Talk:Spontaneous abortion in humans

isnt there a name for this?
you'd figure thered be a medical name for this thatd be better use then "X in y"--il&#39;Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a word: "miscarriage". The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources?
I was looking for sources and found this articles. It looks like the table is overestimating the number of miscarriages and should be updated...&mdash; Unsigned, by: 146.164.73.122 / talk / contribs

What proportion
... of the failures have significant genetic/developmental problems? 86.146.100.13 (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

El Salvador
What's the rationale for this insane law? Who's the main force behind its promulgation?--Scherben (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it's from anti-abortion movements at the core (edit: it is; see quote from one of the citations)


 * The anti-abortion movement have already demonstrated themselves the utterly cuckoo crazy worship they have for fetuses, by already murdering doctors and firebombing clinics; these kinds of laws seem to be only on the right track for that movement. There is no "rationale". The only driving force is "save the fetus... save the fetus... save the fetus... save the fetus" regardless of any more widespread and damaging consequences to society. 19:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I agree there's no rationale, and I should have made it plainer that I used that word rather tongue in cheek. It seems Catholicism is the driving force? --Scherben (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Religion is frequently a driving force behind the pro-life movement in general, and particularly Catholicism, so it's reasonable to say it is in this case. 21:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term"
That's using the starting point of "200 eggs [in] an environment with sperm nearby." There were only 168 zygotes in the data set, making the spontaneous abortion rate 63% rather than 69%. 138.162.140.53 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Dat percentage though. 00:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually
Spontaneous abortion happens in 100% of cases unless something non-spontaneous beats it to the punch. It's called natural death. Does such a substantial death rate justify eliminating the lucky lives not yet taken by the Grim Reaper, though?

Less broadly speaking, I recall child mortality being very high back in the days. Was the intentional taking of a child's life more justified back then? This seems like a very dubious justification for abortion to be honest. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not. Your. Problem. Unless. It. Is. Your. Pregnancy. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Life isn't sacred, it's an annoying accident that got full of its own ego. Also, Fatalism aside, it's not your body. 02:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of argument by assertion you've got there. Either way, I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm just a bit confused how people think this justifies abortion. Appropriating miscarriage for your cause when it doesn't really support any pro-abortion argument seems like an odd strategy. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguments against abortion include the fundamentalist argument that destroying that a "soul" is equivalent to murder. You might say it's only intentional but the law in El Salvador disagrees as well as cases in the U.S. that try to stretch the law and ignore the lack of evidence to criminalize women with miscarriages. You'll see that some anti-abortion arguments rely on preserving potential life, and it assumes that conception always leads to pregnancy (not trying to strawman either; it's why some anti-abortionists are against contraception and birth control pills) That's what this article is for. 02:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:5D52:E700:16FC:2A2C (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)