How many kids do you want to have? One? Two? Maybe more? Or none?
You've probably thought about this before. In the United States and other modern countries, it's just assumed that we have the right to decide how many kids we want, and when, and with whom we want to have them. And why not? Don't our bodies belong to us? Isn't it best when pregnancy is a welcome and happy event? And shouldn't children be born to parents who want and love them?
Unfortunately, we all know nature didn't design our reproductive organs with an on/off switch. By about age 15, most girls' bodies are ready for pregnancy, and that's a problem, because most of us don't want to start having babies until our twenties, at the earliest. What's more, we're capable of having babies well in to our forties, even though we'll probably be done having babies around 30 or 35.
All told, most women will spend at least 25 years of our adult lives trying to avoid pregnancy, both before marriage and after, and there are generally two ways to do that: you can spend 25 years or more not having sex, or you can use contraception of some sort.
Abstinence, while effective, is extremely difficult for most adults with a healthy sex drive to stick to. And contraception, while easy to stick to, has the slight drawback of not being 100% effective. Most of us go with contraception, because even though it's not perfect, it's still 95-99% effective, and that's pretty darn good. And if couples combine contraception -- by using the pill and condoms, for example -- it's even more than 99% effective.
Of course, despite contraception or abstinence, some women still experience accidental pregnancies. There are as many reasons why as there are women: Sometimes drugs interact with birth control. Sometimes certain birth control just doesn't work for certain women. Sometimes pills are forgotten or lost. Sometimes condoms break. Sometimes "pro-life" pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, creating delays which increase the chance of pregnancy. Sometimes women have medical conditions that make using hormonal birth control unsafe. Sometimes birth control is unaffordable, and sometimes people don't know how to use it properly or at all. Sometimes abstinent women are raped... and on, and on, and on.
Most women who experience unplanned pregnancies in the US carry them to term. But four in ten decide that for whatever reason, abortion is their best option. Some of them already have more kids than they can handle. Some of them feel woefully unprepared to start a family. Some of them are busy with school, work and family responsibilities. Some of them are in poor health. Again, there are as many reasons as there are women.
Whatever their reasons, it is their decision. Like it or not, pregnancy happens within the privacy of women's bodies. Women are generally the first ones to know when they are pregnant, and they do not have to tell anyone else. Abortion can be legally, safely and openly done in doctors' offices, or it can be illegally, unsafely and secretly done by women, themselves, in their own homes. Either way, it's impossible for society to stop abortion, and when it tries, the inevitable result is a pile of dead and injured women -- ordinary women with husbands and children and jobs and ordinary sex drives. That is why most modern, first-world countries, including the United States, have legalized and regulated abortion, to keep it as safe, humane and rare as possible.
Because women can not and should not be expected to abstain for 25-30 years to avoid unwanted pregnancy. That is a ridiculous expectation that hurts all women by painting us all as "irresponsible" and undeserving of the basic human right to control our family size.
Using contraception is responsible. Aborting unwanted pregnancies is responsible. Choosing adoption is responsible. Keeping and caring for babies you want and love is responsible. All of these options are completely responsible. A lifetime of abstinence is not the only way to be responsible.
The "pro-life" ideal of abstinence until marriage, then as many babies as God will provide until menopause, is completely out of step with our modern, double-income, one-or-two-kids, then-retirement way of life. Most of us believe that women have a right to education, and careers, and goals in life besides having more and more children. Whether we realize it or not, most of us are pro-choice.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You said:
"Because women can not and should not be expected to abstain for 25-30 years to avoid unwanted pregnancy. That is a ridiculous expectation that hurts all women by painting us all as "irresponsible" and undeserving of the basic human right to control our family size."
I was just confused by the context of this paragraph. Are you saying that it is irresponsible to think that women can resist the urge to have sex and to practice abstinence?
I don't know much about abortion drugs and such, but I do not think that they have been around forever. If people before us could hold off to have sex until they were ready to get married and to embrace children, why can't our generation do it as well?
