Five years after an abortion, most women still say it was the right decision even if they struggled with their choice at the time, a U.S. study suggests.

Researchers surveyed 667 women who had abortions in 21 states a week after they had the procedures and then once every six months for five years. By the end of that period, 84% of women had either positive or neutral feelings about their choice.

"We found no evidence of emergent negative emotions about the abortion over the five years," said study leader Corinne Rocca of the University of California, San Francisco.

"In fact, of all the emotions we looked at, relief remained the most commonly reported one at all times, even five years out," Rocca said by email.

They made a smart decision at the time and are still satisfied with that choice 

until anti-choice advocates can come to a consensus on which individual right they are willing to concede, they should feel free to mind their own business and confine unamerican dominionist ideology to church property.

According to an article in the National Review , the study you are referring to here is a part of the Turnaway study. Apparently it is misleading in it's conclusions, according to the article. For instance, according to the Review, 667 women were not actually surveyed. That number appears to represent the number of women who the study attempted to survey but according to the article, less than 38 percent of those women actually agreed to participate. That means only about 254 women agreed to participate. Further, of those who actually agreed to participate, only 58.4 percent (or 154) completed participation through all five years, according to the article. 

For those who think there may be more regret than the pro abortion side admits to, you might find this site interesting as well. 

I trust my source, not yours drak

I don't know I trust either one, yours or mine. I just think it's important to hear opposing positions in order to mitigate confirmation bias as much as possible. 

My personal feeling is that I wonder how many women who've had an abortion are quietly washing the dishes one night and wondering, "what if I hadn't aborted? Who would that person have been?" I don't see how a woman, except the most self centered, could not eventually ask herself that. Because I feel that way I have to fight against taking the National Review article at face value simply because it supports my view that abortion on demand is wrong. For all I know it's doing it's own spinning of the truth as much as it claims your study does. So, I'm reading articles on both sides of the isle, so to speak. 

I just think it's important to hear opposing positions in order to mitigate confirmation bias as much as possible. 

The National Review article first claims the study is biased because the "University of California San Francisco" "typically produces research with a pro-abortion bias" but provides absolutely zero evidence of this spurious claim.

They then make it sound as if only 38% of the 667 women asked "agreed to take part in the study" which isn't the whole story.

"we recruited 956 women seeking an abortion from 30 geographically diverse US facilities"

"Five-year interviews were completed in January 2016. Overall, 37.5% (37.5% of 956 = 358) of eligible women consented to participate, and 85% of those women completed baseline interviews (n = 956). Among those, 93% completed at least one follow-up interview, and 71% completed an interview in the final two years of the study."

85% of 358 is 305 and 93% (284) of those completed follow up interviews with 71% (217) completed an interview in the last 2 years of the 5 year study.

The NR then makes another clearly biased spurious claim when it says of those who did participate, "It seems likely that the women who made themselves available for the study might have" "fewer moral qualms about obtaining an abortion, skewing the results". A completely unfounded assumption.

It then claims that because only about 60% completed the 5 year study, that those who dropped out did so because, in the National Reviews opinion, "it is likely that women who disappeared from the survey were experiencing more psychological suffering than women who responded".

The NR then claims we should listen to this other totally biased study which they say "was unique because it was able to analyze results from women who obtained abortions of wanted pregnancies". So the author is basically saying, "Hey, that other study isn't fair because I believe, without any evidence, that those women who agreed to the study were immoral whores. So let's have a fair and balanced study done of women who were pressured by parents or peers into getting an abortion they didn't want! Yeah! That's the ticket!".

It then admits "Of course, studies of this sort typically receive scant media coverage". Yeah, no shit. Why would anyone give any "media" coverage to such a blatantly slanted study?

The author of such ignorant trash should feel ashamed, but I know these morons have no shame left.

Yes, I noticed some of what you mention. That is, some of the conclusions, or guesses maybe, the NR made were not supported as to why women either didn't participate or if they had, did not follow through to conclusion. However, I noticed that the posted article for this topic seems to do the same...

Researchers surveyed 667 women who had abortions in 21 states a week after they had the procedures and then once every six months for five years. By the end of that period, 84% of women had either positive or neutral feelings about their choice.

This doesn't appear to be substantiated, either. And I'm not sure your 956 figure is correct. If I understood correctly, that may have been the entire available list, but I think only 667 of them actually fell within the parameters of the test. 

In any case, I find it difficult to give that study much credence because it doesn't do much about explaining why more than three fifths of those eligible would not participate. The answer may be significant. 

As I said, I don't know that I find either source very trustworthy. And I'm not sure we could ever really get a meaningful answer to this sort of question in the first place. Every single one of us has, at one time or another, claimed not to regret something we've done when, if we're honest with ourselves, we really do regret it. That isn't to say that anyone who says they don't regret getting an abortion secretly does regret it. It is to say that how would we know simply because we ask whether they regretted the decision or not? Especially in this study, since the average age of the participant was only 25. I wonder what their answers might be when they're 50. 

In the end, I think an issue as politically and emotionally charged as this one is makes it extremely difficult to do something like this study. I would look at any of them, regardless of which side it seems to come down on, with a grain of salt, or maybe salt rock even. 

