Abortion....why?

[Ickorus]

My problem with abortion is that a lot of people use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Unprotected sex because you were drunk? There's an abortion for that!
Thought he was "the one" after 3 dates? There's an abortion for that!
Fuck everything that moves? There's an abortion for that!
Shagged some other teenager at 15? There's an abortion for that!

I think personally that abortions should be a last resort sort of thing for people who were raped or abused or something, if you're careless enough to get pregnant or get your girlfriend pregnant you should have to deal with the consequences rather than just ctrl+z something that would otherwise be a human-fucking-being.

 

[HalfTangible]

You NEED to know something beyond 'killing it is wrong'? -.- Seriously?

A fetus is a baby. If left alone, it will be born, it will live, and you have no right to deny it that chance. Killing it is wrong. PERIOD.

First of all: No killing is not wrong just because you say so.

If killing was wrong, how come the US has death penalties? How come President Obama authorized a mission with the objective to kill (not capture) Osama bin Laden? How come it's okay to shut down the medical ventilator of a (partially) brain dead car crash victim? How come more and more countries are implementing assisted suicide?

I'll tell you why: Because killing by itself isn't wrong, that's why.

What's wrong, however, is CRUELTY (which is an entirely different thing), and here is a the gist: a fetus isn't capable of feeling cruelty or associating it with anything (in fact, it isn't capable of associating anything with anything). A baby is. That, right there, is a huge difference.

Your argument that a baby will 'live' is also flawed for the simple reason that it won't. It might be 'born' if the women leaves it alone in her womb until she gives birth, but if she just abandons the child after that, then it won't live for very long, i can guarantee you that. That, btw, is going to be one of the consequences of prohibiting abortion: Women who are going to either leave or directly murder their newborn because they don't feel they can take care of them.

Allow me to finish this paragraph by quoting a part of my first post in this thread:

Bottom line is that prohibiting abortion is going to lead to a mass increase in the following problems:
- Children getting left (or possibly murdered) by their mothers because they can't care for them
- Children dying of hunger, because their mothers can't care for them
- Overpopulation being an even worse problem than it already is. The consequences for this is eventually going to be rather extreme as our resources are depleting.
- Women, who can't handle an extra child, breaking down (and their life along with them), which means they can't contribute properly to society.

I'm sure we can both agree that logically (and ethically), children being left to death by their mothers or dying of hunger, as well as the future welfare of our entire species, is far more serious problems than the ethical problems involved in abortion. Those simply take priority.

But i'll humor you. When DOES it become a baby, then?

When it's born.

That is just semantics however. You see, while i don't consider abortion murder, i do consider abortion after a certain period of pregnancy murder, because at that point the fetus has developed itself close enough to a baby to the point of cruelty being applicable. So in other words, i consider late/very late abortion murder, but i don't consider early abortion murder.

It seems like your stance on abortion is based upon the concept that a conceived child has been 'given a chance', and that it's cruel to take that chance away from it. My counter-argument is that if the child hasn't even gone to the stage where it's capable of understanding that it's alive, then cruelty doesn't apply, because it cannot understand (and therefore not receive) cruelty. Another argument i used was that, even if we assumed that there is a life after death (like going to heaven), if a fetus isn't capable of at least at some level recognizing that it has gone to a different place after an abortion, then why does it matter?

That's of course just the ethical side of things. On the practical side, i refer to my quote from above from my first post. Birth control is a necessity in modern society where overpopulation is a problem and BOTH men and women are working.

You see, in the old days, abortion wasn't as important as it is today for several reasons. In the old times, the women wouldn't usually be working (or at least not as much as the men), and they had to rely on the mans income to survive, which was fine because back then, people were married before they got children, and marriage was more or less permanent. In todays modern world, however, women have to stand up on their own. They have to have their own job/career, busy themself with education. Even if they marry a man (or just find a boyfriend), they cannot rely on his income forever, because relationships aren't hard fast things anymore. They can break up at any time, and if a women is depending on the man in the relationship to feed herself and the kid, that can be catastrophic both for her and the child. Therefore, modern society requires birth control.