During a lot of debate about abortion and even sex in general, I think that the emotional aspect is left out a lot. Losing your virginity whether volunteering or forced, can have emotional repercussions. So can abortion. To me it is unfathomable just how emotionally difficult it would be to have an abortion. I just really don't understand how people can have sex, not considering the fact that they could wind up pregnant. I know it happens all the time, especially among younger individuals, such as high school and college students. I don't know if there is a solution, and I am not saying that I am against contraceptives, but I really think pregnancy is something that people don't take seriously. I think they are too concerned with the "it won't happen to me" mentality and in that sense, abortion can be considered irresponsible to me.
"If people before us could hold off to have sex until they were ready to get married and to embrace children, why can't our generation do it as well?"
What? Every generation since the beginning of time has had premarital sex.
Are you saying that it is irresponsible to think that women can resist the urge to have sex and to practice abstinence?
I am saying that it is wrong to assume that every unwanted pregnancy is the result of irresponsible behavior on the woman's part. It is not irresponsible to have protected sex with your spouse or long-term, committed partner. Sometimes perfectly responsible women wind up pregnant when they don't want to be.
I don't know much about abortion drugs and such, but I do not think that they have been around forever.
Actually, they have.
If people before us could hold off to have sex until they were ready to get married and to embrace children, why can't our generation do it as well?
They couldn't, and neither can we, because we don't all believe it's wrong to have sex for love and pleasure, without trying to conceive.
And you miss the point of my post. It's not just about holding off before you want kids, it's also about avoiding pregnancy after you've had all the kids you want.
During a lot of debate about abortion and even sex in general, I think that the emotional aspect is left out a lot. Losing your virginity whether volunteering or forced, can have emotional repercussions. So can abortion.
So can birth.
To me it is unfathomable just how emotionally difficult it would be to have an abortion.
To me, it is absolutely unfathomable how emotionally difficult it would be to give a child up for adoption. I can not stand the thought. But I don't think it should be illegal or anything.
I just really don't understand how people can have sex, not considering the fact that they could wind up pregnant.
But you know they do. And you should know that the vast majority of people who don't want to have children use contraception, so it's not like they're being reckless about it.
I don't know if there is a solution, and I am not saying that I am against contraceptives, but I really think pregnancy is something that people don't take seriously.
I don't see much evidence of that. I think people take pregnancy incredibly seriously. Why would anyone use birth control or have an abortion if they didn't know that pregnancy is a serious condition with serious consequences that they aren't prepared to deal with?
trailerpark posted a really great article about how recent studies have shown that people are having just as much premarital sex as they do now. I liked her source a lot and I have to admit that my assumption was proven wrong and that I am sorry for making such an unsupported assumption.
I am still unsure however, how the emotional impact of having an abortion, giving birth, and giving a child up for adoption differs. I think that they all have an incredible impact on both the man and the woman involved. That is why when you consider the emotional risks of the consequences of having sex for another reason than to reproduce, I do not understand why people would engage in premarital sex after making these considerations.
From my experiences with friends who have become pregnant, even when they thought that the protection that they had been using would be effective, it seemed to me as though they did not think that they could or would actually become pregnant. As a result, the people that I know had a considerable amount of difficulty decided what to do about it. I am just saying that I think it is something that should be discussed by a man and a women before they have sex, the possibility of pregnancy. Unfortunately, I do not think that everyone discusses it beforehand. Even if a majority of people do, I still do not think that is sufficient. Everyone should!
I often wonder if male pro-lifers would change their mind if they had to carry a baby to term and know that they would have to care for the child- like a stay at home dad. I know today that the world is changing, but we must remember that there are still people from a much different generation amongst us.
Also, I want to note that I think that you made a good point in saying that it IS responsible to have an abortion, to give to adoption, to use contraceptives, etc. People oten overlook this fact, and I appreciate you pointing it out.
Of course it's responsible. It's a shame that so many people uncritically accept the idea that "if you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have sex." The anti-abortion movement has made the abortion debate all about irresponsible teenage girls sleeping around when they shouldn't be, when in reality, 81% of women who have abortions are 20 or older, and 61% of them already have at least one child.
How many people really believe that grown women with as many children as they can handle should never have sex until menopause? That is absurd!
That is why the birth control movement began in the first place! Poor mothers flocked to Margaret Sanger's first birth control clinic because they didn't want anymore kids! Mothers are the ones who benefit the most from birth control and abortion, and mothers are the ones who would be most harmed by anti-abortion, anti-birth control policies. This is not just about teenagers saving it for marriage! It's about grown women deciding how many children they can support and raise properly.
