pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

[catastrophe]

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.

Would you support a law that holds women liable for involuntary manslaughter if they do something that causes a miscarriage post-fertilization? Like eating deli meat, high mercury fish, or riding a jet ski if they’re high risk?

[Justwin]

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.

What is the absolute difference rather than relative difference?

[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.

What is the absolute difference rather than relative difference?

Absolute? ABSOLUTE? I thought we were talking percentages here. I don’t think D12 was ever holding up Sweden as having a high absolute number of abortions relative to the US.

[Dugout DickStone]

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.

I have some bad news for you then

[Justwin]

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.

What is the absolute difference rather than relative difference?

Absolute? ABSOLUTE? I thought we were talking percentages here. I don’t think D12 was ever holding up Sweden as having a high absolute number of abortions relative to the US.

I mean what would the absolute increase in abortions be if we had a 22% increase in abortions compared to the absolute decrease in infant deaths if we decrease infant mortality by 59%.

[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.

Would you support a law that holds women liable for involuntary manslaughter if they do something that causes a miscarriage post-fertilization? Like eating deli meat, high mercury fish, or riding a jet ski if they’re high risk?

I really would have to give that more thought. I can see arguments for that, but also arguments against. An argument against would be that we don't charge parents for involuntary manslaughter if a child is in a car accident where their parents were driving and not at fault for the accident.

[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.

What is the absolute difference rather than relative difference?

Absolute? ABSOLUTE? I thought we were talking percentages here. I don’t think D12 was ever holding up Sweden as having a high absolute number of abortions relative to the US.

I mean what would the absolute increase in abortions if we had a 22% increase in abortions compared to the absolute decrease in infant deaths if we decrease infant mortality by 59%.

Well for starters I’m not sure how you got 59%. But regardless, there’s obviously a symbiotic relationship. The closer you bring abortions to zero the more infant deaths you’re going to have partially as a pure statistical matter, but also because abortions are going to be much more common where a generic abnormality threatens the life of the child post-birth.

[catastrophe]

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.

Would you support a law that holds women liable for involuntary manslaughter if they do something that causes a miscarriage post-fertilization? Like eating deli meat, high mercury fish, or riding a jet ski if they’re high risk?

I really would have to give that more thought. I can see arguments for that, but also arguments against. An argument against would be that we don't charge parents for involuntary manslaughter if a child is in a car accident where their parents were driving and not at fault for the accident.

Fault in either case would be determined by a jury of their peers.

[Justwin]

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.

What is the absolute difference rather than relative difference?

Absolute? ABSOLUTE? I thought we were talking percentages here. I don’t think D12 was ever holding up Sweden as having a high absolute number of abortions relative to the US.

I mean what would the absolute increase in abortions if we had a 22% increase in abortions compared to the absolute decrease in infant deaths if we decrease infant mortality by 59%.

Well for starters I’m not sure how you got 59%. But regardless, there’s obviously a symbiotic relationship. The closer you bring abortions to zero the more infant deaths you’re going to have partially as a pure statistical matter, but also because abortions are going to be much more common where a generic abnormality threatens the life of the child post-birth.

If you go from 6.3 deaths/1000 live births to 2.6 deaths/1000 live births, that is a 59% reduction.

The way that you get that is you take 6.3-2.6 = 3.7. Then you take 3.7/6.3 and you get 0.59. Finally, you take 0.59*100 and you have 59%.

[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

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.

I do not entirely agree with you here. I think you're giving the pro-lifers (and i mean, lets just be real, pubs in general) too much credit. Like seriously 99% of the republican party platform is based on being petty, or making it legal to inflict pain and suffering on people who live their life in a way that you find objectionable.
For a lot of them, having access to contraception means "license to be a slut without consequences" and they don't like that. they believe sex should be between a man and his lawfully wedded wife. (now, granted, when they have sex outside of those constraints its different and they can just say a prayer and everything is good).

Telling someone what they can or can't do with their own body is pretty much the ultimate form of control.

[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.

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.