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

 

[Draitheryn]

I'm not anti-abortion, but there's certain aspects of it I despise. First off, there are those who use it as a form of birth-control. Most of my family is in the medical field, and my girlfriend is a nurse, there are people who are on their 10+ abortion (free health care here makes it even easier). I also hate the argument "it's my body" as it applies to abortion.

The biggest thing that gets me however, is there are countries out there that allow abortions well into the pregnancy, and they argue that its just a fetus, yet there are children prematurely born at that stage of the pregnancy that go on to be normal functional people.

As to why people are infuriated about it? I can't fathom why people don't get why. The people that feel strongly against abortion believe wholeheartedly that the fetus is alive, and it is legal to murder it, it's no different than if we were murdering pre-school children to them. They speak out against it and they are the ones that are called crazy. I can emphasize with them completely, it must feel like speaking out against the holocaust and a bunch of smug people saying "keep your opinions to yourself, why do you care?"(again, not my opinion but I can understand the situation they feel they are in)

 

[HalfTangible]

A fetus is a baby. If left alone, it will be born, it will live

If left alone? It sorta has to be inside a woman (and the dice fall the right way) for it to develop. Many places that legalise abortions put the cut off point at when it could survive independantly.

This is not a trivial point, a woman has to put up with being pregnant in order for a baby to be born. This is no small thing, there are often serious health implications, including threat (or certainty) of the woman dying unless an abortion is performed.

*rubs temples* You knew full damn well what i meant... And i already said that the only exception was if the mother's life was in serious danger.

 

[Versuvius]

My problem with abortion is that a lot of people use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Unprotected sex because you were drunk? There's an abortion for that!
Thought he was "the one" after 3 dates? There's an abortion for that!
Fuck everything that moves? There's an abortion for that!
Shagged some other teenager at 15? There's an abortion for that!

I think personally that abortions should be a last resort sort of thing for people who were raped or abused or something, if you're careless enough to get pregnant or get your girlfriend pregnant you should have to deal with the consequences rather than just ctrl+z something that would otherwise be a human-fucking-being.

Well it is a womans right to not gestate a sprog if she doesn't want one...a bundle of undifferentiated cells aren't anything. It are as human as a hair follicle. It is only 'alive' medically once the heart begins beating and that takes a while. Sure you can assign a new definiton to it but in reality, in this cold cruel world ruled by science and medicine, it isn't a human until 20-odd weeks in. That is a fact. You can disagree with it, but it doesn't make it untrue. Any umbridge you have with this is either out of ignorance or the mental equivalent of sticking your hands in your ears and going "MLA LA LA LA LA LA"

 

[BNguyen]

Abortion has always seemed to me to be the symptom of another more serious problem:
People in general, and young people in particular, are too irresponsible with sex. Say what you want about condoms or the pill not being 100%, the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are a result of people either not knowing about contraception, simply not using it, or believing that some position/time of the month or technique will prevent pregnancy.
Solution?
Better sex education that focuses not on preaching, but on actual education and promoting the self respect of young girls especially.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about more people needing better education, heck, half the students in my college history class could barely define where France was on a map. The fact is, many people are ignorant of the ways of the world, myself included for the most part, and thus, they believe in what the majority voice says about anything without questioning it or thinking about it - a bandwagon dilemma - but, sometimes, even with better education, that isn't going to stop people from doing stupid actions.
So what I believe is this: When can anyone decide when something is alive or not?

 

[Lord Kloo]

I'm all for choice, the choice to either be against it or for it.. the law doesn't force you to have an abortion it just says ye olde heretics can have abortions if they so please..

What I'm more concerned about is that religious people follow the words of their god so willingly.. who cares if you're gonna be sent to hell, stand up to the big man, give him the two fingers and do what you think is right..

