• gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Oh, so the mother’s die every time?

    Even under your bad definition it’d be only 50-60% (accounting for the fact that some mothers do die)

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        You can’t have a higher than 100% death rate, that means more people died than were involved in what happened

        By reasonable definition that’s 1 death: the mother

        By your own poor definition it’s 2: mother and fetus

        So where are we getting extra from?

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The fundamental core issue is: do we count the foetus as a life? If so, there’s no such thing as a “safe abortion”

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            We do not, simple as, because it’s not

            That wouldn’t magically change the death rate, though, which was my point, don’t change the subject. If you’re not smart enough to understand basic math I’m not sure we should even pretend to respect your opinions on things more complicated than that, like basic science

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Science points to a foetus being a life- whether or not we value that life is a philosophical, moral and ethical issue. Biological, Physical and Chemical science isn’t the answer to everything.