Regarding born human beings viability, that is intentionally obtuse again.

From your own post, it sounds like 21 weeks should be the cutoff.  Want to hedge a bit, cool, let’s call it 16 weeks. The problem is that the assholes who apparently don’t agree with you and I about religion in politics like to make it where there are cooling off periods, multiple visits, and restricted quantities of providers that limits availability of appointments all equating to most folks not able to get their service in that timeframe.

With regards to my question and your belief about souls, it’s perfectly relevant to my greater point.  There is zero ability to have this discussion with someone who believes that life begins at conception, that the souls enters the body at life, and thinks this doesn’t completely inform a no abortion stance.

It seems the religious secret is to not admit that your faith governs your beliefs so that you don’t have to admit that voting for policy based on that is forcing religious beliefs on Americans who are supposed to be free of such things. It’s the defense to get what is wanted but ignoring its danger and harm.  It’s dishonest.

[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.

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.

Just so I can better understand, you're suggesting that the main reason the US has a relatively higher infant mortality rate than Sweden is because Sweden is having more abortions per capita?  I don't know about that one.

And I agree that Finland (etc.) have lower rates than the US.  I'm not arguing social stuff/education/contraception doesn't reduce the abortion rate.  I'm all for making that stuff available. But again, my point is that increasing social support, alone, doesn't mean minimal abortion.  Sweden proves that point. 

You referenced Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Norway.  Here are each those country's abortion laws according to very cursory google searches:

Finland:

Gestational Age Limit: Abortion is permitted up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without any restrictions.
Request: Women can request an abortion directly from a healthcare provider without needing approval from a partner or other third party.
Medical Grounds: After 12 weeks, abortion may be considered on medical grounds, such as a threat to the mother's health or a severe fetal abnormality.
Parental Consent: Parental consent is not required for abortions up to 12 weeks.
Procedure: Abortions are typically performed in hospitals or clinics.

Germany:

Abortion in Germany is illegal except to save the life of the mother but is nonpunishable during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy upon condition of mandatory counseling. The same goes later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

Switzerland:

In Switzerland, abortion is legal under certain conditions. The following are the key provisions of the Swiss abortion laws:
Time Limit:Abortion is permitted up to 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP).
Consent: The woman's informed consent is required for an abortion.
Counseling: The woman must receive counseling from a medical professional before an abortion.
Distress: The woman must declare that she is in a state of distress due to the pregnancy. This distress can be physical, psychological, or social.
Exceptions: After 12 weeks, abortion is only permitted in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is in serious danger or when there is a severe fetal abnormality.

Norway:

Currently, women in Norway can have an abortion after the 12th week but only with the approval of a medical committee. Norway's parliament on Tuesday, December 3, adopted legislation extending the legal limit for abortion from 12 to 18 weeks in the Scandinavian country.

Hey isn't that interesting!  I wasn't expecting that!  Now, I'm in no way shape or form an expert on Swiss abortion laws, so take the above with a grain of salt.  Like I said, it's just what Google AI told me when i searched for "[X Country]'s abortion laws."  That said, as far as I can tell, all of those countries' laws are considerably more restrictive on abortion than the US's pre-Dobbs rules (up around 24ish weeks) -- and they're also all considerably more restrictive than Sweden's:

Sweden has liberal abortion laws, allowing women to terminate a pregnancy up to 18 weeks of gestation without restriction.
Key Provisions:
Time limit: Abortion is permitted up to the end of the 18th week of pregnancy.
Request: Women have the right to request an abortion without having to provide any specific reason.
Procedure: Abortions can be performed in a hospital or health center by a doctor or midwife.
Cost: Abortions are covered by the Swedish healthcare system.
Exceptions: After 18 weeks, abortions may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is at risk or if the fetus has a severe malformation.

[catastrophe]

If you go from 6.3 deaths/1000 live births to 2.6 deaths/1000 live births, that is a 59% reduction.

The way that you get that is you take 6.3-2.6 = 3.7. Then you take 3.7/6.3 and you get 0.59. Finally, you take 0.59*100 and you have 59%.

