.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

rgambs said:

what dreams said:

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

I refuse to label myself Pro-choice or Pro-Life. Both are just soundbyte labels that oversimplify a complex issue.

I believe that safe, legal and rare abortion should be available to women who need it. No one should have to cross state lines to get the procedure. No one should have to turn to some black market "doctor" either.

I think we do a disservice to young girls when we push this idea that "it's not a child, it's a choice."

I remember how horrifying it was to dispense the morning after pill when I worked as a pharmacy tech in highly impoverished Holyoke, MA. Not because I have a problem with the pill - I'm glad that a prescription is no longer needed here in Massachusetts. What horrified me was that these young girls, these kids, would come in with a prescription for it...and the doctors would write them with a refill option. No education, just a quick scribble on a paper to keep them out of the doctors' hair next time. Just one more of the many ways the children of that town were underserved.

I don't know if life begins at conception. I can honestly say I don't know when life begins. But I don't believe abortion is murder.

I don't see how "pro-choice" is an over-simplification. It's perfectly simple, not overly. It is actually not a complex issue at all. A woman can choose what she does with her own body and anything that's inside it. That's it. Super simple. Everything else is just noise IMO.

I don't understand why you would have any emotion about giving out the morning after pill, let alone be horrified. When that is used the egg isn't even fertilized. It is not much different that selling a box of condoms.

I'm pro-choice. I've had an abortion. And it's not simple.
Before I got pregnant, I was of the same mind as most pro-choicers who speak in abstracts. As soon as I got pregnant, things got very complex. For example, I finally realized when life begins -- as soon as a woman is conscious that she's pregnant. Even though I knew I was going to have an abortion, I stopped drinking and smoking during the time leading up to it because I didn't want to harm the fetus (isn't that fucked up). I frequently imagined what this life would be like if I didn't abort -- and still remember the due date as a birthday 16 years later. During the procedure, I physically felt the exact moment when that life was no longer a drain on my body. I spent years of emotional turmoil dealing with what I had done, forgiving myself so I could move on with my life, but I was stuck for a really long time.
Through it all, I have never given up my pro-choice position, but that choice is anything but "perfectly simple," PJ Soul. It's that kind of comment that has led me to believe that the only people who really have a right to an opinion about abortion are the women and their partners who have actually had one. Nobody else really knows what they're talking about.

Most of this is an an emotionally based, and is therefore a unique experience to you. If we don't keep the emotional and spiritual feelings of individuals out of the debate abortion will be strictly illegal by like, tomorrow.
My point is that your feelings about when life starts (what about the people who don't know they are pregnant until they give birth?) and the other aspects of abortion are yours alone, and their validity to you is not an endorsement for or against abortion.

How in the hell do you keep emotional feelings out of this? That's just not possible. You don't have the "correct" answer when life starts. What do you mean if you don't keep emotion out of this, abortion will be illegal tomorrow? That we all know it's morally wrong and if we came to our senses, we would all suddenly push to make it illegal?

What I mean is that if we let the strength of the debate rest on emotional assessments, the pro-life crowd will shout the rest of us down.
We have to let emotion be a factor in our reasoning, and not let reason be a factor in our emotions.

I agree. The emotions surrounding abortion have no place in the debate about its legality. Emotions about it are personal, and different for everyone. They have no place when it comes to determining women's rights. Only the simple concept of a woman having the choice to do what she wants with her own body should be considered when thinking of it in the legal sense IMO.

jeffbr

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

jeffbr said:

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

The choice is to terminate a life. Any scientist worth a damn will tell you that life begins at conception when cells begin to divide. Isn't that what we all fucking learned in 7th grade biology? Any mother will tell you that her life changed the moment she found out she was pregnant. Rgambs himself said his life changed as soon as he found out they were pregnant. THAT is how we know the fetus is a life.

Rgambs went on to say that he and his wife ultimately could not have an abortion because it was way too selfish . . . oh no, don't say that feeling out loud, rgambs, because the pro-lifers will shout you down. Right? Isn't that would you said? That you decided *not* to abort because of your emotions? So how dare you tell me what arguments I can or cannot use while I am discussing my pro-choice position.

