There is a 99.9% chance you just made that up

Nope, that was a 100% chance

Let's talk statistics for a minute. I have collected mine from the Guttmacher Institute.

What do they have to say about why women have abortions???

Only 6% of women have abortions for risks to either the maternal health or fetal health, 1% have abortions because of rape, and <0.5% have abortions because of incest. That means that 92.5% of all abortions are done because of convenience. Whether it be because the mother wants to postpone childbearing, doesn't want any more children, cannot afford a child, having the child will disrupt their job or education, or they feel they are too young.

The thing that gets me the most about the prochoice argument is that when you look at it at face value it is truly bankrupt. It's a womens body and it is her right to choose, hmmmm. Let's see

The woman choose to spread open her legs.
Choice 1

She choose to have sex without using contraceptives.
Choice 2

If using contraceptives she choose to have sex with a man not using contraceptives.
Choice 3

If both were using contraceptives, still knowing that the only 100% safe method of not conceiving is abstinance.
Choice 4

Where do the choices stop??

Part of being an adult is accepting responsibility for your actions. Correct me if I am wrong, but is not a man and a woman having sexual intercourse the biological means that humans use to procreate? Although having sex may feel good, help to relieve stress, be fun and exciting, ultimately its main purpose for procreation. Everytime you have sexual intercourse, you risk getting pregnant. That is the simple fact of the matter.

If you are not ready to have children, you are not ready to have sex,

If you do not want any more children, then you should have the appropriate surgery performed or you are not ready to have sex.

If you cannot afford to have a child, then you cannot afford to have sex.

If having a child will disrupt you life, then having sex will disrupt your life.

If you are too young to have a child, then you are too young to have sex.

Don't be fooled by the pro choice argument, it has nothing to do with making choices, it only has to do with having access to eliminating responsibility.

Two of the founding women's right advocates opposed abortion. Susan B Anthony, a hero to all feminist referred to abortion as "child murder". And Elizabeth Caddie Stanton, said this about abortion:

The Women's Rights movement says that abortion liberates women, does it really?? Consider this abortion liberates men who want sex without strings, promises, or responsibility. What it really does, is allows women to be guilty of the same thing that men were once guilty of, that of treating another being as property.

dmk

I would modify that a bit and say if you're not prepared to become ready and accept the responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy then you're not ready for sex. I'm not "ready" for children... but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to adapt if necessary.

[The woman choose to spread open her legs.
Choice 1

She choose to have sex without using contraceptives.
Choice 2]

What about rape victims ?

They did not choose to, as you so crudely put it, 'spread open their legs.
They did not choose to have sex without contraception, and I doubt very much if the perpetrator would consider the consequences.

Would you seriously condemn them to nine months of misery for something that was beyond their control?

Would you condemn an innocent child to the misery of being born to someone who didn't want it, who in fact might hate it, because it would be a constant reminder of its Mothers violation?

My opinion on on abortion has not changed, I believe that it should not be used as a method of birth control. As I have stated in topics before I believe that abortion should be illegal except in the cases of rape, incest and to save the physical health of the mother.

Furthermore it would not be me condemning the child to anything. Again, part of being an adult is accepting responsibility for your actions. If you do not want a child, and you know that there is no 100% effective method of contraception other than abstinence, then you shouldn't be having sex. It is simple.

Why should we allow someone's self-gratification, and that is what sex is when its purpose is not for procreation, to trump one's right to life??? If self-gratification is that honored, then why is rape illegal???? Rape is nothing more than a man, or in some cases a woman, fulfilling their self-gratification.

I am tired of hearing the pro-choice lobby saying that abortions should be safe, rare and legal. Their own actions betray their words. If they wanted abortions to be rare, why have they opposed late-term abortions???? Was that not what Roe established, see even pro-choicers wish Roe overturned. If they wish for abortions to be safe, why do they oppose parental notification?? Hell in order to get a piercing or a tattoo you must be 18 or have your parents consent. If you need an aspirin at school, you need your parents consent, but if you need to kill life, oh its your right to choose, what crap!!!!