I believe that contraception is fine. I however do think that if previous generations befor emy own have had the self control and self respect to avoid sex before marraige that we should be able to do as well. I undestand the rpessures and the "normalcy" of premarital sex, but once you've slept with a plethora of people, you being to feel used. Avoiding your emotional trauma can not be done by using contraception unless it is abstinence.
Not everyone who has premarital sex has sex with "a plethora of people", you know. Some people only have it with the person they go onto marry, others have it with one person, and then get married to another. Not everyone who has premarital sex is a slut.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I however do think that if previous generations befor emy own have had the self control and self respect to avoid sex before marraige that we should be able to do as well.
Previous generations had just as much premarital sex as us.
I undestand the rpessures and the "normalcy" of premarital sex, but once you've slept with a plethora of people, you being to feel used.
Waiting until marriage is no protection from feeling used. Married people can use and abuse their partners just as easily as unmarried people. The only difference is that for unmarried people, it's easier to get out of a bad situation.
Avoiding your emotional trauma can not be done by using contraception unless it is abstinence.
Abstinence is no protection from emotional trauma. The worst broken heart I ever experienced involved a boy who I never even kissed. No other heartbreak has compared to that first one. And I got over it. In my experience, sex does not make breakups harder. Having sex does not normally result in lifelong trauma. Premarital sex is just not the horror that some people make it out to be.
The fact of the matter is, sex is a BASIC HUMAN NEED according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. According to Maslow, sex is ranked up there as being just as important as food and water. Humans, married or unmarried, have had sex since the beginning of time.
Just out of curiosity, what did humans do to procreate before the institution of marriage was created? Why does the human race still exist if marriage was once the determining factor in whether or not a man and a woman could have sex?
There are plenty of families just waiting for a chance to love a baby and raise a child as their own. However, these families, for whatever reason are unable to achieve this on their own. So if a pregnancy becomes unwanted, than it should not be terminated, but rather preserved to give the unborn child a chance to live with one of the families wanting to adopt. Privacy never did and never will justify homicide. Also, if abortion is rightfully banned, it will still happen and that's why we have methods to prosecute and imprison people. We don't just lift restrictions on murder of born people, stealing, etc. just because the restrictions aren't 100% effective. Those who harm other people must be punished, and I guarantee you that when we start sending abortion "doctors" to jail for the rest of their miserable lives, they aren't going to be taking any more human lives. Am I wrong? If so, e-mail me at mrmackey797@comcast.net and tell me why.
When you start sending doctors to jail, women will turn to illegal abortions. Hundreds of thousands of women die from illegal abortions when abortion is made illegal. x.x
The adoption system is already overflowing. Why add even MORE unwanted children when there are already so many?
I highly doubt hundreds of thousands of women would die as a result of a practical abortion outlaw because in a good abortion ban there should be the option for a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy to obtain a passive abortion. This would be removing the child from the womb instead of butchering it. The reason why this should be allowed is complicated at best and if anybody wants to hear, just send me a message and I'll be sure to explain my reasoning. Anyway, I do agree that if even one person dies as a result of illegal abortion, it is very sad. However, the women that would get illegal abortions and die, chose to do something that she had no right to do, but nonetheless by free will. I am not saying the women who would seek abortion deserve to die because I'm against the death penalty but rather I am saying that they had a choice whether or not to seek death for their unborn child and they did. So the women would have died as a result of a bad choice they made. When an unborn person is brutally killed, they have no choice or free will and the casualties are very close to 50 million from legalized abortion. That's not fair to the innocent life in the womb. It is not fair that our government would refuse to protect these unborn persons from violence even if their efforts could never be 100% effective. If the government told me that they couldn't protect my right to life because it doesn't guarantee that nobody would murder me, I would say that it is their sole duty to try their hardest. I would also say that if someone took away my life, I would hope that you would send them to jail. Anyway, when a woman gives birth, a new child does not come into the world, its been there since it was conceived it the womb. So birth has never created a single wanted or unwanted child. It is not an appropriate solution to kill any unwanted children, whether they're teenagers, or in the womb. We need to protect women and children from abortion and support women in need through other means than allowing them to kill a person at their will. Abortion "just because" has only ever hurt women. We, as a society need to respect every women's dignity as well as that of their unborn child.
