Before Roe v. Wade, you know how many abortion clinics were in most states?

0

No abortion was legal, even if it meant the mother was going to die; it would be similar to how doctors would treat the female as a brain tumor patient with not much time to live. You should hear the stories of women actually getting the job done through really primal ways, such as using a wire hanger, vacuum, or asking the male in the relationship to land blows in the abdominal area.

Also, I am not for all forms of abortion, as all forms of abortion are still illegal in the U.S. I have read a few posters saying about "popping," which I presume is when they preform an abortion during the third trimester, which is illegal unless the mother is facing certain death if she were to give birth. That's too much time, the baby is almost fully developed, and the way they preform those abortions are just horrific: With limbs literally being ripped apart.

I don't agree, really highly don't agree, with a few posters believing that the very second a sperm makes contact with an egg, automatically that's a human being. It takes at least 3 weeks for the zygote to be in a sort of "aware-like" state.

I already find the wording absolutely pathetic. It is some marketing shit from people who are against abortion but have fun killing doctors.

Pro-Life should be named: No-Choice or Pro-Forced

then its fine.

This question absolutely comes down to what you define the fetus as.

If we all agreed, right now, that a fertilized, two day "old" embryo was a human -- with all the legal and moral rights that entails -- then I assume we'd all agree that abortions are wrong.

That would be, without any question, murder. It would be no different than waiting 9 months, giving birth, and then dashing the infant against the rocks, because a two day old embryo is as much a human as the baby is. 

But many of us do not believe this, and believe a two day old embryo is not a human, and thus it is not entitled to the rights that a human would be. At some point during development, the "embryo" develops into a "fetus" develops into an "infant." It's difficult to define exactly when those definitions become valid, but I think most would argue that it's when the baby becomes capable of conscious thought, and from what we can tell, that's around the start of the third trimester.

Which is why most people, even pro-choice people such as me, agree that abortions within the last few months aren't just, because that embryo is now a human, and we don't have the choice to take another human's life.  

What a shit argument. He would have never existed so he wouldnt have known nor cared. try caring about kids starving in africa or some such thing to feel good about yourself.  

Here's a simple scenario to highlight my above point: if science or some religion were to prove, without any doubt, that two day old embryo's were capable of understanding and feeling pain the way a month old new born is -- or, if you'd prefer, were able to "prove" the existance of souls to us beyond a shadow of a doubt, and then prove that these embryos had souls -- would any of us still be pro-choice?

I'd bet the answer is no, because that is unambiguously, unequivocably murder.  However, no religion has really "proved" to me (or many others) that souls exist, and science certainly doesn't support the notion that early embryonic fetuses are capable of cognition or any real semblance of pain. Therefore, I am pro-choice, because the evidence I see does not support the notion that early embryos are "human" in the manner in which I define that term. 

Pro-choice is the way to go. It's the mother's choice whether she wants to kill her baby or not. If she has the guts, who are other people to stop her?

 Not exactly. I do appreciate the distinction you are making but I think it turns on what a "person/human" is. I mean, I'm a carnivore and I believe that animals (amongst other things) have a soul.

Sure, it must be real fun to first be raped and then be confronted with it 24 hours a day for a period of 9 months. If you want to do that its fine by me, but at least give people a choice whether they want to go through it or not.

I don't think people should see abortion as a sustitute for birth control, but in cases like rape, incest, when the mother's life is in danger and also teenage pregnancies I think there should at least be the choice to go for an abortion. The last one is because I think kids are just that, kids.

On a related note, how the hell can pro life people be in favour of the death penalty?

Pro-Choice

This whole thing is all a semantic argument, so you can replace that word with whatever you want. If you'd prefer something like "inaliable spiritual essence instilled by god, making us uniquely human," that's fine. Just jam that phrase in wherever I say "souls."