So do you support the position that abortion should be illegal for a rape victim?

Jesus Christ. Why are you guys giving what dreams any kind of grief? She came here and shared a very powerful (and emotional) experience to help illustrate her position on the issue. After all of that she said "Through it all, I have never given up my pro-choice position, but that choice is anything but "perfectly simple,""

Thank you, jeffbr . . . Not only did I end my original post with that, but I STARTED my original post by stating that. And I've said in every subsequent post that I am staunchly pro-choice -- just disgusted with the way most people talk about abortion in this country.

sorry....I apparently misinterpreted.

No need to soil yourself jeffbr

Soil myself? It looks like you're the one who stepped in something. I was simply pointing out what's position, and expressed surprise by the backlash and challenges. Check your shoes before you worry about my pants.

Gern Blansten

jeffbr said:

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

jeffbr said:

Gern Blansten said:

what dreams said:

The choice is to terminate a life. Any scientist worth a damn will tell you that life begins at conception when cells begin to divide. Isn't that what we all fucking learned in 7th grade biology? Any mother will tell you that her life changed the moment she found out she was pregnant. Rgambs himself said his life changed as soon as he found out they were pregnant. THAT is how we know the fetus is a life.

Rgambs went on to say that he and his wife ultimately could not have an abortion because it was way too selfish . . . oh no, don't say that feeling out loud, rgambs, because the pro-lifers will shout you down. Right? Isn't that would you said? That you decided *not* to abort because of your emotions? So how dare you tell me what arguments I can or cannot use while I am discussing my pro-choice position.

So do you support the position that abortion should be illegal for a rape victim?

Jesus Christ. Why are you guys giving what dreams any kind of grief? She came here and shared a very powerful (and emotional) experience to help illustrate her position on the issue. After all of that she said "Through it all, I have never given up my pro-choice position, but that choice is anything but "perfectly simple,""

Thank you, jeffbr . . . Not only did I end my original post with that, but I STARTED my original post by stating that. And I've said in every subsequent post that I am staunchly pro-choice -- just disgusted with the way most people talk about abortion in this country.

sorry....I apparently misinterpreted.

No need to soil yourself jeffbr

Soil myself? It looks like you're the one who stepped in something. I was simply pointing out what's position, and expressed surprise by the backlash and challenges. Check your shoes before you worry about my pants.

that's fair

PJ_Soul

I don't argue that a fetus is life once its conceived. That is obvious and very well defined by science. And the vegetables I had for dinner last night were also life that I killed, and so was the mosquito I squished this morning. For me the issue is whether or not the fetus is a viable human life at that point. I would say no. I don't think that happens until the fetus would be capable of surviving outside of the mother's body. Before that, the fetus is a part of the mother's body, and therefore she should have every right to do what she pleases with it.

goingtoverona

personally I have no moral or ethical issues with abortion as long as it's in the beginning when it's just a blob of gooey cells. but when it has arms and legs and a head, I don't care if it can't live on it's own, it's a human being at that point, imo of course. there has to be a compromise somewhere between," masturbation kills millions of children" and "hey if it's in her gut still, she can kill it."

PJ_Soul

goingtoverona said:

personally I have no moral or ethical issues with abortion as long as it's in the beginning when it's just a blob of gooey cells. but when it has arms and legs and a head, I don't care if it can't live on it's own, it's a human being at that point, imo of course. there has to be a compromise somewhere between," masturbation kills millions of children" and "hey if it's in her gut still, she can kill it."

Not if it's in her gut. If it's in her gut and could not survive outside of it, even in theory. Big difference. FWIW, I do NOT support elective abortions after 12 weeks, which I don't think is a problem in any case - not in most places anyway. As far as I know, abortion clinics will not perform elective abortions beyond 12 weeks (16 weeks on the outside). I figure 3 months is quite long enough for a woman to get her ass to a clinic if that's what she chooses to do. Of course everything changes once the health of the baby and/or mother comes into question after 12 weeks.

