What should abortion laws be?
- Thread starter FA_Q2
- Start date
JD_2B
Little Vixen
not really.. "rising exponentially" means that the country has seen a massive increase in the murder or abortion rate, illness, etc.
Last I checked, the DOJ said that the number of people murdered has gone down significantly. The number of abortions went up under the Bush administration, and back down under Obama. Fluctuations can be expected though, in general- but it is silly to attribute all of these things happening to abortion being legal.
Also, it might be surmised that with the advances in technology enabling pepople to have telephone (cell phone) services wherwever they go, then the amount of reporting would also go up, as well. It stands to reason, also, that the more awareness is spread about a certain issue, by television and radio commercials, billboards, etc, then more people will report it. From that, a logical person can also infer that the rate of child abuse and such has not necessarily gone UP, but the rate of reported abuse has increased as a result of our modern advances in communication, making awareness and reporting anonymously easy.
Wow.. since when does every woman on welofare abuse their kids??
You live in fantasy land, mama.
And in that fantasy land, you wholly blame legalized abortion on the increase in child abuse awareness??? WTF???
JD_2B
Little Vixen
I have done both. =)
Actually, My abortion lasted all of five minutes, so even if I hadn't asked them for the sleeping shot, a couple minutes into the procedure (it did hurt a bit) it still would have only lasted a few minutes.
Natural childbirth, the first time around, tends to take anywhere in the 9-12 hour range, for the painful parts, anyways. Plus, one has to push out a whole head. "Something the size of a watermelon, out of something the size of a lemon", to quote Kristy Alley in "Look Whos Talking".
After having my boy, I had to squirt water on my privates when I peed because I was swollen and the acid in the pee hurt me so much. The doctors said I looked like I didnt even have a baby, but my shit was tore up, at least enough to make urination burn like hell, for three weeks. I had to use those little witch hazel pads, "Tucks", down there, too, just to walk somewhat normally. All this is not counting the confusing emotions that people experience when they have a baby. Many people do not initially react like "Oh my baby! This is a miracle!!", but instead, they are scared, and intimidated, smiling, just for the sake of pictures or other people in the room. Then people end up with post partum depression, mildly, all because they feel like they did not react the way the ladies in the movies do. Then there is that whole thing about breastfeeding, and having engorged, leaky breasts, and that does not include the actual act of nursing, which can be painful for some people. For most people, it feels really good, and even satisfying for the mother. These mothers might even feel like pervs for feeling happy or looking forward to the sensations involved with nursing. Some people might actually call them perverts for enjoying nursing, even though this enjoyability of nursing is mother nature's way of making sure you keep doing it, and nurturing the baby.
That doesn't even include the back and neck troubles especially for a younger woman, who is not fully developed, or anyone, really, caused by carrying the baby around, having to sit a certain way holding the bottle or nursing, etc.. This causes pain for the dads also. Then don't forget the lack of sleep involved... less sleep = more tired = lowered immune system quality= the ability to get sick and pass infection around to the whole family.
Thats about it, in a nutshell.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
Oh, also- one in 100 women die during childbirth, compared with one in a million having abortions. I think that dying must be rather painful, as well. =)
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
You had an abortion?
JD_2B
Little Vixen
You might want to write that sentence again... Because saying it is NOT factual that a fetus is also NOT a person, at whatever point in gestation, is really just self defeating. =)
You and I agree that a fetus is not a person, at SOME point in gestation- I admit that the "some point" includes all of gestation, and you want to pinpoint a certain time frame for it, to say when it is, based on the presence of anatomical structures. The studies I gave you prove that there is no need to worry about sentience or anything prior to birth, so why you keep yammering on about this, is really dsisturbing, but the hysterics are quite cute.
My data is far better than your non existent data, as well as the data that pro posted, which also supports my position, with the exception of some stupid right to life group's paper, and one study from 1992 which was antiquated by a new study which showed that the original "results" were complete horseshit. Get fucking real.
Obtuse ? Are you even familiar with how an abortion is performed??? Tell your ilk to stop acting like the insides of a woman's uterus are on some kind of public fucking property- THAT is obtuse.
LMAO!!!! NOOOOO THAT IS A SOCIOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY, you fucking twit. Legal guardianship is not a biologically demanding job, it is a social system, and thus is a sociological responsibility.