Again if the prochoicers wish abortion to be safe, why do the oppose the 24 hour wait period? Before any surgery that is not an emergency, the patient is presented with all the facts, including what the risk factors that might occur from the procedure. But for the pro-choicers this is nothing more than an attempt to change someone's mind. Hmmm would that be choice by the way????

dmk

If the supposedly pro-life folks wish to protect their children, then why should they be given the opportunity to coerce their children into remaining pregnant?

And, if a pregnant woman is to be given the "facts" about abortion, shouldn't they also be given the "facts" about continuing a pregnancy?

After all, arguable and demostratively, continuing a pregnancy is far more dangerous to a woman's health and a greater risk to her life than having an abortion early in the pregnancy...especially more so for a teen-aged woman.

There you go again, subverting the process. You ignore the facts that for most medical procedures, and even elective procedures like piercings and tattoos, minors need the permission of their parents. Immediately you say why should parents be given the opportunity to coerce their children. Why are parents being kept out of the loop. Abortion is a medical procedure, why in all other instances is a parents permission needed and not in this one???

Women are counselled on the dangers of pregnancy by their doctors, so again why should they not be counselled about the dangers of abortion?
There are dangers to both. However, thus far, women are councelled about the dangers of pregnancy and not abortion, WHY???

No where in my statement did I say that woman should not be councelled about the dangers of pregnancy.

Noteably Baloney Detector you failed to address my last issue, that of choice. HMMM I think from here on in I'll just refer to you as Baloney.

dmk

Or mental health? I would include that as a valid reason. I'd even go as far as to call it self-defence.

You are making quite a few assumptions here, chiefly that all adults are capable of making rational decisions. They're not. Neither, I believe, is it reasonable to expect a person's intellectual decision to override their instinctive behaviour in all cases. Although I wanted kids in the past and may want them again in the future, it's not something I want to do right now, and I am aware that no method of contraception is guaranteed, yet I have an intense, almost irresistable desire to have sex as often as I possibly can. Now, you can call on me to accept the responsibility if the precautions fail, but I don't think it's reasonable for you to tell me what I should do with my todger meanwhile.

It's not that simple though, is it? It's not black and white. Circumstances do alter cases and while you've got self defence and mere convenience at opposite ends of the justification scale, there are myriad shades between. Speaking as the father of a child who was terminated without my consultation or knowledge until after the event, I have a huge amount of sympathy with the pro-life position, but at the same time I have to temper the anger that comes from that with the realisation that there's a lot more to the equation than the simple question of whether a woman can cope with pregnancy and childbirth. There is also more to consider than the immediate physical and mental health of the mother, and indeed the father: There is also the quality of life the child can expect, and the factors involved in that are the child's own personal health, obviously, but there is also the environment into which a child will be born. Consider the scenario of a violent home in which children are already abused and a mother finds herself in the position of bearing a child who will be subjected to the same living hell. Can you even begin to imagine what a heartbreaking decision that must be for any woman to have to make? I can assure you, having seen the effects, it is not something most women take lightly.

That's a frankly silly argument. You're trying to equate an accident to a deliberate crime with malice aforethought. It's just sensationalism.

How is opposing late abortions inconsistent with a desire for abortions to be rare? Surely, if they wanted them to be common, they would not oppose them.

I think I would support withholding parental notification on medical grounds only if the girl's doctor thinks it would be detrimental to the girl's health, which it may be if she were to be subjected to undue pressure from her parents. It's not a foregone conclusion that all parents of pregnant girls will necessarily help them to make the right decision.

Again, you're drawing an unfair analogy and oversimplifying. I have as much of a problem with the pro-life lobby as I do with the choicers: They both have rigidly polarised views and won't recognise that every case has its own merits.

I don't see how having or not having a waiting period can be a safety factor, and if the objection to it is the potential for undue influence, then it's just as likely that a choicer OR a lifer will try to exert it. The last thing any woman needs when contemplating such an awful decision, is to have ANYONE other than her doctor interfering, and anyone who does try to interfere, be they pro or anti, should be told to fuck off and removed by force if necessary.

Well said Rabbit !