Comparative Statistics
When Catherine Scott in the Telegraph writes,
some women do not get upset about undergoing a legal procedure [abortion] that is 11 times safer than giving birth
is it worth pointing out that for the baby involved, being aborted is 200 times more dangerous than being birthed since it tends to have a mortality rate of 100%?
Or is that not helpful?
about as helpful as pointing out that claiming a baby would hinder your bizarre pursuit of fame for being famous is an even more legally dubious than claiming that having a baby girl would harm your mental health.
Perhaps this presents an opportunity for the CPS to correct their grievous error in not prosecuting the gender selective abortion cases last year, but somehow I doubt it.
Jonathan,
If you think the BJP cited research here (https://www.peter-ould.net/2011/09/02/the-bjp-paper-on-abortion/) is incorrect go ahead and show why.
So yes, it is helpful. It’s incredibly helpful, unless you think that a child in the womb of, let’s say 18 weeks, isn’t really a human being who needs to be protected and can happily be disposed of.
I’m pretty sure we’re in almost complete agreement with each other, Peter!
I’m just pessimistic that raising any argument, no matter how painfully and tragically accurate, will be helpful in terms of having any real influence on pro-abortionists, whether they’re mothers, doctors, prosecutors or MPs. The problem is not that they’re mistaken – it’s a wilful ignorance of reality; it to do otherwise would be to admit that we’re not actually God with complete control and judgement over our lives.
Let’s keep on pointing out the facts. At some point they might actually make some impact.
I’d love to be wrong.