Oh for Gods sake. Yes, lets add in shit like that, because the baby being in the same room as a crackhead is some kind of biological dependence it has, and there is absolutely nothing sociological that can correct this need to be right next to crackhead mom, because
Why would I flinch at that? You are trying to say dead is dead. Well it isn't. HOW it happened is just as important as that it happened.
If that were true, you and your ilk would not be screaming about crackheads, personal responsibility, welfare moms, and all that. There would also be just as many posts on this discussion forum regarding the poor stillborn fetuses and how their mothers should be imprisoned because they made some dumb mistake, or even because their bodies was not good enough to bear a child, and that was known to them ahead of time..
As of yet, I have only seen posts demonizing women who abort, belittling their parenting skills, and blaming legalized abortion on a bunch of OTHER shit that is entirely made up, especially a "rising murder rate"...
It is not about anything but hating on women for making their own bodily decisions, and you know it.
YOU have, but your little friends have not, and you have done nothing to speak against this behavior. If you want me to believe that you give a shit about any womans well being, then it would behoove you to stop turning your little cheek to your ilk's bad behavior towards me, as all that does is say that you could care less what they say or do, even in real life (like the threatening message regarding posting my picture so that I can be identified and hurt, for instance, not to mention all the rest) and all I am doing is posting my opinions and a bunch of facts here. Verbal abuse and physical threats do not belong in any debate, much less on a freaking internet message board. I am not blaming you for their behavior, but since you all seem to share the same overall opinions of me as a person, based on my opinion that women should have the right to make medical decisions right up to the last month of pregnancy, which is NOT a personal opinion, but a legal one, in the first place. I have repeated that many times, as well. It is not my fault that you all want to make it personal, ok!!
I guess part of the problem would be a completely innaccurate representation of what I believe and why I belive. One more time; I believe a fetus IS a person at some point during pregnancy. The reason I believe that has little to do with the child's anotomy. I believe that because it is illogical to believe that all the things that make someone a person, concepts that are far greater than the mere act of drawing air, all come togother at that precise moment to make what was once not a person a split second ago now a person.
You stated that empircal data supports your position of when personhood begins. Well, I'm sorry, no it doesn't. It can't because nothing you posted begins to broach the subject of personhood. Your data can't be better at something it doesn't do in the first place. And you now you want to resort the truly desperate justification that something posted (regardless of whether it has anything to do with your contention) is better than nothing. If you want to talk about personhood you have to post something that talks about that subject. You posted a bunch of stuff about lung development hoping we would buy your arbitrary position that a first breath is what equals personhood. Yet you can't seem to tell us why with any reasonable rationale other than JD says so.
I'm sorry that it was something you didn't think about in your mad scramble to make up another excuse. But hey, you defined the terms dear. I'm just working within them. Biological dependence does not end until legal gaursianship ends. Meanwhile you are trying to contrive all these ways in which the dependency of the child and responsibility of the parent change from pre-birth to post. The fact is very little changes. Basic needs still must be met. They are simply met in different ways. It is dependent on you bioliogically in the womb just as well as out. Inside or outside as long as you are the legal guardian, the survival of that life depends on you not fucking yourself up.
What you have skirted around with this particular contrivance is your falsehood that no one is responsible for keeping anyone alive. Instead of manning up when called on it, you make the excuse 'oh well I meant biologically'. Either way it simply isn't true. As the legal gaurdian you have the responsibility to care for it AND yourself. The reason for that is the infant still has a very high level of dependence on the outside world for its basic needs. The responsibility for providing for those needs is the legal gaurdian. Given that dependance, what you do to yourself as the child's legal gaurdian will have a direct effect on whether it's needs are met or not.
Stop making excuses for your behavior. It's just more evidence you're a liberal, not a libertarian. An amazing inability to admit the fallacies you have presented throughout this debate up and an excuse for everything. You are NEVER to blame. You have no responsibilities. I don't call Pro or Cecille out because they are not 'my ilk'. We aren't a team. The worst I can say about them is that they use argumentation tactics that I probably would not. I am having a conversation with you. period. Verbal abuse and physical threats don't belong in a debate, you are correct. So why is it you're the main offender of verbal abuse?
Last edited:
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,748
- 225,378
- 3,615
Abortion rates are down.
What is your option? Restrict access to birth control, withold child support, force women to pay for doctors, medications and give her no options
Force her to have an abortion
FA_Q2
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #670
Another completly made up statistic from JD.