Just cus' hes the almightly creator doesn't make him right.. this should form the basis for all new laws, especailly on the abortion issue..

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you didn't want a kid, then keep your legs closed, use birth control, or find ways of defending yourselves from rapists

It's the victim's fault that she got raped, because if she didn't want to, she should have found a way of stopping it?

Fuck off.

 

[otakon17]

Considering that probably more killing has been done in God's name than anything else, the zealots that push that abortion is wrong ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES EVER! Not allowing abortions is just another form of control the nuttiest of religious buffs use.

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against religion on a whole, but it's the zealots the real nutters that piss me off.

EDIT: I think I need to clarify, abortion should be allowed at the woman's choice. Also, in the cases of extreme medical reasons endanger the fetus or mother, guaranteeing death or permanent injury for both or one. In the cases of rape, a HORRIBLE crime and of course sexual abuse from family members(incest does happen, it's creepy to say the least). As for women who just say "fuck it" and don't want to be inconvenienced by a kid because they literally "fucked up", they should get the choice too. But they have to live with that choice for the rest of their lives, that can be heavy enough. A choice to have an abortion is better than no choice at all.

 

[Kristoffer Sivertsen]

I also wonder why people turn to abortion. It's cheaper to fall down the stairs.

 

[Ickorus]

My problem with abortion is that a lot of people use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Unprotected sex because you were drunk? There's an abortion for that!
Thought he was "the one" after 3 dates? There's an abortion for that!
Fuck everything that moves? There's an abortion for that!
Shagged some other teenager at 15? There's an abortion for that!

I think personally that abortions should be a last resort sort of thing for people who were raped or abused or something, if you're careless enough to get pregnant or get your girlfriend pregnant you should have to deal with the consequences rather than just ctrl+z something that would otherwise be a human-fucking-being.

Well it is a womans right to not gestate a sprog if she doesn't want one...a bundle of undifferentiated cells aren't anything. It are as human as a hair follicle. It is only 'alive' medically once the heart begins beating and that takes a while. Sure you can assign a new definiton to it but in reality, in this cold cruel world ruled by science and medicine, it isn't a human until 20-odd weeks in. That is a fact. You can disagree with it, but it doesn't make it untrue. Any umbridge you have with this is either out of ignorance or the mental equivalent of sticking your hands in your ears and going "MLA LA LA LA LA LA"

Thanks for trying to insult me there, spot on job.

Maybe medically it is correct but that doesn't exactly negate the fact that that little blob of cells has the potential to be a living breathing person in just nine months time; to me the entire "It isn't alive until 20 weeks" argument seems like a way for people to avoid having to deal with any possible guilt they may otherwise have.

If people weren't so damned irresponsible about sex we wouldn't even be having this conversation; maybe they should restrict it to one per person in case of what we'll call 'product malfunction'.

 

[Cazza]

By the Pro-Lifers logic, they are also murdering baby chicks by eating eggs. Hypocrites! I'm definitely more Pro-Choice on this matter.

Supermarket eggs are unfertilized. I doubt anyone sells fertilized eggs.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I read the Bible. I really don't remember abortion being a topic for discussion, seeing as how the people who wrote the Bible and were alive when it took place didn't even know what germs were, let alone how sexual reproduction worked, let alone have a word for the concept of intentional aborted pregnancy.

It because of tradition. No one got abortions for the first couple thousand years of human history.

Um... guys....

They've had abortions since at least 1550 BCE - that's 3500 years ago. In Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

The Greeks had it as well. Aristotle commented on it. Also, a specific type of abortion is forbidden in the Hippocratic Oath (ie, the one written in Greece). His writings also include advice on how to perform other types of abortions that he believed were safer to the mother.

So yeah... people have been getting abortions for at least the past 3500 years. Aristotle supported first trimester abortions, but not second trimester. This isn't a new issue - the Ancient Greeks were arguing about it.