Thanks. I really was struggling with the math there.

[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.

Regarding born human beings viability, that is intentionally obtuse again.

From your own post, it sounds like 21 weeks should be the cutoff.  Want to hedge a bit, cool, let’s call it 16 weeks. The problem is that the assholes who apparently don’t agree with you and I about religion in politics like to make it where there are cooling off periods, multiple visits, and restricted quantities of providers that limits availability of appointments all equating to most folks not able to get their service in that timeframe.

With regards to my question and your belief about souls, it’s perfectly relevant to my greater point.  There is zero ability to have this discussion with someone who believes that life begins at conception, that the souls enters the body at life, and thinks this doesn’t completely inform a no abortion stance.

It seems the religious secret is to not admit that your faith governs your beliefs so that you don’t have to admit that voting for policy based on that is forcing religious beliefs on Americans who are supposed to be free of such things. It’s the defense to get what is wanted but ignoring its danger and harm.  It’s dishonest.

Hey man, I'm just trying to follow your logic and point out where it misses.  My view on what's a human is pretty easy (and consistent with the scientific consensus, by the way - see below).  Yours runs into pretty obvious problems.  I asked you questions about it, and you dismiss them and change topics.  And hey, you're free to do that.  You're entitled to your opinion and you don't have to engage with challenges on it. But if you do that, cool it with your righteous indignation about pro lifers basing everything on religion and being ignorant.

And I'm sorry, but denying that "human life begins at conception" is about as non-scientific as it gets.  You can dispute the value of that human life or whether that human has rights or not or the degree of those rights in relation to others', but dismissing me as some religious nutjob because I think human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg is absurd.  From the American College of Pediatrics:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Hey isn't that interesting!  I wasn't expecting that!  Now, I'm in no way shape or form an expert on Swiss abortion laws, so take the above with a grain of salt.  Like I said, it's just what Google AI told me when i searched for "[X Country]'s abortion laws."  That said, as far as I can tell, all of those countries' laws are considerably more restrictive on abortion than the US's pre-Dobbs rules (up around 24ish weeks) -- and they're also all considerably more restrictive than Sweden's:

Sweden has liberal abortion laws, allowing women to terminate a pregnancy up to 18 weeks of gestation without restriction.
Key Provisions:
Time limit: Abortion is permitted up to the end of the 18th week of pregnancy.
Request: Women have the right to request an abortion without having to provide any specific reason.
Procedure: Abortions can be performed in a hospital or health center by a doctor or midwife.
Cost: Abortions are covered by the Swedish healthcare system.
Exceptions: After 18 weeks, abortions may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is at risk or if the fetus has a severe malformation.

I'm also no expert on Swiss abortion law so, take what i say with a hint of lime but is it possible that the womenfolk from those surrounding countries that are in the 12-18 week window are travelling to Sweden to have the operation performed? And honestly i have no idea, like I don't know if Sweden makes any distinction between a woman having an abortion if she is a citizen or not. If they are just looking at it from the standpoint of "abortions performed, doesn't matter where you're from" then might we consider there's a strong possibility their numbers are high because they are attracting some visitors?

[catastrophe]

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.

Regarding born human beings viability, that is intentionally obtuse again.

From your own post, it sounds like 21 weeks should be the cutoff.  Want to hedge a bit, cool, let’s call it 16 weeks. The problem is that the assholes who apparently don’t agree with you and I about religion in politics like to make it where there are cooling off periods, multiple visits, and restricted quantities of providers that limits availability of appointments all equating to most folks not able to get their service in that timeframe.

With regards to my question and your belief about souls, it’s perfectly relevant to my greater point.  There is zero ability to have this discussion with someone who believes that life begins at conception, that the souls enters the body at life, and thinks this doesn’t completely inform a no abortion stance.

It seems the religious secret is to not admit that your faith governs your beliefs so that you don’t have to admit that voting for policy based on that is forcing religious beliefs on Americans who are supposed to be free of such things. It’s the defense to get what is wanted but ignoring its danger and harm.  It’s dishonest.