Maternal Mortality Ratio Adjusted > Women statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
17 in 100,000 die from child birthing. The rate is lower for abortions though, about 1 in 100,000 but still much higher than 1 in a million.
PS- USA is 134 on the list in case you were wondering.
Last edited:
JD_2B
Little Vixen
Highlighting the reasons I am not responding to your posts, you lame brains...
RED is for the lack of an argument to support your own position. Vagueness gets you nowhere fast.
BLUE is for the repetitive personalizing of the discussion points I make, as feeble attempts to somehow make your own vague arguments somehow logical and discernable, by using strawman argumentation ad nauseum, as well as bullshit ad hominems, thinly veiled, to somehow create the argument of choice being my personality, etc, to make my actual arguments less valuable to the discussion.
Epic fail. Both of ya.
RED is for the lack of an argument to support your own position. Vagueness gets you nowhere fast.
BLUE is for the repetitive personalizing of the discussion points I make, as feeble attempts to somehow make your own vague arguments somehow logical and discernable, by using strawman argumentation ad nauseum, as well as bullshit ad hominems, thinly veiled, to somehow create the argument of choice being my personality, etc, to make my actual arguments less valuable to the discussion.
Epic fail. Both of ya.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
No comment, lol.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
My apologies. I did not intentionally make it up. I used a graph chart from memory, and "saw" a 1 in 100 in my head. =)
PS- if women are 17X more likely to die from childbirth, than from abortions, then I see no reason to not support this. =) Thanks for the stats. You really are very good at supporting my overall points.
Pretty pathetic when you can't even follow your own chicken shit excuse to not actually reply.
I guess part of the problem would be a completely innaccurate representation of what I believe and why I belive.
This is a simple statement of fact. It can not be characterized as an attack. You stated what I believe. What you stated was not correct in terms of what I believe. Either you didn't read it correctly or your being obtuse again. I have always maintained, which you acknowledged, that I believe the concepts that make one a person occur sometime before birth. You stated my belief is otherwise. Your excuse doesn't fly here.
One more time; I believe a fetus IS a person at some point during pregnancy. The reason I believe that has little to do with the child's anotomy. I believe that because it is illogical to believe that all the things that make someone a person, concepts that are far greater than the mere act of drawing air, all come togother at that precise moment to make what was once not a person a split second ago now a person.
This directly responds actually to YOUR UNSUPPORTED definition of personhood. You have yet to provide empirical, logical evidence as to why a first breath is the beginning of personhood.
You stated that empircal data supports your position of when personhood begins. Well, I'm sorry, no it doesn't. It can't because nothing you posted begins to broach the subject of personhood. Your data can't be better at something it doesn't do in the first place. And you now you want to resort the truly desperate justification that something posted (regardless of whether it has anything to do with your contention) is better than nothing. If you want to talk about personhood you have to post something that talks about that subject. You posted a bunch of stuff about lung development hoping we would buy your arbitrary position that a first breath is what equals personhood. Yet you can't seem to tell us why with any reasonable rationale other than JD says so.
Again the above is not an attack or a personalization. Again it is a simple statement of fact. The medical journals you posted simply do not support what you claim they do. To be unwilling to admit to such an obvious fact is telling.
I'm sorry that it was something you didn't think about in your mad scramble to make up another excuse. But hey, you defined the terms dear. I'm just working within them.
Did you not bring up biological dependence? You agreed that this term means a childs survival is dependent on the condition of, and the choices a woman makes with regard to here body. I understand that you don't WANT that to apply post birth. The reality is, is that while you are the legal gaurdian, it does.
Biological dependence does not end until legal gaursianship ends.
Simple statement of fact, as per above.
Meanwhile you are trying to contrive all these ways in which the dependency of the child and responsibility of the parent change from pre-birth to post. The fact is very little changes. Basic needs still must be met. They are simply met in different ways. It is dependent on you bioliogically in the womb just as well as out. Inside or outside as long as you are the legal guardian, the survival of that life depends on you not fucking yourself up.
What you have skirted around with this particular contrivance is your falsehood that no one is responsible for keeping anyone alive. Instead of manning up when called on it, you make the excuse 'oh well I meant biologically'. Either way it simply isn't true.
Nothing more than a simple observation. Instead of taking the opportunity to modify the term since obviously it doesn't fit the defintion, you essentially accuse others of being stupid for not being able to read your mind.