 

[Versuvius]

It has occured to me. If life was so precious it wouldn't be so damn easy to procreate. Perhaps if we use abortions to stop as many births like the mining companies are withholding diamonds to create a false need we can create a false need of children and life will be precious again?

I have stopped taking this thread seriously.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just cus' hes the almightly creator doesn't make him right.. this should form the basis for all new laws, especailly on the abortion issue..

Heh, I'd agree with that. If He's not a registered voter, He doesn't get a say in how my country is run. And His business shouldn't be tax exempt...He's rorting us out of our Tax dolllars!

If Jesus were to come down and start preaching, he'd better bring his passport, or a bunch of bogans would chase away the funny Middle Eastern bloke trying to change our country to suit him.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

My problem with abortion is that a lot of people use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Unprotected sex because you were drunk? There's an abortion for that!
Thought he was "the one" after 3 dates? There's an abortion for that!
Fuck everything that moves? There's an abortion for that!
Shagged some other teenager at 15? There's an abortion for that!

Um.. only like 7% of abortions fall into that category (entirely unprotected sex).

Most abortions (like, 70-80%) follow after Birth Control Failure - that is, the couple was using birth control and something went wrong. The pill didn't work, the condom broke, etc. Now, sometimes that can be due to carelessness, but other times it is just dumb luck.

Another 10% or so are medical concerns - there's something wrong with the baby and it is dangerous to continue the pregnancy.

Rape pregnancy, fortunately, is comparatively rare - less than 10% of abortions.

Yes I have a source for this. No, I don't have a link - it was from an article I read on an actual, physical piece of paper. Although, one would assume that these numbers are online somewhere, if you feel like looking for them.

 

[aei_haruko]

But why harm an innocent party that did nothing in the matter?

Because a fetus isn't an 'innocent party'. Or rather, it's not a 'party' at all.

By that logic, anything that can be said to be part of the creation of a child can be considered an 'innocent party'. For example would masturbation also be the act of killing an 'innocent party', because you could argue that this particular ejaculation could have conceived a child instead.

So with the logic that a child is a 'party' the moment it is conceived dismissed, how else can we define when a child can be considered a party?

Some other people like to define a being as a 'party' when the being is sentient (in the sense that it can feel pain). Scientific research shows that unborn fetuses are capable of reacting to many different things at a very early stage (around end of first trimester), including touch, temperature and light. So around that time (which in many countries is the latest time a women is allowed to have an abortion, unless extraordinary circumstances are present like rape, the girl being underage or in danger of losing her life because of the pregnancy). So by that definition, the child becomes a 'party' around the third month of the pregnancy.

The problem with that logic, however, is that it doesn't make much sense either. Why? Because even at the end of the first trimester, a baby is (for all intends and purposes), still less sentient than an animal, and since we humans typically have no qualms with killing animals (PETA members excluded), which as we know is not only perfectly capable of feeling pain, but also fear (which a fetus can't), then giving a fetus higher protective status than any animal we kill doesn't make any sense either. Even if a 'fetus' is able to (instinctively) react to pain, including the process of ending it's life before it's born, it's still more cruel to kill an animal if the ability to feel pain is the deciding factor. Cruelty, if we are to go by Wikipedias definition, is "...indifference to suffering, and even positive pleasure in inflicting it", and a fetus being aborted suffers less than an animal being killed, especially if it's part of hunting. You don't see religious anti-abortion people make demonstrations against hunting animals for sports now do you?

.

So now, with the "logical" arguments against abortion dismissed, lets talk ethical arguments instead. You see, there is plenty of people who would take issue with my last two paragraphs, and say that killing and eating animals is "just how the food chain works", and killing a baby (even if unborn) is 'inhumane'. Even if it doesn't make logically sense, to them it makes ethical sense.

Now, that isn't anything wrong with that opinion. It's perfectly fine to base your opinion on an ethical standpoint rather than a logical one. The problem in this case, however, is that this idea still fails to stand up to logic.

