"I accuse that woman there of having had an abortion!!!"

Then you are ignorant of the facts of biology and your English is lacking as well.

Human (adjective) sperm meets human (adjective) egg doe not equal human (noun) baby, child . .You do understand the difference between an adjective and a noun don't you?

Until differentiation the cells have only one difference between every single cell in your body and that is the part of the DNA that says "make a human" is 'turned on', furthermore the cells in the blastocyst will cease to exist .. they do not make up ANY part of the finished article.

Furthermore a fertilized ovum will become nothing unless it implants, and even then it may still not develop.

A baby when used in the correct manner is a human between the ages of birth and approx one year old, that is a simple medical fact.

 

So all abortions are due to health risk?


Anyway.... you people should get your stories straight.

Seems at least one of you doesn't know wtf you're talking about.

 

Unlike pro-lifers pro-choicers are not brainwashed into a single line of thought, some of us believe that abortion is a form of birth control, some of us don't, some of us believe that abortion should be available at anytime for any reason, some of us don't .. perhaps you should try stepping away from the religious mandated pro-life manual and learn to think for yourself once in a while.

BTW, there is a case to be made that ALL abortions are done for health risks .. but you wouldn't be interested in expanding your thinking that far.

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I was quoting a forum expert (maybe you should tell her).

This was already covered anyway. I know the number is half of all unwanteds, where unwanteds are about half of all pregnancies.

If there were a cheap, reliable and assured method of birth control we would see the number of abortions drop - as it is they have been falling over the last few decades[/QUOTE]

 

Why ?

Abortion Doctors and PP certainly don't.

But if someone feels it is nothing but an inconvenient fertilization of an egg.... why would they care about the numbers?

Please don't throw out "health risk from the procedure" because every 20 seconds there is a successful abortion here in America.
Rarely does one ever go wrong.

 

Your inability to understand /10char doesn't make his response of "you" unintelligible.

Ok, obviously it's beyond you, but everyone else understood exactly what he said.

 

Only an idiot would believe that.... which is why I have no interest int "expanding" my thinking into their realm.

I pride myself on being above such stupidity.

No offense.

 

Avoiding pregnancy in the first place doesn't require an invasive medical procedure and is less expensive than abortion. Women would not be forced to make one of the most agonizing decisions of their lives.

That's not true. Abortion providers risk their lives every day to provide a needed service to women. They would make more money delivering babies. Planned Parenthood is non-profit, and any profit from abortion goes to provide other services like contraception, cancer screening, and prenatal care to women who could not otherwise afford them.

OTOH, reducing abortion numbers would actually hurt anti-abortion crusaders who profit at the expense of women:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221712/-Follow-the-Money-Rick-Perry-Abortion-Edition#

http://vegasjessie.com/2013/07/05/outlawing-abortion-helps-fund-americas-for-profit-prison-complex/

And there are many who have made a lucrative career from anti-abortion books and speaking tours.

Not to mention that taking away the anti-abortion soapbox would mean pro-lifers would have to find some other way to feel superior by demonizing those who disagree with them. There's little wonder why anti-abortion crusaders oppose the policies that would actually reduce abortion rates.

Legal abortions rarely go wrong. Back alley and self-induced abortions frequently do.

 

Thank you.
That needs to be said here more often.

Responsible women don't need abortions.

Since you say "everyone would like lower numbers", why wouldn't they choose to be more responsible?

 

We would all like a lower rate of injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents, so why don't drivers choose to be more responsible?

 

I don't have to hide behind silly code words...I can just say what I mean ..why couldn't THAT poster?

AND who are you to use "everybody" ? You can't speak for "everybody" and you have no idea what "everybody" thinks,,,



Anyone brave enough to translate /10char ???

 

Calling millions of women irresponsible....that's just ridiculous no matter what the topic...

It IS responsible to get an abortion if you don't want to have a baby.

 

Fail.

Drivers can't protect from the choices of other drivers.

People can use birth control, or abstain.

Next ?

 

""People can use birth control, or abstain.""


The typical Anti-Choicer's answer , ignoring the entire history of humans ..now THAT's convenient, and totally ignorant ..but it does fit on a bumper sticker...

 

Many times they can, it's called defensive driving. But what about those "other drivers," those who made bad choices? Why didn't they choose to be responsible?

 

Why are you hiding behind some silly "secret" code???

No guts? No facts? No English? No defense?

 

Ok, so the irresponsible "other" drivers.... equivalent to "raping" the responsible driver... is an issue.

Rape is why I don't fight against abortion laws, btw.

But rape isn't what we're discussing here, it's the responsibility of the specific driver.

A driver can drive, or not drive, but he can't protect himself from other drivers.
Human beings can have sex, or not have sex, but in either case can protect themselves.

 

Well in theory responsible drivers don't need seat belts - either way it's a moot point - if your issue with abortion isn't the human life aspect, as in the actual biological definition of human life, then it's no issue.

The numbers are irrelevant unless abortion = taking a human life - anything beside that point isn't a relevant issue, since it's the govt's job to protect people from others - not to enforce a certain brand of "ethics" on adults if it's not directly affecting anyone else. And I don't believe that an egg 1 millisecond after conception meets the biological criteria of a human life - since it doesn't have a brain or its own awareness or any of the criteria that we use to distinguish a human life.

If the issue isn't actually the human life question, but just that Person X thinks that someone's "obligated" to have a child simply because they had sex - then that's just elitist govt intrusion in people's lives.

 

It's a moot point - the only relevant factor in abortion is when human life begins.

If it's a human life then it's entitled to protection regardless of the reason - if it's not a human life then there is no issue with a woman having an abortion for any reason - it's pretty simple yet seems like both sides enjoy complicating the issue - the govt's job is to protect lives, that's it - not to control the lives of individual adults on some elitist whim

- - - Updated - - -

Because if they weren't "women" then it wouldn't be ridiculous

 

Responsible drivers can't control other drivers.
Responsible people can control the results of their sexual activity.

Cady tried that one also.... it failed with her too.

Of course... and exactly why I asked her why she claimed "everyone wants the number to be lower".

 

This analogy is neither about women who don't have unwanted pregnancies nor drivers who don't cause accidents. It's about "irresponsible" women who have accidental pregnancies, and "irresponsible" drivers who have accidents.

Why don't those drivers choose to be responsible?

 

""""Responsible people can control the results of their sexual activity."""

They do. They use birth control which includes abortion.

 

The majority of accidents are caused by the irresponsibility of the driver - so assuming that the driver was never a completely innocent victim of another's accident, then they would never need seatbelts

But there's no need to since the only relevant concern as far as "responsibility" is the human life factor - unless human life begins the millisecond after the egg is fertilized then "responsibility" is a moot point - because people aren't "responsible" to anyone to give birth simply because they had sex. And if that's what the issue is with some people, then it's not really even a "pro-life" issue - it's just an issue of elitism and wanting to dictate to free men and women how they should live their lives.

I don't care how low/high early term abortion is, because the human life factor isn't an issue there - so whether it's low or high isn't an issue to me. The only issue I can see would be the financial cost to the person who is pregnant versus the lower cost of birth control

 

Well, Gorn, no Anti-Choicer has even attempted to address the OP.....lotsa other blather and smoke and secret code words but when it comes down to the bottom line they have nothing....

 

You brought the analogy into it.

All I did was point out they are apples an oranges.