The other issue with such stats is that it is based on reported abortions. By definition that ignores illegal abortions, which studies have demonstrated rise linearly with the loss of abortion rights. For instance Russia has some of the most restrictive laws on abortion, yet they have had no true decline once illegal abortions are factored in.

I’m not the one pretending to be dumb here. You asked a question, I showed you the data. I’m not your personal Google. If you have a point to make about Hungary, make it with data not with assertions.

2017

Hungary –

Population: 9.8 million
Abortions: 28,500
Rate per 1000 live births: 31.1
Rate against total population: 1 in 344 people had an abortion

Population: 323 million
Abortions: 638,169
Rate per 1000 live births: 188
Rate against total population: 1 in 506 people had an abortion

At existing rates, if Hungary had the same total population as the United States, they would have had 939,337 abortions in 2017, a nearly 50% higher rate than in the US.

Interesting figures there, while yes the US had drastically more total abortions, once you control for the population differences Hungary has considerably more abortions per capita. The discrepancy is when you measure against live births, where Poland had a fraction of the abortions in the US. What could cause that difference?

1) Hungary has universal tax-funded healthcare for 100% of the population
2) Child care costs for a single parent in the US are 52.7% of income, 25.6% for couples vs less than 4% in Hungary due to government programs
3) College tuition averages $766 for Hungary vs $8202 in the USA
4) Contraception is easily available
5) An aging population means fewer people of fertile age compared to the USA

This generally supports my thesis. While population wide abortions are more common, the actual rate of abortion per pregnancy is lower. This strongly implies people who get pregnant in Hungary are more likely to have intended to do so, and that even when they do not social services are so strong that the decision to give up a child is less a function of personal economics. They still have areas to improve, free long term contraception has been demonstrated to dramatically reduce abortion rates (Colorado demonstrated this quite recently), and the gender pay gap in Hungary is one of the worst in Europe, but strong subsidies around higher education, child care and general health care likely have a very strong impact.

I added the link for the child care reference because the numbers just blew me away, I had no idea it was this bad here: https://www.simplemost.com/this-is-what-child-care-costs-around-the-world/

The ends justifying the means is a common moral and ethical trap, especially on the right these days.

I don’t see any of you advocating for these policies. The only policy you ever advocate for is the one that grants you maximum control of a woman’s body. Your position is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. You do not give a damn about babies or fetuses, you only care about social control of women and you use abortion to justify it. If babies really mean so much, take the steps needed to protect them. Eliminating legal abortion does not affect abortion rates, so continued claims that it is the right thing to do are dishonest.

We know what will reduce abortion. Almost no one on the right will do those things though. Because abortion is not their real problem.

Layoffs came quickly at Mars Hill, so you are right. The numbers I saw that someone else posted for their shortfall this year are quite large. And that was before they fired JMac. I would expect that at least 25% of the people will stop attending over the next month and that the giving will drop an additional 33% or more. Their most expensive programs will have to be cancelled and they have to already be scrambling to cut their costs. I would expect this to be a major focus from the pulpit from the elders this Sunday along with the explanation of why they chose to fire him at this point in time.