The world in it's current state is facing several problems, one of them being overpopulation, a problem that has been growing rapidly in recent years. We recently reached the 7th billion citizen on earth, and it's still growing. The seas are also being rapidly harvested for fish, with several species already being threatened with extinction (which, in turn, threatens our food supply since they are one of our food sources).

Now consider the personal problems involved for a woman who is pregnant with a baby she doesn't want. Not only does this severely hamper her ability to work and contribute to society, but it also throws her own life into a worse state of balance. This is especially true for poor countries, where the woman might not be able to feed the child, which then dies of hunger.

If humans are to stay on top of the food chain and be able to survive as a species, we have to control ourself and our growth. In China, it has come so far that they are doing FORCED abortions on women that have more than two children (which i don't support in any way, but i wanted to mention it as an example of how serious the overpopulation problem is).

Bottom line is that prohibiting abortion is going to lead to a mass increase in the following problems:
- Children getting left (or possibly murdered) by their mothers because they can't care for them
- Children dying of hunger, because their mothers can't care for them
- Overpopulation being an even worse problem than it already is. The consequences for this is eventually going to be rather extreme as our resources are depleting.
- Women, who can't handle an extra child, breaking down (and their life along with them), which means they can't contribute properly to society.

I'm sure we can both agree that logically (and ethically), children being left to death by their mothers or dying of hunger, as well as the future welfare of our entire species, is far more serious problems than the ethical problems involved in abortion. Those simply take priority.

I disagre. if we measure life as anything that can feel pain, then we ignore what it means to be alive. there are 7 definitions as to what a life is, and a fetus fills up 6 of them.
1:Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state.
the fetus can change it's internal enviroment in response to stimulii. if it's given nicotine ( yes, in the later stages i know i know) it will develop cravings for it. ( just an example off the top of my head)
2: being composed of one or more cells: well thats a basic fact. even at conception it stll is at least one basic cell.
3:Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components
well, they DO need food, and water, and air, aka, basic biochemical processes
4: growth: also, a true thing, fetuses grow
5:The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. aka, evolution, something which i believe instead of religeous doctrine. and fetuses do change over time, if the mother gets sick, both her, and the childs body will try to develop immune responses ( yes, later stages i know)
6: a response to stimuli, well, if you punch a mother in the stomach, the baby will respond somehow, even at the lowest stages in life.
7: the 7th category is reproductive capabailities, but even children cant sexually reproduce, or at least they are not ready too.
and yes, as for the "it's the later trimester though" heres what i believe, theres no way to regulate the process in any way. it'd be much too precise to be able to tell when the line had been crossed and the fetus would be considered "life". its just simply not feasable to put a limit on it.
as for the sentiance arguement, I dont agree. I dont think that sentiance is what makes human life worth potecting. i simply dont. It's too narrow a category in which to say that human life is defined specifically by _______
Plus I think it's much more cruel to kill something that never had the chance to live on its own, then something which might've lived a good life. Heck, I'd much perfer the chance to be alive for 10 years, and tolive life, maybe make friends, and have a semblance of fulfillment, then to have no life at all. Heck, thats precisely what i get fromatheism. I want to live life to the fullest while i still have it, rather than waste the time I have. I believe that that is the true cruelty.
Ah, as for the "well, then masturbation and menstration is genocide" arguement. Let me reaffirm my position, because I am not sure if it comes across properly. I believe that human life is made ONLY when a sperm unites with an egg. only then is it life. Sperm on it's own is just haploid sex cells, and so is an egg. Therefore, its not killing to masturbate, or to mensturate, or any of the sort. it's just genetic material in my eyes from the first point, but then after the compounds react, it's life.
Now as for themain points about world population. heres my idea: contraceptives (although in fairness sometimes they fail) I'm not bible basher going " well it's what GOD wants, so it's okay" n, thats asinine, and world pupulation is skyrocketing. Actually, fascinating story. So I want to be a chemical engineer when i grow up, specifically because I want to improve the haber bosch process. it's a process in which BILLIONS of people are fed by increasing the efficiancy of the soil by means of improving nitrification vai chemical means. it's a miracle of science, my goal is trifold: 1 develop this system into soething even better
2: figure out a way to have common reactive compouns react in order to egin an exothermic reaction cheaply( aka, make energy by making common things react well, in other words, chemical energy) and thridly, figure out a way to make multilevel farming possible, aka, have soil, nitrates, and water inside of massive greenhouses. to kee food production up, those are my dreams i persuing science: to make peoples lives better
and now that the pseudo rant is over...
in a prior post I stated that adoption should be a viable option. it's essentially giving up responsibility over a child that somebody never wanted, and hopefully it would go to a good home because of the mothers choice. I say that if a mother doesnt want to have her children, thats okay. In fact, I've donated money to organization made specifically for that purpose. Yes they were catholic ( I'm definatly not in agreement with the catholic church, but I'll admit, it does some good) . In the organization, there are many houses for women who are victims of rape, and abuse, it gives them a place to stay, and all of it is funded by charity. Women give birth to their children, and then they can either stay and raise their children, or they can leave their kids their and continiue with their lives, it's a wonderful place really. i've volenteered there at one time, and it definatly does lots of good. And i know that these types of places really can contribute to societal good as a whole.