Gern Blansten

Yes and I would think that those type of abortions are relatively rare. The right likes to paint the picture of mass abortions of viable fetuses which isn't the case.

PJ_Soul

Gern Blansten said:

Yes and I would think that those type of abortions are relatively rare. The right likes to paint the picture of mass abortions of viable fetuses which isn't the case.

Yeah, I've noticed that. They act as though any woman can go in and have her 6 month old fetus taken out by means of chopping off its limbs and deflating its head. Such elective abortions do not exist. Pro-lifers are liars.

Gern Blansten

And what's really interesting is the fight that the right puts up over "free" contraception meds under Obamacare. If they want less abortion why wouldn't they want to prevent abortion?

18% of abortions are performed on teenagers

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

what dreams

PJ_Soul said:

what dreams said:

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

I refuse to label myself Pro-choice or Pro-Life. Both are just soundbyte labels that oversimplify a complex issue.

I believe that safe, legal and rare abortion should be available to women who need it. No one should have to cross state lines to get the procedure. No one should have to turn to some black market "doctor" either.

I think we do a disservice to young girls when we push this idea that "it's not a child, it's a choice."

I remember how horrifying it was to dispense the morning after pill when I worked as a pharmacy tech in highly impoverished Holyoke, MA. Not because I have a problem with the pill - I'm glad that a prescription is no longer needed here in Massachusetts. What horrified me was that these young girls, these kids, would come in with a prescription for it...and the doctors would write them with a refill option. No education, just a quick scribble on a paper to keep them out of the doctors' hair next time. Just one more of the many ways the children of that town were underserved.

I don't know if life begins at conception. I can honestly say I don't know when life begins. But I don't believe abortion is murder.

I don't see how "pro-choice" is an over-simplification. It's perfectly simple, not overly. It is actually not a complex issue at all. A woman can choose what she does with her own body and anything that's inside it. That's it. Super simple. Everything else is just noise IMO.

I don't understand why you would have any emotion about giving out the morning after pill, let alone be horrified. When that is used the egg isn't even fertilized. It is not much different that selling a box of condoms.

I'm pro-choice. I've had an abortion. And it's not simple.
Before I got pregnant, I was of the same mind as most pro-choicers who speak in abstracts. As soon as I got pregnant, things got very complex. For example, I finally realized when life begins -- as soon as a woman is conscious that she's pregnant. Even though I knew I was going to have an abortion, I stopped drinking and smoking during the time leading up to it because I didn't want to harm the fetus (isn't that fucked up). I frequently imagined what this life would be like if I didn't abort -- and still remember the due date as a birthday 16 years later. During the procedure, I physically felt the exact moment when that life was no longer a drain on my body. I spent years of emotional turmoil dealing with what I had done, forgiving myself so I could move on with my life, but I was stuck for a really long time.
Through it all, I have never given up my pro-choice position, but that choice is anything but "perfectly simple," PJ Soul. It's that kind of comment that has led me to believe that the only people who really have a right to an opinion about abortion are the women and their partners who have actually had one. Nobody else really knows what they're talking about.

Actually, I have also had an abortion, so I absolutely know exactly what it's all about (not sure why you assumed I must be someone who has not gone through it, but I suggest you don't make that assumption about anyone anymore. TBH, that kind of pissed me off). But I still think that the idea of "pro-choice" is very simple. That doesn't mean I think getting an abortion is simple. I'm talking about what pro-choice is. That is a very simple concept.

I apologize for pissing you off. You took my post personally, and I should have been more sensitive to my language in communicating my point to you. But please read it again carefully. I never assumed anything about you. I know full well not to do that (please read my later post about all the women we know who have never openly shared their experience). Never in my original post did I say YOU have never had an abortion, so YOU don't get to have an opinion. I said that when I hear people try to simplify what pro-choice is ("that kind of comment"), I *tend* to believe that only the *people* who've had one know what they are talking about. I can see, though, why you would have inferred what you inferred and why you would be angry. Sorry.

