Not that anti-choicers like Bismarck care about poverty. They don’t. But they also have no moral authority, so it’s not necessary to justify anything to them.

Get rid of those coercive pressures, and I’ll be fine with all the other abortions in the world.

“I don’t know what you are talking about, but here is some information concerning why women abort:”

The following is from Chapter 3 of The Facts of Life by Brian Clowes, PhD

Numbers can only go so far in helping others understand women’s motives for having abortions. There is nothing as persuasive as actually surveying women in abortion mills and asking them why they think they must have abortions.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), which is the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) did exactly this in 1988 in the United States. The AGI surveyed 1,900 women in 38 states who were waiting for abortions, and asked them to fill out a form that detailed their motives for aborting.

They are fascinating and we can draw many conclusions from them. For example:
•
According to the women themselves, the “hard cases” of mother’s health, rape and incest, and fetal deformity (eugenics) account for only seven percent of all abortions. Health professionals have found that pregnancies that threaten mothers’ physical health or lives are very rare indeed. Also, careful study of statistics reveals that very few women become pregnant from rape or incest. Many women who abort for eugenic reasons may believe their preborn child is severely handicapped based on various prenatal tests, but the odds reveal that most of these babies are perfectly healthy.

Why Do Women Say They Have Abortions?

“A baby would change my life.” 76%

“I can’t afford a baby right now.” 68%

“I have problems with my relationship.” 51%

“I’m not ready for the responsibility.” 31%

“I don’t want others to know I was pregnant
or having premarital sex.” 31%

“I’m not mature enough for a baby.” 30%

“I have all the children I want.” 26%

“My husband/boyfriend wants me to abort.” 23%

“The fetus has a possible health problem.” 13%

“My health isn’t good enough.” 7%

“My parents want me to abort.” 7%

“I am a victim of rape or incest.” 0%
Other reasons 6%

Reference: Aida Torres and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest. “Why Do Women Have Abortions?” Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988, pages 169 to 176, Table 1.

No: the abortion debate has always centered on whether the human life that has the womb - you know, the pregnant woman? has full human rights. If a pregnant woman has full human rights, it becomes immaterial when or if the fertilised egg that may become a baby has rights.

Pro-lifers prefer to jump right over that initial hurdle, and pretend they have already settled that “the womb” is all there is, and there is no human being with rights involved aside from the fetus.

I would alter that to “We only care about life before it starts, and after it’s gone. Between those, you’re on your own…”

A woman can survive an ectopic pregnancy - why not just let it burst?

We only care about life afterall - risk and torture R US! Lets make everything more neat and tidy than it is in medical or developmental reality through the magic of religious fiat.

…but if there was one (and I believe there was one that was overthrown in North Dakota) it would be no skin off your uterus, so you probably wouldn’t care, right?…

I know of no legislative proposal to prohibit or regulate abortion that did not include an exception for the life of the mother.

Not my premise, Bismarck: your own. Your premise is that the fetus’s rights can be perfected only by taking the life of an innocent person - the pregnant woman. 65 000 innocent women die each year because of the belief held by you and others like you that the fetus’s perfect rights are best promoted even to the death of both fetus and pregnant woman. With each of those 65 000 innocent women died 65 000+ fetuses.

You reek of death, Bismarck.

Or is your premise that women are not innocent?

My premise is that human rights cannot be arbitrarily removed simply because the human is pregnant. Nothing to do with “taking life”.

I cannot accept your premise that anyone’s rights can be perfected only by taking the life of an innocent person.

Ignoring the sensational wording and absurd notion that an embryo is either innocent or a person, let along both, I’m always struck by the primacy placed on life above freedom. It seems an outright rejection of one of the central themes of our revolution.