Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. Consequently, any interest of the state in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgot it, has largely disappeared.

I do not see how first statement supports the second. Perhaps its ambiguous due to the second statement not specifying "inherently dangerous procedure" because they could mean any number of procedures. So I suspect that these are two loosely stated sentences.

  • The state presumably has interest in protecting women from undergoing hazardous procedures. Early abortions were presumably that chiefly due to higher mortality rates. Now evidence shows that those rates are as low as for normal childbirth. Therefore, the chief reason for the state to protect women from early abortions "has largely disappeared". The reasoning is valid, whether it is sound depends on assessing the truth of the premises about the state interest and the hazards of abortion. – Conifold Jan 26 '17 at 1:05
  • I'm a bit unsure of the context here. Is it trying to argue that abortions are so safe now that the state needn't provide them? Surely the reason that they would be safe is in part due to the fact that they are regulated by the state. Which would be like arguing that speed limits have lowered deaths in traffic accidents so much that we can now get rid of speed limits. – Matt-T Mar 12 '17 at 14:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.