How do you define putting the mother's life at risk? What if they woman is mentally unstable and will try to commit suicide while pregnant? How much red tape will they have to go through in order to get permission to have an abortion? What are the chances someone won't later come around and sue the doctor for doing something they believed to be in the best interests of the woman?
Why don't we just keep the government out of abortion and support women who end up pregnant, instead of persecuting them for making a decision you don't like.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
If you take the government out of the abortion debate, then you might as well not have government at all. It is the government's responsibility to defend the rights of the people in their land. That is their sole responsibility and failure to perform that duty is unacceptable. It need not matter whether I like abortion or not, or whether our government likes it or not, but what must matter is that it is an act of lethal aggression and therefore must not be permitted. Should we remove government jurisdiction from acts of aggression against the already born? I don't think so. I am an independent libertarian who holds near and dear the notion of individual liberty and freedoms and that is why I am pro-life. Mentally unstable women who are at risk of suicide should be institutionalized just like all other people who are at risk of suicide, until she is treated and mentally stable.
The difference between laws about murder and laws about abortion is that we're talking two completely different rights. Murder is outlawed because it interferes with someone's right to live. And while you might say abortion should be outlawed for the same reason, what about the mother who is forced to carry a child she does not want? Isn't that interfering with HER rights, especially since pregnancy carries with it many health risks, many of which could lead to death. Is it fair to force a woman to carry these risks if she doesn't want the baby? And that's exactly what you're doing by outlawing abortion.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It is the government's responsibility to defend the rights of the people in their land.
My body is more than just a piece of land. Why shouldn't the government defend my right to my body?
I am an independent libertarian who holds near and dear the notion of individual liberty and freedoms and that is why I am pro-life.
This statement makes no sense whatsoever. If you really believed in individual liberty and freedom, you would favor leaving women alone and letting them decide what should happen to their own bodies.
A fetus is a separate human being with separate rights. So I suppose if I really favored individual rights I would leave people alone who wanted to kill other people. It is extremely ignorant, undemocratic, and dangerous to claim ownership of a vulnerable person's body (the unborn person) and then proclaim the right to kill that person. The days of slavery are not over as long as abortion is illegal, but let's just hope Congress acts soon to right this wrong and outlaw abortion, except to save the mother's life, and strip the federal court system of jurisdiction on the subject of abortion. Let's also hope the president will enforce this future pro-life measure despite what the Supreme Court may rule. Because if he doesn't our country will continue along the path of constitutional crisis.
It is extremely ignorant, undemocratic, and dangerous to claim ownership of a vulnerable person's body
I claim ownership of my own body. What's extremely ignorant, undemocratic and dangerous is letting the government claim ownership of our bodies, which is what you propose.
If I own my own body, that means I have the right to say whether or not something or someone gets to stay inside my body. And the government has no business disagreeing with me or infringing on my personal, inalienable right to control my body.
There is no such thing as individual liberty if we don't even own and control our own bodies. "Give me liberty, or give me death," as Patrick Henry once said.
Once again, a fetus has a separate body, separate DNA, and separate body parts. In about 99% of abortion cases, the woman has chosen to have sexual intercourse on her own free will and is therefore obligated not to aggress against another human being that comes about as a result of that. Just because someone gave life, they can't take it back, the same with any other gift. People must be responsible for their actions, males and females, and never kill somebody based on the ignorant notion that they are without rights simply because they live inside a womb at the time.
a fetus has a separate body
Nope, it sure doesn't. Not until it comes out and separates from me.
n about 99% of abortion cases, the woman has chosen to have sexual intercourse on her own free will and is therefore obligated not to aggress against another human being that comes about as a result of that.
Nonsense. Agreeing to have sex doesn't mean I agree to have a baby. A fetus has no right to use my body if I don't want it there. It is an unwanted aggressor and I have the right to defend myself.
Just because someone gave life
You see that? Life is a gift, not a duty. Not an obligation. A gift, and if I don't want to give it, I don't have to. It's not given until the baby is born.
People must be responsible for their actions, males and females
Outlawing abortion doesn't punish men. It only harms women. One more reason it's wrong.