For those who think there may be more regret than the pro abortion side admits to, you might find this site interesting as well. 

I think you might find this interesting as well. From the article:

Compared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger (scoring, on average, 0.4–0.5 points higher on a 0–4 scale), and less relief and happiness (scoring 1.4 and 0.3 points lower, respectively). Among women who had obtained the abortion, the greater the extent to which they had planned the pregnancy or had difficulty deciding to seek abortion, the more likely they were to feel primarily negative emotions (odds ratios, 1.2 and 2.5, respectively). Most (95%) women who had obtained the abortion felt it was the right decision, as did 89% of those who expressed regret.

It's interesting to note that a woman's pre-abortion emotional state regarding their pregnancy can directly influence their post-abortion emotional state. Even more interesting that an overwhelming majority of women felt it was the right decision regardless of their emotional state. The Guttmacher Institute offers an more thorough explanation of the study. Of course, a woman's pre-pregnancy and pregnancy circumstances also plays a part, perhaps to varying degrees.

An article from Current Psychiatry Reports shows: ".... Rates of depression are not significantly different between women obtaining abortion and those denied abortion. Rates of anxiety are initially higher in women denied abortion care. " 

I thought the bold part was particularly significant, as many abortion opponents cite some kind of mental health issues women develop after having an abortion, which is not necessarily true. To be fair, it doesn't mean a woman won't develop issues after an abortion. Again, many factors come into play.

Here is another article which gets into much greater depth and detail (and numerous scientific citations) regarding women's feelings after abortion. How a woman really feels after having an abortion (or even before) is based on many factors. It's not a simple case of a woman having an abortion and she will be like "meh, whatever," or become an emotional mess.

Even more interesting that an overwhelming majority of women felt it was the right decision regardless of their emotional state.

Presumably, you are referring to...

Most (95%) women who had obtained the abortion felt it was the right decision, as did 89% of those who expressed regret.

Actually, this is about what I would expect. I doubt that most women would find the decision to abort a child a trivial decision. If that is so, then I think there's a high degree of probability that few of them are going to question their decision so soon after the fact and instead, keep their focus on the reason why they aborted in the first place. 

Keep in mind that this is one week after. It would be interesting if the study could ask the same questions every ten years. Undoubtedly, some of the 85% who expressed regret, even though they thought it was still the right thing a week after the abortion, would feel differently as time went by. It would be interesting to see how many changed their minds over the years. 

I thought the bold part was particularly significant...

But again, to be expected, I think. What I found more interesting was the word, "initially." I take that to mean, with the passage of time, many would change their mind and be glad, to some degree or another. 

It's not a simple case of a woman having an abortion and she will be like "meh, whatever," or become an emotional mess.

I would agree. To my mind, proponents of either side of the abortion debate are trying, in general, use what studies that are out there as a sort of "this applies to all situations" sort of thing. That is, not every woman is going to end up regretting getting an abortion and not every woman will remain convinced it was the right thing to do. Every woman is different and, as you say, there are many factors involved. Both before and after. 

I'd like to note, however, that I have a lot of doubt about the statement "women rarely regret their abortion." As you noted in your post, 85% of the women who thought they made the right decision a week after the abortion felt regret in spite of that. I'm sure that probably means something like "I wish it hadn't been necessary but..." Still, as time goes by and she has other children, does she wonder in the secret place of her heart, who did she not allow to live? Who would they have been? When she sees a mother with her five year old in the grocery checkout line, does she wonder, who did I give up? 

I'm not saying that all women experience that but childbearing is fundamental to a woman's identity. Not in the sense she has to bear children to be a woman but in that it was what she is designed for, by either God or evolution, depending on one's beliefs. Physically, mentally and sociologically, it's fundamental to her. That is a lot going on inside a woman and part of why I find it hard to put much stock in studies like these. I think the questions "do you regret your abortion?" or "do you regret not getting an abortion" are too fundamentally personal to come up with any simple answers. They're going to be different for each woman and what they mean by "regret" will be different, too. 

Drak, we all reflect on "what ifs" on a variety of issues, dilemmas, and passions. Of course, it is needful that women will see their eggs in the same way or differently than men - and even some women. I don't think women are any type of monolith of opinion when it comes to childbirth and child-rearing.

I am going to go with my gut on this one, and vote you comment up.  As I have not read the National Review (a conservative rag no doubt) article, but I have had my fill of the incompleteness of conservative thought patterns and their pushiness of recent.

Being that in practice, conservatives don't have abortions, one can be forgiven for wondering why they think it needful to overly speak out about something they do not have a measurable true sense of the pain and agony of the mind, body, and spirit that may accompany the act itself.

It is similar for the homosexual dealing with the conservative mindset. As a group in dominant society, conservative heterosexuals, if they don't know what it is to live 'without' - a lifelong love, because their life-long loves are sitting right next to them in the house, home, or bed, why do they feel it needful to instruct others on the subject?

Just leave it alone! Just shut up and listen to those who live through it! 

