Actually, an egg is more of a chicken period, since it hasn't been fertilized.

Enjoy your next breakfast!

Haha. A fertilized egg would look exactly the same.

Actually, it wouldn't.

Have you ever cracked an egg, and noticed blood in the yolk? If that happens, then it's been fertilized.

Yeah, I have noticed that. A few sneak by here and there. I still would not call them chickens.

Some people remove the "potential chicken" before eating, fertilized or not.

I read a really creepy sci-fi short story about something along those lines. It was in a collection called "Witpunk" that I picked up in Berkeley a couple of years ago. The story is called "Auspicious Eggs."

It looks the same until you crack it.

First of all your quoted figure is rhetorical. ALL abortions are post-conception birth control. But you make it sound like 95% of those do it because they couldn't be bothered to use any other contraceptive. How would you know what goes through a woman's head as she chooses this most traumatic of procedures. People seem to forget that those women who have abortions never enjoy the procedure.

An abortion is a very traumatic experience for a woman. Its not a joke. therefore i refuse to believe that any woman would choose abortion as the preferred method of not having a baby.

Women get pregnant even if they use other contraceptives. Even by doing everything by the book, it is still possible for a woman to wind up pregnant. Does she have to "be mature and see the consequences through"?? or is that the fault of the company making contraceptives?

Incidentally, making the hard choice of terminating a pregnancy requires a far greater level of maturity, especially considering the rape of your uterus and your emotions it involves.

Having an abortion is not the easy way out. It is a last resort. But it is a last resort that the mother has the right to choose. Just like people are now allowed to choose a divorce. Nobody likes a divorce, but can you imagine the uproar if people were not themselves in charge of whether they wished to spend their lives with a person or not.

Abortion sucks. not because of some vague notion of a murdered pre-baby. But because it is a lousy choice to make for a woman. She has to deal with a buttload of emotions, hormones, guilt, anger, loss and a huge spectrum of other crappy emotions tied up to this procedure. The best would be if no woman had to get an abortion. But that is not the same as saying no woman is ALLOWED an abortion.

Except that once a living being has begun to develop - or at the very least once his or her heart is already beating - it is not a matter of a "potential parent".

The reason I disagree with you about how the two situations are comparable is that in the abortion situation you have a third party involved whose life is being taken away from him or her...

I agree very much that people should have the right to divorce one another, as unpleasant as it is. No good can be accomplished from forcing people to stay with someone they definitely don't want to, even if they promised...especially under the pretense of marital "love".
But
as I wrote yesterday, the abortion question is a quite different one because killing is involved.

Why do you feel that outside interference is warranted in a circumstance wherein a one-day- old neonate is killed (assuming you do)... but not when a six months' prenate is killed?

Is that what you've been told? Because I know other women who have gotten abortions and they did not go through the living hell you are describing. Some of them even said they felt great.

The last resort? Oh, you mean like when a person just can't STAND the idea of being pregnant or giving up the baby to a loving pair of adoptive parents?

Correct: the legal right... because of a judicial fiat about which the people of this country were not allowed to vote. Please see the Tenth Amendment; Roe is a legal decision so sloppy that even Ruth Bader-Ginsburg admitted it.

There is only one thing these two issues have in common - the fact that they both became legally accessible in the mid-twentieth century. Other than that they have nothing so it is only muddling the issue to conflate them.

Straw man alert.
No one has said that no woman is allowed an abortion. Even the Catholic Church allows abortion in the cases of ectopic pregnancy or cancer of the uterus. And certainly in the minds of most prolifers there are additional health conditions that justify abortion.
Second, there is no "vague notion of a murdered pre-baby". There is the concrete fact of a developing fetus who undergoes a deliberate killing.

Alright i can accept that. Once a foetus has a heartbeat you can't kill it. Scraping tissue off the inside of a uterus is not quite the same is it?
So couples with children should also not be allowed to get divorced without the consent of the children involved?
Again my contention is still while the tissue on the inside of the uterus is a physical part of the mother, she has the right to choose what to do with it. That bit of tissue is not yet separate from the mother in any biological terms. It is only separate in our definition.
Six months prenate is still tissue. The senses have not yet come alive. Again i agree that second and thrid trimester abortions are just disturbing as the little beings actually sense the universe.