LogFAQs > #983037414

willythemailboy posted...

It pretty explicitly did, particularly the ectopic pregnancy that had no chance of being carried to term.

That's still "this is a complication that didn't get addressed," not "she didn't want to be pregnant in the first place." I'm not talking about something going wrong with the pregnancy that meant abortion was the only safe option, I'm talking about pregnancies that would have been aborted as soon as they were identified regardless of whether or not complications would have arisen later. Most maternal deaths are not due to miscarriages gone wrong. They're due to bleeding (mostly postnatal), infections (mostly postnatal), eclampsia (after 20 weeks, usually after 28), and issues during delivery (axiomatically perinatal), all of which come long after the vast majority of miscarrying complications happen and even longer after abortion would be on the table as a treatment (after 20 weeks, you can just straight up deliver the baby and hope for the best if remaining pregnant is dangerous).

"This woman had a complication during her pregnancy that killed her because doctors weren't allowed to do an abortion" is obviously bad, but it's not the whole picture of the risks women face by carrying a pregnancy to term. By extension, it's not the whole picture of the risks women seek to avoid by having an abortion. By further extension, it's not the whole picture of deaths due to abortion bans.

willythemailboy posted...

I never said otherwise, only that the known cases of death due to abortion bans are still in the single digits whereas the statistical analysis you're quoting points to roughly a thousand. Normally when a statistical model differs from reality by two orders of magnitude people are honest enough to reevaluate that analysis.

My guy, look at what you're saying:

• Carrying a pregnancy to term is 40-50 times more dangerous than having an abortion
• Laws forcing pregnancies to be carried to term have resulted in fewer deaths than abortions have

These are mutually exclusive conclusions. This discrepancy can be explained in one of two ways:

• The historical data that yielded the former conclusion (and, consequently, any statistical projections based on this data) is somehow incorrect or has otherwise stopped representing the modern situation
• The anecdotal data that has yielded the latter conclusion paints a very incomplete picture of the mortality associated with abortion bans and should therefore not be cited as anything other than an example

Which of those seems more likely? Normally when an observation differs from a model that's backed up by decades of statistics, people are honest enough to reevaluate that observation.