As the legal gaurdian you have the responsibility to care for it AND yourself. The reason for that is the infant still has a very high level of dependence on the outside world for its basic needs. The responsibility for providing for those needs is the legal gaurdian. Given that dependance, what you do to yourself as the child's legal gaurdian will have a direct effect on whether it's needs are met or not.
All simple statements of fact again.
Stop making excuses for your behavior. It's just more evidence you're a liberal, not a libertarian. An amazing inability to admit the fallacies you have presented throughout this debate up and an excuse for everything. You are NEVER to blame. You have no responsibilities. I don't call Pro or Cecille out because they are not 'my ilk'. We aren't a team. The worst I can say about them is that they use argumentation tactics that I probably would not. I am having a conversation with you. period. Verbal abuse and physical threats don't belong in a debate, you are correct. So why is it you're the main offender of verbal abuse?
Again a simple statement of fact. You are a projector. It's a fact that anyone with two eyes who looks at this thread will see. You accuse others, most often falsely, of things you are guilty of, often times even more so than the person you are accusing. No place was that more blatantly true then your accusation of verbal abuse. All anyone has to do is go though this thread and count the number of times you have ended a sentence in useless name calling vs. the times I have done that. Turn your color coding on yourself. I would be surprised if you have the integrity to do so.
I understand how difficult it is to admit to someone that you're wrong. Especially when you have spent a good portion of a conversation condescening and belittlling that someone. I stated my goal is the truth. Yours clearly is not. Your goal is rationalizing a belief. Had you provided overwhelming evidence that your views are the right views, that they are TRUTH. I would have definately explored that. When I state what I believe it's because that is what I believe to be truth at that point until something comes along that shows me I'm wrong. For people like me who like debate for debates sake, people like you who can't be introspective, who aren't open minded, who aren't objective, are really disappointing. Lastly I told you no amount of name calling can compare to the harshness of the truth.
So show me I'm wrong when I call you a hypocrite. Because anyone who can be truly objective will see this thread, what you accuse people of and what you exemplify yourself and know it's the truth.
Show me I'm wrong when I say you lack integrity. Because anyone who sees this post and the one preceeding will see the truth that the things you highlighted don't fit the defintions you contrived for doing so and the mere act of it is nothing more than a cop out.
Show me I'm wrong when I call you on your claim of being objective. Because anyone who looks at this thread and sees the way you converse, is going to see that simply isn't the truth.
I really don't need you to admit to any of this. I don't need your validation of my opinion. I don't even want it. As an objective person I would be forced to call the credibility of such an endoresement into quesiton based solely on how you have conducted yourself here.
I guess part of the problem would be a completely innaccurate representation of what I believe and why I belive.
This is a simple statement of fact. It can not be characterized as an attack. You stated what I believe. What you stated was not correct in terms of what I believe. Either you didn't read it correctly or your being obtuse again. I have always maintained, which you acknowledged, that I believe the concepts that make one a person occur sometime before birth. You stated my belief is otherwise. Your excuse doesn't fly here.
One more time; I believe a fetus IS a person at some point during pregnancy. The reason I believe that has little to do with the child's anotomy. I believe that because it is illogical to believe that all the things that make someone a person, concepts that are far greater than the mere act of drawing air, all come togother at that precise moment to make what was once not a person a split second ago now a person.
This directly responds actually to YOUR UNSUPPORTED definition of personhood. You have yet to provide empirical, logical evidence as to why a first breath is the beginning of personhood.
You stated that empircal data supports your position of when personhood begins. Well, I'm sorry, no it doesn't. It can't because nothing you posted begins to broach the subject of personhood. Your data can't be better at something it doesn't do in the first place. And you now you want to resort the truly desperate justification that something posted (regardless of whether it has anything to do with your contention) is better than nothing. If you want to talk about personhood you have to post something that talks about that subject. You posted a bunch of stuff about lung development hoping we would buy your arbitrary position that a first breath is what equals personhood. Yet you can't seem to tell us why with any reasonable rationale other than JD says so.
Again the above is not an attack or a personalization. Again it is a simple statement of fact. The medical journals you posted simply do not support what you claim they do. To be unwilling to admit to such an obvious fact is telling.
I'm sorry that it was something you didn't think about in your mad scramble to make up another excuse. But hey, you defined the terms dear. I'm just working within them.