For instance, I can not imagine attempting to tell someone who has experienced at an early age being horribly scarred in a raging fire and having lived life-long dealing with the physical, emotional, and spiritual damages - telling him or her how to process that aspect of daily living.

In the end, I think an issue as politically and emotionally charged as this one is makes it extremely difficult to do something like this study. I would look at any of them, regardless of which side it seems to come down on, with a grain of salt, or maybe salt rock even. 

Yes. People and "agents" do play around with their agendas. However, sometimes we need a floor for subject matter discussion.

Keep in mind that this is one week after. It would be interesting if the study could ask the same questions every ten years. Undoubtedly, some of the 85% who expressed regret, even though they thought it was still the right thing a week after the abortion, would feel differently as time went by. It would be interesting to see how many changed their minds over the years. 

NOTE: It has not escaped my observing that many NT women do not mention on "deal with" this subject openly. Or, do they?

Drak, in the above are you pointing out the axiom: As people age they become more conservative?

For instance, there are elderly women in my family who talk and 'count' a brother or sister whom died in childbirth or as infants, when they themselves were young. Do you suppose a girl or woman remembers her 'first' child never born, even though she went on to have other living children?

'I don't know I trust either one, yours or mine. I just think it's important to hear opposing positions in order to mitigate confirmation bias as much as possible.' 

I don't trust your source at all.  That side of the aisle is against abortion.

It sounds exactly like you trust your source and not mine.  

I give your National Review 'study' 0 credence.

You're anti-choice, that's quite clear.

I'm sure these women were being truthful in their answers.  Why wouldn't they be?

I doubt that most women would find the decision to abort a child a trivial decision.

I tend to agree.

If that is so, then I think there's a high degree of probability that few of them are going to question their decision so soon after the fact and instead, keep their focus on the reason why they aborted in the first place. 

Not necessarily. Some might. Others might be just fine with their decision. To each is own.

It would be interesting if the study could ask the same questions every ten years.

I haven't found any longitudinal studies yet. But I haven't checked all citations from the referenced articles either.

Undoubtedly, some of the 85% who expressed regret, even though they thought it was still the right thing a week after the abortion, would feel differently as time went by. 

Speculation. Possible. But there is no way to know to what degree any change of feelings might occur over time.

That is, not every woman is going to end up regretting getting an abortion and not every woman will remain convinced it was the right thing to do. Every woman is different and, as you say, there are many factors involved. Both before and after. 

But there are patterns in the studies. Overall, women more often than not do not seem to regret having an abortion. How and if that changes as time goes on is purely speculative. But if anyone has credible studies focusing on the long term, I would be interested to see.

 85% of the women who thought they made the right decision a week after the abortion felt regret in spite of that. 

It's "Most (95%) women who had obtained the abortion felt it was the right decision, as did 89% of those who expressed regret." In other words, the overwhelming majority of women thought their decision to abort was the right one, including those who expressed regret after. That implies that women felt ending a pregnancy was the better choice rather than continuing, regardless of how they felt. Either pregnancy option was not ideal. So they chose what they thought was best for them.

Still, as time goes by and she has other children, does she wonder in the secret place of her heart, who did she not allow to live? Who would they have been? When she sees a mother with her five year old in the grocery checkout line, does she wonder, who did I give up? 

You can wonder. 

They're going to be different for each woman and what they mean by "regret" will be different, too. 

Women citing their feelings on the matter are subjective and qualitative. But studies like those cited focus more on the quantitative aspect: more women than not report they make the right decision and/or they have no regrets.

I don't trust your source at all.  That side of the aisle is against abortion.

Don't you think that hurts your credibility or, at least your objectivity? Dismissing something simply because it doesn't support your point of view? That makes you seem like someone less interested in the truth and more interested in getting your way, right or wrong. 

It sounds exactly like you trust your source and not mine.  

In this case, it isn't a matter of trust so much as it is having the ability to do math. I trust math. But to illustrate that you are wrong about my trusting the NR article...

It seems likely that the women who made themselves available for the study might have had either a higher level of decisional certainty or fewer moral qualms about obtaining an abortion, skewing the results. This information further skews the results, as it is likely that women who disappeared from the survey were experiencing more psychological suffering than women who responded.

These are quotes from the NR article. My first reaction after reading them was distrust because it seemed no more than speculation to me. There's no evidence given in order to reach their conclusion. Because they give no evidence beyond "it seems likely" for the conclusions they draw it makes me suspect the rest of the article. 

I'm done with you.  I don't care what you think or suppose 

Not necessarily. Some might. Others might be just fine with their decision. To each is own.

No, not necessarily. However, what I was trying to emphasize was that I doubt a single week is enough time to process an event so impactful to female identity. 

I haven't found any longitudinal studies yet. But I haven't checked all citations from the referenced articles either.

I'm not certain, of course, but from what I have read I get the impression there isn't such a study yet. 

Speculation. Possible. But there is no way to know to what degree any change of feelings might occur over time.

Not really speculation. One can find the stories of women who have thought it was the right decision at the time but came to bitterly regret it later. The interesting question is, how common is such an experience? I mean, where they came to regret that they had the abortion. I don't think the seeded article does a credible job of answering the question, in my opinion. 

