[TomO]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Except that it is being published in the journal LANCET (a high profile peer-reviewed scientific journal), not exactly some random fact sheet published by those organizations.

Except nothing.....the Countries and Cultures the Stats are compiled in has everything to do with the results.

I have to agree with SweetPea as well, making pregnancy more endurable at a societal level (federally mandated maternal leave) would probably do a LOT more to reducing abortion rates than overturning Roe v Wade ever would.

So why can't both be done?

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by TomO

Except nothing.....the Countries and Cultures the Stats are compiled in has everything to do with the results.



So why can't both be done?

Because outlawing abortion doesn't WORK and it makes the abortions that DO occur more dangerous to the woman.

~SP

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Lucky

We've already had this debate on TOL. Your side lost. Bad.

That was a debate on the ethics and theology of the death penalty. Plus, the argument about it being administered "swiftly and painfully" upon conviction is at direct odds with the US prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment and our desire to avoid executing the innocent (which the lengthy appeals process is *supposed to* minimize). It is a practical impossibility given that we do not live in the Christian equivalent of Afghanistan or Iran.

Given that, it makes sense that the death penalty would not be an effective deterrent for murder, much less abortion, which is MUCH more difficult to prove given the high rate of spontaneous abortion especially in the first trimester. Even with a bullet-riddled body in front of us and eyewitnesses, we sometimes make mistakes and wrongly convict---how would you propose ensuring that miscarrying women aren't witch-hunted?

~SP

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

...how would you propose ensuring that miscarrying women aren't witch-hunted?

Might you be overstating a bit here?

A police investigation is hardly a witch hunt.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Because outlawing abortion doesn't WORK and it makes the abortions that DO occur more dangerous to the woman.

~SP

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by TomO

Except nothing.....the Countries and Cultures the Stats are compiled in has everything to do with the results.

The point is the Lancet is a peer reviewed journal, if the reviewers had felt their methods were overly biased to affect their results then the paper would have been rejected instead of published. Not that peer review is perfect, but its certainly been held to a higher standard than the usual pro-life/pro-abortion propaganda.

So why can't both be done?

I didn't say you couldn't do both but overturning Roe just tosses it back to the states, some states will certainly remain legal and women that really want abortions will just travel to those states, or worse, undergo illegal abortions. The point is the pro-life movement sees Roe v. Wade as the FIRST and frequently ONLY answer. Getting at the actual root of the problem and stopping it in a manageable way
isn't even on the radar screen.