Did you not bring up biological dependence? You agreed that this term means a childs survival is dependent on the condition of, and the choices a woman makes with regard to here body. I understand that you don't WANT that to apply post birth. The reality is, is that while you are the legal gaurdian, it does.
Biological dependence does not end until legal gaursianship ends.
Simple statement of fact, as per above.
Meanwhile you are trying to contrive all these ways in which the dependency of the child and responsibility of the parent change from pre-birth to post. The fact is very little changes. Basic needs still must be met. They are simply met in different ways. It is dependent on you bioliogically in the womb just as well as out. Inside or outside as long as you are the legal guardian, the survival of that life depends on you not fucking yourself up.
What you have skirted around with this particular contrivance is your falsehood that no one is responsible for keeping anyone alive. Instead of manning up when called on it, you make the excuse 'oh well I meant biologically'. Either way it simply isn't true.
Nothing more than a simple observation. Instead of taking the opportunity to modify the term since obviously it doesn't fit the defintion, you essentially accuse others of being stupid for not being able to read your mind.
As the legal gaurdian you have the responsibility to care for it AND yourself. The reason for that is the infant still has a very high level of dependence on the outside world for its basic needs. The responsibility for providing for those needs is the legal gaurdian. Given that dependance, what you do to yourself as the child's legal gaurdian will have a direct effect on whether it's needs are met or not.
All simple statements of fact again.
Stop making excuses for your behavior. It's just more evidence you're a liberal, not a libertarian. An amazing inability to admit the fallacies you have presented throughout this debate up and an excuse for everything. You are NEVER to blame. You have no responsibilities. I don't call Pro or Cecille out because they are not 'my ilk'. We aren't a team. The worst I can say about them is that they use argumentation tactics that I probably would not. I am having a conversation with you. period. Verbal abuse and physical threats don't belong in a debate, you are correct. So why is it you're the main offender of verbal abuse?
Again a simple statement of fact. You are a projector. It's a fact that anyone with two eyes who looks at this thread will see. You accuse others, most often falsely, of things you are guilty of, often times even more so than the person you are accusing. No place was that more blatantly true then your accusation of verbal abuse. All anyone has to do is go though this thread and count the number of times you have ended a sentence in useless name calling vs. the times I have done that. Turn your color coding on yourself. I would be surprised if you have the integrity to do so.
I understand how difficult it is to admit to someone that you're wrong. Especially when you have spent a good portion of a conversation condescening and belittlling that someone. I stated my goal is the truth. Yours clearly is not. Your goal is rationalizing a belief. Had you provided overwhelming evidence that your views are the right views, that they are TRUTH. I would have definately explored that. When I state what I believe it's because that is what I believe to be truth at that point until something comes along that shows me I'm wrong. For people like me who like debate for debates sake, people like you who can't be introspective, who aren't open minded, who aren't objective, are really disappointing. Lastly I told you no amount of name calling can compare to the harshness of the truth.
So show me I'm wrong when I call you a hypocrite. Because anyone who can be truly objective will see this thread, what you accuse people of and what you exemplify yourself and know it's the truth.
Show me I'm wrong when I say you lack integrity. Because anyone who sees this post and the one preceeding will see the truth that the things you highlighted don't fit the defintions you contrived for doing so and the mere act of it is nothing more than a cop out.
Show me I'm wrong when I call you on your claim of being objective. Because anyone who looks at this thread and sees the way you converse, is going to see that simply isn't the truth.
I really don't need you to admit to any of this. I don't need your validation of my opinion. I don't even want it. As an objective person I would be forced to call the credibility of such an endoresement into quesiton based solely on how you have conducted yourself here.
Last edited:
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
According to the most recent CDCP Morbidity and Mortality Report I can find, the maternal mortality rate is 7.5 per 100,000 live births.
Also, both these numbers are problematic, because neither breaks it down by type. In other words, these numbers include any sort of maternal mortality, including abortion-related deaths. They don't specify deaths due to actual childbirth complications.
Third, to quote the Journal for the American Medical Association, "Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented . . . represent substantial under-reporting and disregard womenÂ’s reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment." In other words, women developing complications from an abortion most likely do so after having left the clinic, and they don't go back to that clinic for treatment. They go to an ER, which doesn't necessarily report the death as being related to an abortion.
It is a stone fact that, for various reasons, deaths related to abortion go egregiously underreported.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Highlighting the reasons I am not responding to your posts, you lame brains...