It's "Most (95%) women who had obtained the abortion felt it was the right decision, as did 89% of those who expressed regret." In other words, the overwhelming majority of women thought their decision to abort was the right one, including those who expressed regret after. That implies that women felt ending a pregnancy was the better choice rather than continuing, regardless of how they felt. Either pregnancy option was not ideal. So they chose what they thought was best for them.

Yes, this is true, but you need to keep in mind that these are women who agreed to the survey. They represent less than two fifths of the potential 667 candidates that fit the study parameters and were presumably asked to participate. Is it possible that the results of this test are due to women who did not regret their abortion decision being the women most likely to participate. 

more women than not report they make the right decision and/or they have no regrets.

Possibly. It's probably more accurate to say "concerning the women surveyed, more women than not report they made the right decision and/or they have no regrets."  I think it might be interesting if we could know why the other three fifths of women eligible did not participate. 

Lastly, I'm pretty suspicious of the source. The organization conducting the study is not objective or neutral concerning the subject of abortion. Quite the opposite, in fact. 

Nice talking to you : )

what I was trying to emphasize was that I doubt a single week is enough time to process an event so impactful to female identity.

That's really up to the female in question.

I'm not certain, of course, but from what I have read I get the impression there isn't such a study yet.

I'm not certain either. I've only done a cursory search of scientific literature and arrived at the sources I cited.

One can find the stories of women who have thought it was the right decision at the time but came to bitterly regret it later. 

And there are probably similar stories of women who didn't regret it. Again, we can only speculate how a woman comes to feel about the decision over time.

They represent less than two fifths of the potential 667 candidates that fit the study parameters and were presumably asked to participate

Yes, there are limitations to the study, and with other similar studies as well. Such limitations are usually acknowledged in the study.

 I think it might be interesting if we could know why the other three fifths of women eligible did not participate. 

The study stated some were rejected because they were past the point of having an elective abortion. Also, any participation must  be voluntary. Some may have simply chosen not to participate.

Lastly, I'm pretty suspicious of the source. The organization conducting the study is not objective or neutral concerning the subject of abortion.

Which study? I've cited a few. And what's questionable about them? If I recall, one author of one of the studies actually stated a personal bias, with an explanation, as part of the study's limitations.

Which study?

The seeded article.

Opponents of abortion have argued against legal access to these procedures in part because of concerns that abortion harms women by causing negative emotions and regret, researchers note in Social Science and Medicine. This idea has contributed to state laws and court decisions limiting abortion as well as state policies requiring women seeking abortions to be warned it might cause lasting emotional or mental health harm, the study team notes.

Banning abortion is all about control...how dare women think for themselves, make decisions for themselves without a man telling her what she is going to do.

Banning abortion is all about control

Exactly, 100% true. 

Right on the money!

"Opponents of abortion have argued against legal access to these procedures in part because of concerns that abortion harms women by causing negative emotions and regret, researchers note in Social Science and Medicine."


I guess the words "in part" are the great qualifiers. Iv'e never heard opponents argue based on concerns of such a woman having regrets later. I only hear arguments that a life has been terminated via the fancy of a woman. (despite how she might feel about it years later.) 

I've heard arguments about women having regrets. They're lame arguments and based more on emotion. But they're there. But then, most arguments against abortion tend to rely on appeals to emotion.

They're lame arguments and based more on emotion.

That would be a lame argument, which belongs in the same basket as all the radical arguments for women having a decision over life or death.

A woman has a decision and legal right over her body and health issues. There's nothing radical or lame about that.

So you've said many times

Some things bear repeating. Especially since it still seems to be an issue.

Especially since it still seems to be an issue.

Indeed it is

For opponents of abortion.  It's none of their business.  

But for some reason, they want to make it their business. 

[deleted]

Not the issue but no, I dont have a problem with it. I'm all for assisted suicide. 

I'm all for assisted suicide.

Off topic (per comment deleted) and context

[deleted]

I'm not the one who brought up removed for context

[deleted]

You did, in your now deleted post. Do you not remember or are you just being obtuse about it?

Prove it......................

'You did, in your now deleted post. Do you not remember or are you just being obtuse about it?'

The latter.

Some are just trolling now, please stay on topic.  Not referring to you Gordy.  

If mine was off topic so was his reply. And I am referring to Gordy

Thank Tess. That is becoming abundantly obvious, as evidenced by their subsequent replies.

My reply 4.1.9 to your prior post, which mentioned assisted suicide and to which my reply refers. Do you remember now? Or are you going to continue to be dishonest about it?

You brought up something that was off topic, not me. I simply responded to it. If you think my reply is off topic, then flag it as such.

[deleted]

Not up to me pal. That's the author/seeders job. Just pointing out the hypocrisy. You and I could have had a decent convo but alas.................

A decent convo maybe. But then you decided to engage in dishonest tactics. So you only have yourself to blame.

I believe the sub topic was choice. You know, as written here ad nauseum, pro CHOICE. I guess it depends on the poster (does that whine sound familiar?) Carry on and do have a good day.

The topic was choice, ad then you veered off topic with a strawman argument. 

then you veered off topic with a strawman argument. 