Hey man, I'm just trying to follow your logic and point out where it misses.  My view on what's a human is pretty easy (and consistent with the scientific consensus, by the way - see below).  Yours runs into pretty obvious problems.  I asked you questions about it, and you dismiss them and change topics.  And hey, you're free to do that.  You're entitled to your opinion and you don't have to engage with challenges on it. But if you do that, cool it with your righteous indignation about pro lifers basing everything on religion and being ignorant.

And I'm sorry, but denying that "human life begins at conception" is about as non-scientific as it gets.  You can dispute the value of that human life or whether that human has rights or not or the degree of those rights in relation to others', but dismissing me as some religious nutjob because I think human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg is absurd.  From the American College of Pediatrics:

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop.

https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

[DQ12]

Hey isn't that interesting!  I wasn't expecting that!  Now, I'm in no way shape or form an expert on Swiss abortion laws, so take the above with a grain of salt.  Like I said, it's just what Google AI told me when i searched for "[X Country]'s abortion laws."  That said, as far as I can tell, all of those countries' laws are considerably more restrictive on abortion than the US's pre-Dobbs rules (up around 24ish weeks) -- and they're also all considerably more restrictive than Sweden's:

Sweden has liberal abortion laws, allowing women to terminate a pregnancy up to 18 weeks of gestation without restriction.
Key Provisions:
Time limit: Abortion is permitted up to the end of the 18th week of pregnancy.
Request: Women have the right to request an abortion without having to provide any specific reason.
Procedure: Abortions can be performed in a hospital or health center by a doctor or midwife.
Cost: Abortions are covered by the Swedish healthcare system.
Exceptions: After 18 weeks, abortions may be allowed in exceptional cases, such as when the mother's life or health is at risk or if the fetus has a severe malformation.

I'm also no expert on Swiss abortion law so, take what i say with a hint of lime but is it possible that the womenfolk from those surrounding countries that are in the 12-18 week window are travelling to Sweden to have the operation performed? And honestly i have no idea, like I don't know if Sweden makes any distinction between a woman having an abortion if she is a citizen or not. If they are just looking at it from the standpoint of "abortions performed, doesn't matter where you're from" then might we consider there's a strong possibility their numbers are high because they are attracting some visitors?

All I can find is this:

Since 1 January 2008, foreign patients – including asylum applicants, non-permanent residents, and those not registered in Sweden – are allowed to get an abortion in the country. During 2009, 132 such abortions were performed in Sweden. The National Board of Health and Welfare called this a comparably small figure, in relation to the total number of abortions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden#:~:text=From%201%20September%202004%2C%20these,an%20abortion%20in%20the%20country.

So yeah, there's some of that going on, but not nearly enough to completely account for the disparate rates.

[DQ12]

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

[catastrophe]

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

I appreciate the honest answer, but what makes it more difficult to investigate than other deaths? You question witnesses, run some bloodwork, and let the people decide.

I understand your view to be that a fertilized egg should be valued the same as a human life and that it should only need the conditions to grow in order to become a birthed child. If a child dies in utero why would we not dedicate the same resources as to any deadly incident investigation?

[CHONGS]

We'll just force every woman to register and track their periods with the government.  We can also have women test for pregnancy every week if they are sexually active ( under penalty of fine or jail) and have those results logged and tracked.   Any pregnancy that doesn't lead to successful birth is investigated and the women are put on probation until cleared of misconduct. 

That ought to be simple right?

[DQ12]

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

I appreciate the honest answer, but what makes it more difficult to investigate than other deaths? You question witnesses, run some bloodwork, and let the people decide.

I understand your view to be that a fertilized egg should be valued the same as a human life and that it should only need the conditions to grow in order to become a birthed child. If a child dies in utero why would we not dedicate the same resources as to any deadly incident investigation?

Maybe we should?  My issue is that humans dying in utero is far more common (and far less obvious) than incidents of humans dying after birth. 

