The numbers came from 2 different studies that I found online (but didn't bookmark), both of which were several years old, and the term "intentional abortion" is the studie's not mine, and I don't know what procedures they excluded that other studies on the topic might include; researcher bias is always a question/concern on studies of this nature.

Nate: you're right, in my coffee deprived state this morning I mislaced a decimal point.

None of which changes my final statement. The medical necessity argument is a minute fraction of abortions, as are maternal deaths directly from the abortion procedure. The use of either argument, either for or against, abortion is irrational. You don't use the exception as the basis of your arguemnt in favor of your position. Pro-abortion folks should not use the "life of the mother" argument as it is exceedingly rare. Nor should the anti-abortion folks, for the same reason, use the "maternal risk" argument.

tThe bottom line is that abortion is, always has been, and until technology changes it, always will be a moral arguement. Folks who are against it are truly against it on a moral basis, and nothing can be said to change their opinion. Folks in favor of it do not see the moral argumetn, or feel that the moral weight should be given to the mother as opposed to the unborn child.

In reality the entire dioscussion is a complete waste of time. Abortion is allowed in the US on a Constitutional basis. Unless and until a definitive majority of the population takes the position that it should not occur, it can not be stopped. SCotUS will never revisit the decision, and unless the Constitution is changed, no politician's opinion on the subject matters. The entire subject is moot, unless you just enjoy getting into a verbal fight with someone, which can be occasionally fun.