Merely an example of choice. Guess we are done.

It's not her fancy, it's her choice, no one else's.  

I really have no concern over how happy women are to have abortions, or whether or not they want to have an abortion, the issue is whether they should have legal access to terminate a pregnancy. Let's not lose track of the issue [deleted] Again that is not the issue and a divisive thing to even say. The issue is whether the GOVERNMENT is going to restrict your access to the right to have an abortion. Has nothing to do with men as there are women and men in the government.

Ever notice how many state legislatures that try to restrict or prohibit abortion tend to be mostly male members?

Ever notice how many state legislatures that try to restrict or prohibit abortion tend to be mostly male members?

Are you saying that most women are pro-abortion?  That would require some evidence.

I never said nor even suggested any such thing.

That is inconsequential. There are likely women who voted for those men so that is the consequence of their vote.

You were implying that if there were more women in state legislatures there might be a difference on restricting abortions. 

You're missing the point. State's that attempt to limit abortion tend to have male dominated legislatures. Sure women can be either for or against. But it's clearly more men that are against abortion. 

That is not what I was implying at all. 

Who put those males there? Are there more males in their voting district? Those males may be doing the bidding of the women who elected them. Ever think of that?

Let's see who put an abortion bill up for consideration, or if a vote was done to determine if abortion was a consideration before the legislature. Then you even have states that are "repeat offenders" with unconstitutional atempts to restrict abortion, only to be struck down by higher courts.

Most women are pro-choice.  

Most women are pro-choice.  

Prove it!

... or pro-individual freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld by the SCOTUS?

so sorry, the 14th amendment (and the 1st and 4th) is just as valid as all the other amendments. it's enough of a difficult, personal, and private decision for a woman and her doctor to make without the additional stigma applied by hypocritical religious fanatics that insist on meddling in situations that are none of their concern.

Those religious fanatics and small c christians are always sticking their noses where they don't belong.  

A disingenuous term. Who's "pro-abortion" exactly?  I don't hear of anyone going around telling, much less mandating, women should or must have abortions. Unlike pro-lifers or "anti-choicers" who try to prohibit women from having abortions. 

I meant exactly what I said, PRO-CHOICE.  

But, but, they're "saving" us from sin. Especially from the "sin" of abortion. >sarc <

Those religious fanatics and small c christians are always sticking their noses where they don't belong.  

Kinda like what everyone else does ?

Again that doesn't make sense. Pro gun people don't go around forcing people to by guns. It's a choice, but we don't emphasis it's a choice. It seems to just boil down to gun owners are proud to buy guns, and women are not so proud of having abortions. It's an emotional appeal to call it pro choice, instead of calling it what it factually is which is pro abortion. Again by "pro choice" what are we talking about? Choices in general? No, the specific choice to have an abortion.

They are elected officials carrying out the will of their electorate. Men and women alike. If they were not, they likely wouldn't be re-elected.

Which part of PRO-CHOICE don't you understand?  This piece isn't about guns, it's about abortion.  

I'm not so sure about that. 

Strawman argument. The issue is about abortion,  not guns. "Pro-abortion" is still a disingenuous and misleading term for the reason I stated.

I agree it's settled law. But it seems some have no worries other than what a woman (and probably a total stranger) does with her body and therefore makes an issue out of something that's settled.

Religion seems particularly good at that.

Religion seems particularly good at that.

So are "The Others" !

No Difference !

That's not good enough. Explain why pro abortion means people are forced to do something, but pro gun does not mean that? They are both rights I don't see why it's different in any way. I would even accept pro-reproductive rights before pro choice. The only reason people want to call it pro choice is to keep the focus on women, and not the action they want the choice to pursue. It's pathetic word games for people who have never been able to own up to their actions.

I already explained "pro-abortion" and how it's disingenuous. Continuing to utilize the same Strawman is a poor tactic. And pro-choice is reproductive rights in the context of abortion. Pro choice is just that: the right to choose, either to continue a pregnancy or not. How is that misunderstood?  The rest of your rant is irrelevant tripe.

What "others?"

OK let's go a differen't route. Here is the dictionary definition of being "pro" something

pro ¹

 (prō)

[deleted]

Are you saying that most women are pro-abortion? 

No, since no one is pro abortion. 

Intellectually honest people wouldnt dodge simple questions posed to them.

Great, you can quote a dictionary. Too bad you continue to ignore the context in which the word is applied.

Intellectually dis-honest people would ask a STUPID question !

Then it should be easy for you to answer. Well?

No, since no one is pro abortion. 

You need to repeat that a few more times.  It still won't sink in with them, but it still bears repeating.

[deleted]

Why won't you answer mine? 

I don't see how context matters. I don't see one single abortion rights activist trying to mandate that all women have an abortion. That's absurd and no one is even calling for that so why would that imply that in any context, therefor negating the literal use of the word? Being pro abortion means you support the abortion rights side of any debate. That's literally what it means by the dictionary definition. If you want to abide by some partisan "made up to make women feel better" definition of the word go ahead.

[deleted]

Where in that definition does it imply forcing people to do anything?