How ignorant and uneducated one must be to insist that a fetus doesn't have a separate body from the mother. Not many people I know have two heads, two brains, two types of DNA, and two beating hearts. The fact that is being ignored that an unborn baby's body is its own and not just an extension of the mothers. A fetus is in no way an aggressor because to aggress means to show hostility and attack another person. In order to show hostility, one must do so through free will and actually attack another person. An unborn baby is not aggressing simply by being in the womb because it was not the child's choice to be there and they are not hurting anybody as this is the way human life always starts, in other words it's a natural occurrence. You say agreeing to sex doesn't mean you agree to have a baby. It doesn't matter what you agree to. For example, should a thief not go to jail if he uses the argument that by robbing houses he never agreed to go to prison so therefore he should have no obligation to serve time? Of course not. When you have sex, there is the possibility that you will create a child whether you like it or not. It is a known possible result of sex. If you don't want one, don't have sex but never use ignorance as an excuse to aggress against your own son or daughter. You are right that life is not a duty and it should not be mandatory that one remains alive against their wishes. But everybody also has the right to live if they wish and only the individual can make the choice for themselves. The primary goal of outlawing abortion is not to hurt or punish anybody but rather to seek justice and the right to life for all people regardless of their stage of development. You can be for abortion and think abortion is the most wonderful thing but don't impose your will of death and destruction on unwilling victims. You can argue with me all you want but you're wrong according to the rights and wrongs accepted in our society by anybody who isn't a sociopath. As a progressive, I favor moving forward with the abortion issue just as we did with slavery in the 18th and 19th century. At least we don't dehumanize non-whites anymore but we sure do not only dehumanize, but kill, those that live in the womb. And we should move forward and end this inhumane and merciless slaughter of the unborn. If ignorance is bliss, those who favor legalized abortion must be some of the happiest people around.
An unborn baby is not aggressing simply by being in the womb because it was not the child's choice to be there and they are not hurting anybody
Spoken like someone who has never been pregnant. Take it from me: pregnancy hurts.
this is the way human life always starts, in other words it's a natural occurrence.
So is abortion. Abortion happens naturally all the time.
You say agreeing to sex doesn't mean you agree to have a baby. It doesn't matter what you agree to.
Of course it does. I am the one with a functional brain. I am in charge of my own body. I say what goes inside me and what doesn't. Nobody gets to use my body without my consent.
When you have sex, there is the possibility that you will create a child whether you like it or not.
Not if I have an abortion.
If you don't want one, don't have sex
Or just don't have a baby.
never use ignorance as an excuse to aggress against your own son or daughter.
I don't have a son or daughter until one is born.
You are right that life is not a duty and it should not be mandatory that one remains alive against their wishes. But everybody also has the right to live if they wish
For one, a fetus is incapable of wishing for anything.
For another, nobody has the right to live by using my body without my consent.
The primary goal of outlawing abortion is not to hurt or punish anybody but rather to seek justice and the right to life for all people regardless of their stage of development.
Wrong. The primary goal of outlawing abortion is to turn women in to second-class citizens, by denying us the ability to decide what happens to our own bodies.
You can argue with me all you want but you're wrong according to the rights and wrongs accepted in our society by anybody who isn't a sociopath.
Wrong again. Most Americans are pro-choice.
As a progressive, I favor moving forward with the abortion issue just as we did with slavery in the 18th and 19th century.
We moved forward with the abortion issue in 1973, when we legalized it. Most modern, progressive, first-world countries have legal abortion. Only backwards, regressive, inhuman hellholes outlaw abortion.
Anyway, I do agree that if even one person dies as a result of illegal abortion, it is very sad. However, the women that would get illegal abortions and die, chose to do something that she had no right to do, but nonetheless by free will. I am not saying the women who would seek abortion deserve to die
Yes, you are.
So the women would have died as a result of a bad choice they made.
But when they have to choose between the bad choice of illegal abortion, and the even worse choice of carrying a desperately unwanted pregnancy, what do you expect? Obviously, lots of women will still choose abortion.
When an unborn person is brutally killed, they have no choice or free will and the casualties are very close to 50 million from legalized abortion.
