? Is ask what/where are those abortions coming from. Are they due to "I don't want a kid" or are they coming from the incidents of "requiring" one? I think looking at infant mortality provides some of this answer. Sweden for example is super low, 2.6, US is 6.3. Add those numbers together you get a suspiciously close number to the same infant death rate. Which makes me think, that we're probably near the bottom no matter what we do. Sweden is being, proactive, if you want to say it that way. And also Sweden's healthcare is leaps and bounds better, so they are actually giving those who are born a better chance. So then it comes down to, what are we trying to do to reduce it more? At least try and give yourself the chance to do it that way, but we probably are near the limit the lowest amounts you're going to have. I still never see that coming from pro-life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

22% more abortions isn't "pretty close," imo.  That's a significant difference. 

And I'm not saying improving education and social policies (e.g. parental leave) wouldn't help. I think economics and education and all that have lots to do with whether someone decides to have a baby or seek an abortion (hence the Central American rates you listed).  But if the goal is "maximally reduce abortions," massively increasing social policies/education etc. isn't really a panacea, and I think Sweden proves that.

I don't follow your discussion on the infant mortality rate at all.  Are you crediting Sweden's higher abortion rate for their lower infant mortality rate?  I think that's pretty tenuous.  I may be totally missing the point there.

Yes, and i don't think it's tenuous at all. Sure there are more factors, but if you ultimately looking at birth success, you have to say that the US and Sweden are nearly equal in that.

Also, there are plenty of countries with much lower rates such as Finland, Germany, Switzerland, Norway. Is Sweden a mere outlier compared to those that do provide those? Why make that much of a point? I think if anything, it proves mine more than yours.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm starting to think no-one is going to change their mind on their view of abortion.

I've changed my mind on the issue. Used to be pro-life, then decided I'm still anti-abortion but don't trust the government enough to want to see it banned. And now, I don't even view abortions as bad. Most of them are performed by pill within a couple weeks of the pregnancy.

[Dugout DickStone]

your single issue is getting pretty thorny:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ivf-costs-executive-order/

[Justwin]

your single issue is getting pretty thorny:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ivf-costs-executive-order/

Do Democrats support ending IVF?

[Justwin]

And I will add that I am not in favor of IVF if it is done in ways that lead to the death/permanent freezing of embryos.

[catastrophe]

I mean, there's never going to be zero abortions, just like there's never going to be zero murders or theft.  I recognize that.  And the "the best way to reduce abortions is to keep it legal but rare by doing [education, parental leave, healthcare, contraception, etc.]" is compelling.  But what I struggle with here is Sweden's abortion rate.  Sweden's got universal health care.  Widespread access to contraception.  Free education.  Almost 280 days of maternity/paternity leave.  All this stuff that I'm hearing is the real way to reduce abortion.  I do think think those things would help -- I get that abortion in many cases is an economic decision.  But Sweden's got a higher abortion rate than the US.  What do you make of that?

We could do that for heavily Catholic countries, why are El Salvador so high? Columbia? (27 per 1000), Panama (30 per 1000)? Puerto Rico? Mexico (31). Sweden is 18 to US 14.4. That's pretty close. My take? Is ask what/where are those abortions coming from. Are they due to "I don't want a kid" or are they coming from the incidents of "requiring" one? I think looking at infant mortality provides some of this answer. Sweden for example is super low, 2.6, US is 6.3. Add those numbers together you get a suspiciously close number to the same infant death rate. Which makes me think, that we're probably near the bottom no matter what we do. Sweden is being, proactive, if you want to say it that way. And also Sweden's healthcare is leaps and bounds better, so they are actually giving those who are born a better chance. So then it comes down to, what are we trying to do to reduce it more? At least try and give yourself the chance to do it that way, but we probably are near the limit the lowest amounts you're going to have. I still never see that coming from pro-life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_and_under-five_mortality_rates

22% more abortions isn't "pretty close," imo.  That's a significant difference. 

And I'm not saying improving education and social policies (e.g. parental leave) wouldn't help. I think economics and education and all that have lots to do with whether someone decides to have a baby or seek an abortion (hence the Central American rates you listed).  But if the goal is "maximally reduce abortions," massively increasing social policies/education etc. isn't really a panacea, and I think Sweden proves that.

I don't follow your discussion on the infant mortality rate at all.  Are you crediting Sweden's higher abortion rate for their lower infant mortality rate?  I think that's pretty tenuous.  I may be totally missing the point there.

Regardless of it’s association with abortion, if you think a 20% difference in the abortion rate is significant the I’d think you’d be a lot more interested in candidates who want to bridge the like 300% gap between our and Sweden’s infant mortality rate. Not a lot of those on the R side, though.

[Dugout DickStone]

your single issue is getting pretty thorny:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-ivf-costs-executive-order/

Do Democrats support ending IVF?

maybe the really stupid ones...