I don't want you to pick up that dog turd and eat it. I am not pro-fecal mastication. However I don't think it's my right to infringe on your right to eat that piece of shit. That means I'm pro-choice, not pro-shit eating. You are accusing people who would likely never even consider getting an abortion or recommending one to a close friend or family of being "pro-abortion" simply because they are pro-choice. If your very life depended on eating that dog poo, would it be right for me to deny you the right to eat it and survive? I don't want you to ever be in that situation, but if you are, don't let me and some privileged sense of self righteousness deny you your right to survive no matter how distasteful I find your method. I have no rights over your body and the choices you make with it. But i'm certainly not pro-crap munching just like I'm not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice in both cases. Is that really too hard for some religious conservatives who are mindlessly anti-abortion to understand?

However I don't think it's my right to infringe on your right to eat that piece of shit.

Even if I want YOU....to pay for it ?

I see you're not interested in actually discussing anything and just want to play your usual games and tactics. Thanks for proving me right.

[deleted]

That's just it: no one is calling for women to have abortions. So using the term pro-abortion is false and misleading.

Being pro abortion means you support the abortion rights side of any debate. That's literally what it means by the dictionary definition.

As you've said "pro" means "An argument or consideration in favor of something" and can also mean "One who supports a proposal or takes the affirmative side in a debate".

But what about the definition of "abortion"?

Abortion: noun - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

So "pro-abortion" means you are making an argument in favor of getting an abortion. Those who are pro-choice are not doing this.

What you're arguing is that the term "pro-abortion" is synonymous with "pro-abortion rights" but it's not. Words matter, and no one is making anything up to "make women feel better". You, and many others, are being completely dishonest in your labeling of others. And it's intentional. The anti-abortion crowd want to demonize, want to label any who are pro-choice as violent pro-abortion baby killers who revel in the number of abortions each year. Those type of folk would be saddened by the fact that through progressive policies and education abortions are decreasing in number each year in the US. However, those labeled "pro-abortion" are ecstatic at the fact that the numbers are dropping. I don't know of a single pro-choice person who wants abortions to occur, I don't want a single woman to have to go through that if avoidable. Better education, easy access to birth control for even the poorest communities, and access to family planning are the foundation of a healthy society.

So if you must, you're welcome to say "pro-abortion rights", which is what you're apparently claiming you mean when you say "pro-abortion". But expect continued rejection and derision of your claims if you keep framing your debate with such intentionally inflammatory labels.

Even if I want YOU....to pay for it ?

Totally erroneous argument. No tax dollars are being spent to fund abortions. You're not paying for anything, you're simply using a bullshit argument to infringe on others rights. And don't bother with the tired useless argument of "fungibility". It's total hogwash and you know it.

Totally erroneous argument. 

Nope !

"No tax dollars are being spent to fund abortions."

Really ? 

Whom is it that pays for the "Un-Insured" ?

It's funny you have to equate abortion to eating dog fecal to help people understand why they wouldn't want to be associated with it, but pro choice became obsolete once Roe vs Wade took affect. Women HAVE a choice. Now it's all about the access and logistics of having an abortion should they choose to exercise that right. That doesn't mean they have to have an abortion just like they don't have to vote or buy a gun or remain silent or anything. And I like how people also believe women have some kind of right to do anything they want to their bodies. I know I can't. I can't just go to the local CVS and pick up antibiotics when I feel I need them. Some doctor has to prescribe them to me and I have to pay him just to take care of myself. Poor me. Maybe I should join the pro choice crowd.

WHAT PART OF PRO-CHOICE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

also believe women have some kind of right to do anything they want to their bodies.

It is a red herring argument for them.  We already have laws restricting womens to choice.  Abortions past viability are illegal.

no one is calling for women to have abortions.

No One ?

Then who is "Calling" for it then ?

Martians ?

No one is pro abortion

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's funny you have to equate abortion to eating dog fecal to help people understand why they wouldn't want to be associated with it,

You don't have to like it, and no one is making you eat it, so why stand in the way of others rights? Do you really think you're that superior to others? Do you really believe your feelings about how nasty something is should override others right to do it? I don't really care if you think it's "funny", all I care about is whether you got the point or not.

but pro choice became obsolete once Roe vs Wade took affect. Women HAVE a choice.

Yes, and I support that choice, that doesn't mean the term "pro-choice" has become obsolete, or are you so totally blind you can't even see that you and others like you seem to be desperately trying to take that choice away?

Now it's all about the access and logistics of having an abortion should they choose to exercise that right.

Well access is key to actually being able to exercise a right.

Nearly 1.2 million people die each year in car accidents globally. If you were a "pro-lifer" that number should bother you. However, do you think we should attempt to ban automobiles?

Of course not. But what if in your State, you had a large group of pro-lifers who were attempting to effect a ban on autos by making the requirements for the autos allowed on their roads unrealistic? What if the new laws said that only autos hand crafted in Crewe, England are allowed to drive on your States roads? That means auto's aren't "banned", your States just has a very high requirement for them and thus only those who can afford to buy Bentleys are allowed to drive. I'm sure that would cut down on the highway deaths, but I suspect there would be many black market vehicles or faux Bentleys without any safety features, possible death traps, that would appear on the roads making driving for those folk even less safe, even though all they were trying to do is get to work to survive.

