This is my last post about this. I am certainly not going to change your mind, and I like to have the last word. 

If the "pro life" people were truly so, they wouldn't provide support for war, guns, and the death penalty. And since they do not support other means of pregnancy prevention, such as supporting Planned Parenthood, "anti-choice" is a much more fitting term.

Conversely, "pro abortion" isn't necessarily a descriptive term, since the pro choice people may not be supportive of abortion, but support a woman's right to chose whether or not she wants to have a child, abortion being just one of those choices.

The US gov under Bush would not even provide support to women in 3rd world countries for birth control. This is not pro life. OUr gov does not provide support for impoverished women who have babies, wanted or not. This is not pro life. Our gov would not support the morning after pill which would cut down the number of abortions performed in this country. Our gov under Bush refused to teach children how to prevent pregnancy, except through the ridiculous idea of abstinence. This is not pro life.

And who are you to judge the conditions under which women choose to have an abortion? Incest yes, poverty no?

The fact is that women have been aborting themselves since they figured out how. Denying them this support will not stop abortion, it will just promote more death. And until you are willing to support these women to have babies, provide them and the mother with health care, housing, education, emotional support, etc. then you are not pro life, you are anti-choice.

 

hc,
LOL...I learned long ago, if not from my wife and two daughters, that women always have the last word. I accept that. LOL
Buttttttttttt, and it's a big but, how many pro-choice members in Congress continue to vote the monies necessary for ops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are they being hypocrites? Are they untrue to their pro-choice feelings? How much are they engaged in stopping the atrocities in say, Darfur?
I don't believe this Government of The People, has an obligation to meet the financial needs of women in foreign lands on the issue of abortion.
Again, you use social standing and circumstances as acceptable conditions for the abortion of human beings. Sorry, but I can not accept that. As I stated, it is more a failing of your side of the aisle on this matter to seek some common ground. I am not an advocate of outlawing all abortions as I have clearly expressed those exceptions I can accept, exceptions that I find to be within humane parameters. You continue to perhaps unwittingly, make the argument for abortion on demand. Is that what Roe was about? It appears to be what Roe evolved into.

Again, you are wrong and in an irritating manner: I am PRO-LIFE. It would seem that wording is bothersome to you. PRO-LIFE: a meaning and feeling I am comfortable with. It should not lead to snide remarks like anti-choice. I could say, unfairly, that you are anti-life. I don't believe that for a moment to be the case so please allow any conversation to be free of insults like anti-choice in lieu of PRO-LIFE.

Thanks,

And, you may have the last word...
mk

Downward Trend Continues

After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

The CDC ordinarily develops its annual report on the basis of data received from 52 central health agencies (50 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia). AGI gets its numbers from direct surveys of abortionists.

Because of these different methods of data collection, AGI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform. Nevertheless, because increases and decreases in CDC and AGI numbers have until recently roughly tracked each other, both sources are thought to provide useful information on abortion trends and statistics. The CDC stopped reporting estimates for some states in 1998, making the discrepancy larger.

Abortions from AK, CA, NH, and OK were not counted in 1998-99 CDC totals, and numbers for AK, CA, and NH were still missing from 2000-2002; CA NH and WV were excluded from 2003 and 2004. For those areas that did report, additional declines were seen between 1998 and 2001, and in 2003-2004. The CDC reported a slight increase in 2002, in contrast with the AGI numbers showing a slight decrease.

AGI's latest survey confirms a continued downward trend, showing just over 1.2 million abortions for 2005, a drop of 8% from its last full comprehensive survey in 2000. This is the lowest number reported by Guttmacher since 1976.

Using AGI figures through 20053, estimating 1,206,200 abortions for 2006 and 2007, and factoring in the possible 3% undercount AGI estimates for its own figures, the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. since 1973 equals 49,551,703.

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html