Abortion bans don't save babies, but they do kill women. So basically you're saying that it's pro-life to kill women for killing fetuses, and it's pro-death to save those women.
It is not fair that our government would refuse to protect these unborn persons from violence even if their efforts could never be 100% effective.
But it's perfectly fair if those efforts would be 0% effective, which they would, in addition to killing and injuring many women for no good reason at all. A third of all women have abortions at some point in their life. They are not a threat to society, they are our mothers and daughters and aunts and sisters. They are perfectly decent women, just trying to do the right thing, and they don't deserve death for that. What's pro-life about enacting laws that you know will kill them?
Hundreds of thousands of women already do die in places where abortion is illegal.
How do you suggest removing the xygote, embryo, or fetus from the womb without killing it? The only case in which this would be possible would be someone who waited months and months. Most women have abortions within the first trimester.
There are plenty of families just waiting for a chance to love a baby and raise a child as their own.
There are over 100,000 kids in foster care waiting to be adopted, and less than half that many are adopted in any given year. If anything, there is a glut of adoptable children on the market and not enough willing parents to take them in. Why make more?
Also, if abortion is rightfully banned, it will still happen and that's why we have methods to prosecute and imprison people.
And that doesn't save babies, but it does harm families by taking mothers and daughters away and throwing them in jail for not wanting to carry a(nother) pregnancy.
We don't just lift restrictions on murder of born people, stealing, etc. just because the restrictions aren't 100% effective. Those who harm other people must be punished,
We also don't seek to enact laws that do not benefit society at all and in fact, cause more harm than good, like an abortion ban. To do that would be illogical and immoral.
The foster care system needs major reforming to allow more couples to complete timely adoptions. We also need to allow good same-sex couples to adopt children and raise them in a loving home (I know my religious pro-life counterparts would reject this, but it's only fair to the babies and the couples). Also, abortion doesn't stop a baby from being made because as all non-ignorant people know, birth does not start human life, conception does. So the babies are already made and you are proposing to allow women to kill their babies when they please, as long as they are still in the womb. That makes no sense. If you don't believe that banning abortion will save unborn children, then you are wrong. Well I suppose the argument could be used that allowing a ban on killing mentally/physically handicapped people or older folks could cause more harm than good for society because a lot of handicapped people and elders aren't able to contribute as much to society as they take out. Sure, wouldn't it be better for society to kill at will seniors and the disabled? Placing a ban on killing mentally and physically disabled people could be called illogical and most people would agree that it could negatively affect society. However we are civilized and we should respect all people's rights, no matter how vulnerable or inconvenient that life may be to the rest of us.
Also, abortion doesn't stop a baby from being made because as all non-ignorant people know, birth does not start human life, conception does.
But the child cannot survive outside the mothers womb before roughly 24 weeks (maybe a little sooner, but the chances are slim even at that point).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The foster care system needs major reforming to allow more couples to complete timely adoptions.
Adding up to a million more babies to a system in need of major reform doesn't sound like it would help matters, to me.
Also, abortion doesn't stop a baby from being made because as all non-ignorant people know, birth does not start human life, conception does.
Nope, birth does. That's when you get your name, birth certificate, Social Security, and full rights as a separate human being.
If you don't believe that banning abortion will save unborn children, then you are wrong.
No, I'm right.
Well I suppose the argument could be used that allowing a ban on killing mentally/physically handicapped people or older folks could cause more harm than good for society because a lot of handicapped people and elders aren't able to contribute as much to society as they take out.
Mentally and physically handicapped people don't need to live inside the bodies of women who do not want them there, so I really don't know where you think you're going with this argument.
Sure, wouldn't it be better for society to kill at will seniors and the disabled?
I don't think so. What would be better about it?
"If you don't believe that banning abortion will save unborn children, then you are wrong.
No, I'm right."
Sorry, I LOVED this one! I am still chuckling about it. Seriously, I am not being sarcastic, it is the PERFECT argument! Especially after you have stated your position so clearly in the blog and in all of the replies to the comments!
But you ARE right! Making abortion illegal will not stop women from seeking them if they are in trouble just like prohibition didn't stop Americans from drinking alcohol. Making abortion illegal will simply cause more problems with unsafe abortions rather than having them done in a sterile environment by licensed professionals.