So making something virtually inaccessible by the vast majority is also "anti-choice" because even though someone can say "You have the choice to buy a Bentley", they don't really, do they, not unless they're in the top 2% of earners.

Instead, perhaps making autos safer would have been a better option to select if you were really upset by the million who die each year in auto accidents. Perhaps putting your resources toward driving courses and other educational programs would actually lower the number of deaths instead of simply being "anti-car".

That doesn't mean they have to have an abortion just like they don't have to vote or buy a gun or remain silent or anything.

Correct, no one is being forced to get an abortion, but there are people effectively being forced not to get them by conservatives limiting their access and making onerous rules intentionally designed to shut down women's access to that option. If there were progressives passing laws on gun dealers that effectively closed down all but one gun store in the State you KNOW you would be vehemently protesting such actions. If they required a full surgical room and surgeon on staff at each gun store just in case someone shot themselves or someone else while buying a gun, how many gun stores would be left in your State and how would you feel about those who passed such a piece of crap law?

And I like how people also believe women have some kind of right to do anything they want to their bodies.

So you're saying you should have some right over a woman's body instead?

I know I can't. I can't just go to the local CVS and pick up antibiotics when I feel I need them. Some doctor has to prescribe them to me and I have to pay him just to take care of myself.

True, and women who make that heart wrenching decision to get an abortion don't just go down to the pharmacy and terminate a 12 week pregnancy. They go to a doctor, or at least they'd like to, though with conservatives effectively cutting off millions of women's access by their piece of crap laws that's getting harder and harder to do. And while many don't have the ability to pay for such care from a doctor, Planned Parenthood was able to help even those without funds when they were in dire need of care through donations, and those donations that are used for abortions never come from the government or our tax dollars.

Maybe I should join the pro choice crowd.

I highly recommend it as it's really the only logical position to take. Those on the anti-choice side of the debate are fueled by nothing more than their "feelings" which interestingly enough, they often deride and accuse those on the left of caring too much about.

[deleted]

And yet, some pro-lifers are still not satisfied with that.

And yet, some pro-lifers are still not satisfied with that.

Well yes, but this rhetoric about freedom and choices are merely empty words.  If that was true, then an abortion at any stage of pregnancy would be acceptable for the pro-choice crowd.  

But, maybe it is and they just don't want to say it out loud.

I'm OK with abortion at any stage. It's simply not my call to make for anyone else. But I'd wager most pro choice people will meet pro-life people halfway on the issue and agree to settle on viability as an acceptable compromise. I doubt most pro-lifers would be as willing to accommodate. But no one seems to be calling for elective late term abortions either.

But no one seems to be calling for elective late term abortions either.

I would think the pro-choice advocates would be.  Wonder why not?

'And yet, some pro-lifers are still not satisfied with that.'

'Well yes, but this rhetoric about freedom and choices are merely empty words.  If that was true, then an abortion at any stage of pregnancy would be acceptable for the pro-choice crowd.  

But, maybe it is and they just don't want to say it out loud.'
Utter  nonsense.

Why the hell would a pro-choice person call for elective late term abortions?

Other than it being illegal, it's a bullshit argument.  

'I would think the pro-choice advocates would be.  Wonder why not?'

You would 'think' incorrectly.  

I'm with Gordy, if the fetus is viable, abortion is out the window.  

Why the hell would a pro-choice person call for elective late term abortions?

Is it not about a woman's right to choose and her freedom?  Do you not see the words "pro-choice"? Why should her rights and freedom be restricted at any stage of pregnancy?  [deleted]

I'm with Gordy, if the fetus is viable, abortion is out the window.  

That was not Gordy's comment.  [deleted]

Here is Gordy's response at 5.1.63...

I'm OK with abortion at any stage.

I need nothing whatsoever from you.  

Nothing you can say would be of any value to me whatsoever.  

I need nothing whatsoever from you.  

Good, glad you understand.

Good, glad you understand.  

Calling for abortions would be akin to pro-abortion. That's not what's happening. 

Calling for abortions would be akin to pro-abortion. That's not what's happening. 

No one is calling for the choice of late term abortions.  That is what is not happening with the pro-choice advocates. 

Pro choice wants to allow choice (go figure). Anti choicers do not, either before or after viability.

Pro choice wants to allow choice (go figure)

Well no, only under certain conditions, or they would be acceptable to late term abortions as you are.

Whether someone is acceptable to late term abortions is up to them. The law allows up to viability, and then health issues after. Most pro choicers are OK with that as is the law, as it's an acceptable compromise. But ive already said that. So what's your point?

Whether someone is acceptable to late term abortions is up to them

No it isn't.  There is no late term abortion on demand, no choice, whether acceptable or not.  As I said, the rhetoric about a woman's rights and freedom is a red herring for pro-choice advocates. Seems you can't grasp the idea or have knowledge of the laws.  

I never said there were late term abortions on demand. Pro choice advocates want to protect a woman's legal right to choose abortion. Hence, it's a choice. Pro life advocates want to restrict or eliminate that right. It's funny that you equate a woman's rights as mere rhetoric. 