PJ_Soul

Thanks, and no probs. I felt pissed off, but not AT you. Just about the inference I picked up from the post.

JUST A GIRL

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yes and I would think that those type of abortions are relatively rare. The right likes to paint the picture of mass abortions of viable fetuses which isn't the case.

Yeah, I've noticed that. They act as though any woman can go in and have her 6 month old fetus taken out by means of chopping off its limbs and deflating its head. Such elective abortions do not exist. Pro-lifers are liars.

Not 6 months, but 5 months is ok. Lever wonder why they call it 20 weeks and not 5 months? Because more people don't realize they are killing a child more than halfway developed this way. Those kids have fully fleshed out bodies, organs (obvious by the planned parenthood harvesting of organs) and once you see what I've seen, a literal baby clawing at the tube as its sucked down and murdered, just doesn't sit well with me. Justify it all you want, but it's murder.

Again I'm so sick of hearing that a "woman has a choice" they very much do, and that choice is to have sex or not. Once they do, they understand the risk they are taking. Abortions shouldn't be birth control. But it's justified and sickening. You wouldn't murder a 5 month old new born, so why is it ok to justify a 5 month old fetus?

I hope I present my post politely enough. Trying to follow the rules and do as you guys asked to, which is engage in conversation but be open to both sides.

Can anyone explain why they feel it's alright? It's a life you're taking away. A 50 month old or 2 month old, what's the difference?

PJ_Soul

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yes and I would think that those type of abortions are relatively rare. The right likes to paint the picture of mass abortions of viable fetuses which isn't the case.

Yeah, I've noticed that. They act as though any woman can go in and have her 6 month old fetus taken out by means of chopping off its limbs and deflating its head. Such elective abortions do not exist. Pro-lifers are liars.

Not 6 months, but 5 months is ok. Lever wonder why they call it 20 weeks and not 5 months? Because more people don't realize they are killing a child more than halfway developed this way. Those kids have fully fleshed out bodies, organs (obvious by the planned parenthood harvesting of organs) and once you see what I've seen, a literal baby clawing at the tube as its sucked down and murdered, just doesn't sit well with me. Justify it all you want, but it's murder.

Again I'm so sick of hearing that a "woman has a choice" they very much do, and that choice is to have sex or not. Once they do, they understand the risk they are taking. Abortions shouldn't be birth control. But it's justified and sickening. You wouldn't murder a 5 month old new born, so why is it ok to justify a 5 month old fetus?

I hope I present my post politely enough. Trying to follow the rules and do as you guys asked to, which is engage in conversation but be open to both sides.

Can anyone explain why they feel it's alright? It's a life you're taking away. 50 months or 2, what's the difference?

I don't know where these clinics that will do an elective abortion at 5 months, but they certainly aren't anywhere in Canada. It's 12 weeks in Canada, and from what I've read it's the same in most places in the US. Where can you go and basically give birth to a 5 month fetus and kill it just because?? I'd like to know. Because that's fucked up.

Abstinence doesn't work, surely you know that... just like birth control doesn't always work. I'm sure you are very special in your ability to not have sex unless you want to have a baby, but most aren't.

hedonist

I don't know, but I imagine many if not most women do not consider - let alone make - this choice lightly.

Last-12-Exit

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

hedonist

Last-12-Exit said:

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

Damn - at that point, she could arrange for the baby to be adopted.

PJ_Soul

hedonist said:

I don't know, but I imagine many if not most women do not consider - let alone make - this choice lightly.

Of course not. Many pro-lifers like to pretend that many women actually use abortion as birth control, which is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure there have been a few complete psychos who have done that because of mental health issues, but for 99.99% of women, an abortion is an act of desperation, not a casual way to avoid using a condom. Anyone who has had an abortion can tell you that it is not something that any woman actually WANTS to do. She does it because she feels it is the best of some very bad options.

PJ_Soul

hedonist said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

Damn - at that point, she could arrange for the baby to be adopted.