RED is for the lack of an argument to support your own position. Vagueness gets you nowhere fast.
BLUE is for the repetitive personalizing of the discussion points I make, as feeble attempts to somehow make your own vague arguments somehow logical and discernable, by using strawman argumentation ad nauseum, as well as bullshit ad hominems, thinly veiled, to somehow create the argument of choice being my personality, etc, to make my actual arguments less valuable to the discussion.
Epic fail. Both of ya.
I think it's adorable that JD is trying so hard to sound like me and adopt my speech patterns. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now if we could just teach her to fake rational thought, she might pass for human.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
Highlighting the reasons I am not responding to your posts, you lame brains...
RED is for the lack of an argument to support your own position. Vagueness gets you nowhere fast.
BLUE is for the repetitive personalizing of the discussion points I make, as feeble attempts to somehow make your own vague arguments somehow logical and discernable, by using strawman argumentation ad nauseum, as well as bullshit ad hominems, thinly veiled, to somehow create the argument of choice being my personality, etc, to make my actual arguments less valuable to the discussion.
Epic fail. Both of ya.
I think it's adorable that JD is trying so hard to sound like me and adopt my speech patterns. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now if we could just teach her to fake rational thought, she might pass for human.
Actually, I piggybacked "Epic Fail" from someone else, some guy, actually, right around the time I first joined the site, lol.. I guess it is a spin from World of Warcraft or something.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #678
My apologies. I did not intentionally make it up. I used a graph chart from memory, and "saw" a 1 in 100 in my head. =)
PS- if women are 17X more likely to die from childbirth, than from abortions, then I see no reason to not support this. =) Thanks for the stats. You really are very good at supporting my overall points.
Honestly it does not matter ether way. A death rate of .017 percent is too small to figure as you are more likely to die on the trip to the hospital than from the birth. That is what those statistics say, it is a negligible amount.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
That makes sense, Fa_Q2.. Also, it would be impossible to determine how many ER deaths or mortality rates were abortion related in countries where abortion is illegal, however I would venture a guess that they are far higher than what we see here in the US, where it is legal, and as safe as is humanly possible. Also, the women presented by the American Medical Association who came in from post abortion complications did not necessarily die. I am sure that the abortion itself is highly under reported, because people do not want to have less than adequate care caused by a bias (if even a subconscious one) of the caregiver. With this consideration in mind, it also would probably make only a slight difference in quality of care, if everyone did report a recent abortion.
JD_2B
Little Vixen
Furthermore, the reason for this US only statistic being so low, is because it is not adjusted as a worldwide figure, for the average number of maternal deaths due to childbirth.
If there was a catastrophic worldwide event, we would probably have to revert to a number closer to around 1000-2000 deaths per 100,000, equaling out to one to two deaths per hundred. Considering that I know my blood being left out for a couple of weeks will make me enough penicillin to combat any potential infections from an amateur abortion, or extraction of a severely injured fetus (say dead fetus, fuck it) then my abortion death rate would possibly be lower than that number. If eventually, we found the technique to make penicillin in bulk yet again, then it would only go back to a lower mortality rate for some, "some" being a matter of who has access to that penicillin, which is commonly used in life threatening complications. The complications tend to be infection rather than injury.
Anyways.. We are way off track here, but it was fun debating with y'all, more or less. Thanks for the banter.. =)
If there was a catastrophic worldwide event, we would probably have to revert to a number closer to around 1000-2000 deaths per 100,000, equaling out to one to two deaths per hundred. Considering that I know my blood being left out for a couple of weeks will make me enough penicillin to combat any potential infections from an amateur abortion, or extraction of a severely injured fetus (say dead fetus, fuck it) then my abortion death rate would possibly be lower than that number. If eventually, we found the technique to make penicillin in bulk yet again, then it would only go back to a lower mortality rate for some, "some" being a matter of who has access to that penicillin, which is commonly used in life threatening complications. The complications tend to be infection rather than injury.
Anyways.. We are way off track here, but it was fun debating with y'all, more or less. Thanks for the banter.. =)
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Karmelo Anthony Charged With First-Degree Murder and Will Be Tried as Adult — But Won’t Face Death Penalty
- Started by StatesRightsForever
- Replies: 2
-
-
FBI Recruiting Weekend: Patriot Front Fed Group Resurfaces in Kansas City, MO- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 1
-