I'm OK with abortion at any stage.

I think the current legal standard of the fetus being able to survive outside the womb without the mother, aka "viability" is the most reasonable line drawn between when a fetus is considered part of its host and when it becomes its own "person". Of course, there should always be exceptions allowed even after viability for extreme cases of the mothers health being at risk.

It's simply not my call to make for anyone else.

While I agree, I believe it was important for the law to define and draw that line. It's one of the reasons I believe 92% of abortions occur at or before 12 weeks, long before any possible viability and women who decide on an abortion are rarely waiting to the last minute to make that choice. If the anti-choice crowd wanted to focus on what they see as possible elective, unnecessary "on demand" late term abortions then they should present their supposed evidence of such and prosecute those engaging in such illicit activity. Instead all we hear are nonstop nearly unintelligible screaming about "baby killers!".

I wonder if the anti-choice groups would be as large or as enraged if their leaders were screaming "kidney bean killers!" and were handing them all picket signs or putting up billboards showing the kidney bean sized zygotes or smaller that 92% of all abortions actually are. The fact is they know they can't do that because they'd lose large numbers of supporters who were really just angry about the lie told them that "liberals, progressives and the left" love to murder babies. They can't debate honestly, logically or reasonably. Most anti-choice folk I've spoken to have no problem lying, cheating and stealing if they thought it would achieve their goal of the majority bending to their will and accepting their religiously motivated opposition to abortion from the moment of conception on. For them, the ends justify the means.

I'm in agreement with you DP. Viability is indeed a reasonable compromise between both sides of the debate. It's too bad some pro lifers don't think so and/or try to further restrict when abortions are allowed. Even after viability has been defined and established by science & the law, some abortion opponents still refuse to accept that.

Why shouldn't women have legal access to abortion?

Why shouldn't women have legal access to abortion?

Women Do !

It's the "Cost Sharing" that most have a problem with !

abortion is cost effective and reduces future expenses for both parents and taxayers

Explain why pro abortion

It's one of the things I will never understand. Those that want to force women to carry to term, consistently vote against welfare. 

abortion is cost effective and reduces future expenses for both parents and taxayers

Life is only worth, what Monetary value "Humans" put on it !

Adoption = Expensive !

Birth Control = Cheap

Condoms = Cheapest !

Death = Most Expensive !

 cost sharing is a monetary value 

cost sharing is a monetary value 

I know !

Are you ..…. WILLING ?

and complain about the costs of both  

[deleted]

I support tax money being used to pay for abortions, Overpopulation is causing all problems to be worse

I support tax money being used to pay for abortions, Overpopulation is causing all problems to be worse

Your just Placating STUPID people.

With that kind of thinking, nothing will "Change" !

What do you mean by cost sharing?

Tax dollars do not pay for abortion.  

[deleted]

Tax dollars do not pay for abortion.  

Could you pretty please show me how the un-insured get abortions without "Tax Payer funding ?

BETTER   [Perrie Halpern R.A.]  ?

Off Topic [Perrie Halpern R.A.] 

Individual Freedom = Priceless

Topic ?

Responded to !

Nearly 70% of all abortions are privately funded.

"because of the Hyde Amendment, abortions are not covered Medicare procedures " except if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself , that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed."

"1% of abortions are due to rape and another 1/2% due to incest; 12% are due to mothers reporting "physical problems with my health" (totaling 13.5% and when combined with the 70% mean nearly 85% are either privately funded or are the exceptions under the Hyde amendment).

"According to a Guttmacher Institute survey in 2011, 69% of abortions are paid for entirely out of pocket. Another 15.6% report using Medicaid, while 7.3% used a non-Medicaid source of coverage (although this 2011 survey did not indicate the type of coverage--employer-sponsored or non-group, etc.). 8.6% reported not knowing whether they used third party coverage."

"6.6% (of abortions are) borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers."

forbes

So of the 13.5% of the abortions allowed under the Hyde amendment, 6.6% are paid for by federal tax payers and 17.4 by compassionate States because the majority of voters agree that there should be some subsidy or assistance for those pregnancies that result from rape, incest or pose a health threat to the life of the mother or believe all women, rich and poor, should have access to safe, legal abortions.

And the fact is that 92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks. It seems rather obvious that the only ones who are still upset by that number are the religious extremists who shudder and get all weepy at the thought of fertilized egg or zygote "souls" being sent to some imaginary afterlife. Thank goodness we don't live in a theocracy.

I support tax money being used to pay for abortions, Overpopulation is causing all problems to be worse

True, but it's illegal for tax dollars to be used for abortions. 

you are right, I think that law should be changed

As do I.

They're not happy about it jung, they don't regret their decision.  

They're not happy about it jung, they don't regret their decision.

Many pro-lifers seem to think that a woman puts as much thought into getting an abortion, as they do to ordering at McDonald's.  It is not a spur of the moment decision, it takes days or even weeks to decide on that course of action.

Indeed. Even if it didn't,  who cares?

Indeed. Even if it didn't,  who cares?

They do.