Agreed. I have a big problem with a healthy woman who would abort a healthy 7 month old fetus. If a woman could actually bring herself to do that, and not do it earlier, she probably needs to get some serious psychological counselling. Luckily, no abortion clinic would ever do such a thing anyway.

Last-12-Exit

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

Damn - at that point, she could arrange for the baby to be adopted.

Agreed. I have a big problem with a healthy woman who would abort a healthy 7 month old fetus. If a woman could actually bring herself to do that, and not do it earlier, she probably needs to get some serious psychological counselling. Luckily, no abortion clinic would ever do such a thing anyway.

So a woman that chooses to abort instead of adopt in month 7 has serious psychological issues? I highly disagree. Is that a fact that abortion clinics won't abort at 6 or 7 months?

PJ_Soul

Last-12-Exit said:

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

Damn - at that point, she could arrange for the baby to be adopted.

Agreed. I have a big problem with a healthy woman who would abort a healthy 7 month old fetus. If a woman could actually bring herself to do that, and not do it earlier, she probably needs to get some serious psychological counselling. Luckily, no abortion clinic would ever do such a thing anyway.

So a woman that chooses to abort instead of adopt in month 7 has serious psychological issues? I highly disagree. Is that a fact that abortion clinics won't abort at 6 or 7 months?

Yes, a woman who chooses to abort in month 7 would have to have psychological issues. At that point the baby is moving and kicking. You can feel their hands and feet as they push against her stomach. It is a pretty much full grown baby that is more than capable of living outside of the womb. Yes, a woman who would do that has real issue IMO. It would be no different than giving birth and killing the baby.
Yes, it's a fact that abortion clinics won't abort at 6 or 7 months (unless there is a health problem with the child, in which case it would probably be done in a surgical or maternity unit of a hospital, not at an abortion clinic. At 7 months it's not even really an abortion anymore. It's induced labour. The mother would have to give birth to a still born baby.

Last-12-Exit

I still ldisagree

PJ_Soul

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Last-12-Exit

PJ_Soul said:

Fair enough. No sane woman has done that I bet, but okay.
It's not really even up for debate, since it's not even an option for any woman. She'd have to somehow give herself an abortion/miscarriage if she decided she wasn't into it in the 7th month.... and would be lucky if the baby died. She could risk just ending up with a severely disabled child. But again, women just.... don't.really do that. Not enough for it to be worth consideration anyway.

Come on. No woman has ever done that? I am a betting man and I'd bet that many women have done it at legally operated clinics. I was dropping it but an outrageous statement such as that warranted a reply. Then to finish the statement with its done, but so little that it doesn't warrant consideration.

what dreams

Last-12-Exit said:

I have no problem with abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

Let me rephrase. I have no problem with a woman choosing to have an abortion at any time in the pregnancy. I'd rather a woman change her mind in month 7 than having the child without wanting it. But ultimately, it's up to the woman (and man if applicable).

I'm with you on this one, Last-12. It seems illogical to me to make up arbitrary deadlines for when it's okay to terminate. The arms and legs kicking around at 7 months are made of the same basic cell matter that existed at one month. Just because they look different doesn't mean it isn't the same baby. It's why I get so frustrated with the whole "when is it really a life?" debate. That question is completely irrelevant in my mind.

It would be interesting to find out more about how many women have had late-term abortions -- I think it happens rarely when some kind of health condition has been discovered, is what I've heard. It would be interesting to learn more about those statistics. PJ Soul, I think 20 weeks has been the standard cut-off here in the US until recently some states have been changing that.

oftenreading

JUST A GIRL said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

Yes and I would think that those type of abortions are relatively rare. The right likes to paint the picture of mass abortions of viable fetuses which isn't the case.

Yeah, I've noticed that. They act as though any woman can go in and have her 6 month old fetus taken out by means of chopping off its limbs and deflating its head. Such elective abortions do not exist. Pro-lifers are liars.

Not 6 months, but 5 months is ok. Lever wonder why they call it 20 weeks and not 5 months? Because more people don't realize they are killing a child more than halfway developed this way. Those kids have fully fleshed out bodies, organs (obvious by the planned parenthood harvesting of organs) and once you see what I've seen, a literal baby clawing at the tube as its sucked down and murdered, just doesn't sit well with me. Justify it all you want, but it's murder.