But criminally investigating each time a child dies in utero doesn't strike me as practically realistic for like, several different reasons.  Do the children that died in utero deserve an investigation to determine what caused their death?  Yes.  Do I think or expect that if abortion was massively restricted in this country that that would happen for every miscarriage?  No.

[catastrophe]

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

I appreciate the honest answer, but what makes it more difficult to investigate than other deaths? You question witnesses, run some bloodwork, and let the people decide.

I understand your view to be that a fertilized egg should be valued the same as a human life and that it should only need the conditions to grow in order to become a birthed child. If a child dies in utero why would we not dedicate the same resources as to any deadly incident investigation?

Maybe we should?  My issue is that humans dying in utero is far more common (and far less obvious) than incidents of humans dying after birth. 

But criminally investigating each time a child dies in utero doesn't strike me as practically realistic for like, several different reasons.  Do the children that died in utero deserve an investigation to determine what caused their death?  Yes.  Do I think or expect that if abortion was massively restricted in this country that that would happen for every miscarriage?  No.

I certainly agree it’s more common. It’s probably only less obvious because governments currently treat born children dramatically different than unborn. If you support banning abortion on the basis that a fertilized egg deserves the same right to life as a fully viable child, then I don’t see why you wouldn’t support a requirement to certify each fertilization the same way we currently do for births.

If you don’t support those measures because they’re expensive or logistically difficult then I have to wonder if you really do value the lives the same as born children.

[DQ12]

So same question to you. If a woman disobeys doctors advice and miscarries, should she be tried for involuntary manslaughter? Obviously with a jury to decide whether her recklessness was the cause of losing the baby.

Yeah, that answer, I don't know.  I need to think more about it. 

On the one hand, if the woman was intentionally being reckless and caused the death of her child, I think there ought to be a consequence to that.  On the other hand, I'm more inclined to say no, because investigating every miscarriage is practically impossible and wholly unnecessary in almost every circumstance.  Sorry for being non-committal on it, but that's a practical difficulty.

I appreciate the honest answer, but what makes it more difficult to investigate than other deaths? You question witnesses, run some bloodwork, and let the people decide.

I understand your view to be that a fertilized egg should be valued the same as a human life and that it should only need the conditions to grow in order to become a birthed child. If a child dies in utero why would we not dedicate the same resources as to any deadly incident investigation?

Maybe we should?  My issue is that humans dying in utero is far more common (and far less obvious) than incidents of humans dying after birth. 

But criminally investigating each time a child dies in utero doesn't strike me as practically realistic for like, several different reasons.  Do the children that died in utero deserve an investigation to determine what caused their death?  Yes.  Do I think or expect that if abortion was massively restricted in this country that that would happen for every miscarriage?  No.

I certainly agree it’s more common. It’s probably only less obvious because governments currently treat born children dramatically different than unborn. If you support banning abortion on the basis that a fertilized egg deserves the same right to life as a fully viable child, then I don’t see why you wouldn’t support a requirement to certify each fertilization the same way we currently do for births.

If you don’t support those measures because they’re expensive or logistically difficult then I have to wonder if you really do value the lives the same as born children.

I don't support investigating each miscarriage because it's practically impossible.  I also think an investigation would be unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of cases, and proving it up at trial would be near impossible from a causation perspective.  If there's clear reason to believe foul play is involved (e.g. a pregnant lady smokes meth every day and the child does of an overdose), then yes.  Investigate and prosecute, imo.  But I don't think we need a database or have authorities knocking on doors merely because a baby died in the first trimester.

You can claim I don't actually value the unborn as much as I say I do unless I support investigating every miscarriage, but I don't see those as inconsistent. 

[catastrophe]

Why would proving it up at trial be impossible from a causation perspective?

In abortion cases should the prosecution need to prove that the baby would have been born alive but for the abortion?

[DQ12]

In an abortion the cause of death is pretty obvious.  In miscarriages, it may not be.

A baby who dies while the mom has alcohol in her system may or may not have died because of the alcohol.