 

[mjc0961]

Christian's are anti-abortion because of biblical passages referring to pre-conception plans of God ("You knit me together in my mother's womb", "My name was carved on your hand", etc).

And why do anti-abortionists protest it so hard? Because if babies are, in fact, living humans, then abortion is legalized murder, end of. If they are not, it is not.

Hence why the terms are "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" (pro-life argues that abortion is murder, pro choice argues that the parents should be able to do whatever they want with the fetus).

Of course babies are living humans. The problem isn't that, it's if they're actually considered babies/living humans when the abortion is performed. Is a fetus a living human? That's the issue. Obviously once it's been born and can be considered a baby, of course it would be murder.

 

[AngloDoom]

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

So it's okay to kill a person if they murder someone else (but have every opportunity to turn their life around and use more of that old 'human potential') but it's not okay to kill someone who wants to die because they're suffering a painful degeneration which will certainly result in an undignified death?

Right.

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

A baby laying in a street slowly dying of thirst, hunger, and cold is very much different than wiping off a collection of nerves from a human body which feels no pain. If you were given the two above examples (slowly painful death versus painless deletion) when deciding the fate of a child, I'm sure you'd know which to go for. Not that every case of disallowed abortion would have ended with a painful death, but I just wanted to point out a very loose comparison.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

You just did. Above. You said that murder is okay when it is for the good of mankind for such people as serial killers. Also, pro-choice isn't pro-murder, again this is a silly comparison. Serial killers do not kill for the good of society, and they do not kill things which cannot feel pain or comprehend suffering.

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

By the poster's definition, it's okay to kill people (or potential people) who can't feel pain or understand what it is their losing or the very definition of suffrage itself. Such things that fall into this category are an undeveloped foetus, sperm-cells, and egg-cells. Your definition encapsulates people under anaesthetic and other hysterical examples.

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

So why are you for the death-penalty? That is cutting your loses and killing human potential for the sake of saving others from suffering. This is precisely the same as killing a collection of undeveloped cells forming an undeveloped human foetus; except you may possibly be saving the potential infant itself from years of hardship and suffering. Using your logic, you're very much pro-choice.

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

Are you also against the morning-after pill, in that case?

Also, why once the egg has fertilised? The differences between a living, breathing, thinking baby and the collection of cells forming the first stages of a foetus are far greater than the differences between an fertilised egg and a fertilised egg.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

Just imagine if we lived in a country where women could not get legal abortions, I would definitely be more upset and motivated to express a political voice on the issue.

Actually before the time of legal abortions women found back door abortionists and it wasnt a safe procedure it is today. Alot of women died due to internal bleeding and infections and so the goverments legalised Abortions.

Legal or not abortions will happen.