Again I'm so sick of hearing that a "woman has a choice" they very much do, and that choice is to have sex or not. Once they do, they understand the risk they are taking. Abortions shouldn't be birth control. But it's justified and sickening. You wouldn't murder a 5 month old new born, so why is it ok to justify a 5 month old fetus?

I hope I present my post politely enough. Trying to follow the rules and do as you guys asked to, which is engage in conversation but be open to both sides.

Can anyone explain why they feel it's alright? It's a life you're taking away. A 50 month old or 2 month old, what's the difference?

No, that's not why they "call it 20 weeks and not 5 months". Fetal dating is always done in weeks, not months, because it gives a more accurate measure. It's been done that way for decades.

And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't heard that the "planned parenthood harvesting organs" thing has been comprehensively debunked. The video was heavily edited to present PP in the worst possible light and to suggest things that are not going on.

If a woman who is having an abortion elects to donate the fetal tissue for medical research, then PP will take that tissue and donate (not sell) it to a reputable lab. The lab only has to pay the shipping cost, which is the cost quoted in the video. Obviously care needs to be taken in the preparation and shipping, which is why the cost of $60 or so was quoted - not because some evil mastermind is getting rich off $60. The tissue is used for things like stem cell research.

hedonist

oftenreading said:

The tissue is used for things like stem cell research.

Just have to say this is something I completely support.

rgambs

what dreams said:

The choice is to terminate a life. Any scientist worth a damn will tell you that life begins at conception when cells begin to divide. Isn't that what we all fucking learned in 7th grade biology? Any mother will tell you that her life changed the moment she found out she was pregnant. Rgambs himself said his life changed as soon as he found out they were pregnant. THAT is how we know the fetus is a life.

Rgambs went on to say that he and his wife ultimately could not have an abortion because it was way too selfish . . . oh no, don't say that feeling out loud, rgambs, because the pro-lifers will shout you down. Right? Isn't that what you said? That you decided *not* to abort because of your emotions? So how dare you tell me what arguments I can or cannot use while I am discussing my pro-choice position?

The debate is NOT "Is it life?" Of course it is. The debate is about the quality of the life -- and the role of the mother's own blood, oxygen, and other nutrients in sustaining it. A woman ought to be able to decide what she wants to do with her own body. THAT is the debate, and of course, the basis of my pro-choice position. If I choose to do something that at some level IS morally reprehensible, then I guess I just happen to join the filth pot of humanity in doing so. (My discussion with my priest was the most enlightening of all, and in ways none of you would expect). . . . But I'm not going to pretend it was a rational, clinical decision just to satisfy someone's perceived need to counter-argue the right-wing with an opposing style of argument.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think people shouldn't share their feslings, or that those feelings aren't valid.
Everyone should feel free to share what they wish, and I am not trying to stop that in any case, I am simply stating, again, that the strength (and strength of expression) of one's feelings shouldn't bear heavily in the legislative process, which is where this debate ends up.

hedonist

I get you, gambs, and know how much respect you have for women.

Dirtie_Frank

I just do not believe abortion should be used as a form of contraception. Any choice is going to change at least the women's life. I read a few times it is not a man's decision. I find that a bit odd because if the man did not want the kid he still will have to pay, but if a woman wants an abortion the man has no say. Either way it is not an easy choice. I am not sure there will ever be a perfect answer.

oftenreading

Dirtie_Frank said:

I just do not believe abortion should be used as a form of contraception. Any choice is going to change at least the women's life. I read a few times it is not a man's decision. I find that a bit odd because if the man did not want the kid he still will have to pay, but if a woman wants an abortion the man has no say. Either way it is not an easy choice. I am not sure there will ever be a perfect answer.

Then campaign to make actual contraception easier and cheaper to access. In the US it currently appears to be getting harder and more expensive instead. There are few women who would prefer to have an abortion compared to safe, reliable contraception.