Abortion V.5

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

There is only one exception, for me, and that is the life (not lasting health effects) of the mother. Two lost lives are not better than one. I've come to this position because I feel that any other decision to abort is based in some form on greed/selfishness.

And you don't agree with greed/selfishness, I understand. However, from what position/authority would you be imposing those values (anti-greed/selfishness) on others? Because if it were up to you to decide whether abortion should be legal and you decide to make it illegal because you disapprove of greed/selfishness, then you're making a decision for others based on your own value system. I can't agree that this is right.

I do understand the "human life above all" argument and this is a reason for banning abortions I can get and respect. I can't, however, agree with "it's wrong according to my moral code and so it should be banned for everyone". In my opinion, this is imposition.

Pro-choice, on the other hand, imposes nothing. If you're against abortion for whatever reason, don't have one. Make your opinion known, explain why you feel it's a bad idea, etc. - but ultimately leave other women to make that decision according to their own belief systems and values.

I'd like to make it clear that I have no objections to your ultimate reason for being pro-life, that life is inalienable, as you have said. It was just that bit (that you don't like the idea of abortion because it's done out of considerations which run counter to your beliefs) that I objected to in my post.

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

As I said above I think we really need a shift in menatility about sex and about the family unit. There needs to be more emphasis, imho, that life begins at conception and not that it's just a bunch of cells. Until there is such a societal shift I think we will only be able to reduce abortions so much until we reach a virtual stalemate.

(Bolded by me) But what is your opinion is not fact. You cannot force anyone to believe what you believe nor expect them to get you to belive what they believe. You should not teach opinions as fact imo (ie. abortion is wrong).

The baby's expense, I would think...

I guess what it might come down to is: is the mother's right to have a choice more important, or is the fetus'?

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

Honestly I think that the world community has become overly sexualized after years of being sexually repressed. I feel like there is alot of over compensation going on. It's not just about sex ed. It's about how pregnancy is viewed through the lens of personal freedom, and less through the eyes of a family unit. I feel as the family unit falls apart the more that sex becomes less valued as an act of love and more about the physical act of pleasure.

I can't say I've had the same impressions. As far as I can see, it is still very much a taboo, and what we need to do, in my opinion, is work towards demythologising it and stripping it from the many constraints, bans and fears associated with it, including the notion that sex is only about love and family and nothing else.

The fact is that sex isn't always an act of love and I don't see why we should pretend that it is, or insist that it should be - that only serves to make people acting on their natural sex drives feel guilty or sick. The desire to deny sex's many functions and aspects in the family and outside of it is, in my opinion, both pointless and counter-productive. Sex didn't suddenly become just a physical act, it has always been such, it's just that for centuries people have pretended that it's something very exclusive and ok only under certain conditions (i.e. marriage or at least love), or else trying to make it so, and to be honest, I don't see many positive results from this campaign.

As I said above I think we really need a shift in menatility about sex and about the family unit. There needs to be more emphasis, imho, that life begins at conception and not that it's just a bunch of cells.

Many people don't believe that life begins at conception though. If you're not willing to take our understanding of foetal life, why should we agree to take yours? You're basically saying that we should all adopt the pro-life stance on it - life begins at conception. That's hardly a compromise.

Again, it used to be that men took care of their children. They owned up to their responsibility.

I can't really agree with that. There are many, many instances of men abandoning pregnant women in any given epoch.

[leah49]

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

This is something I never quite understood about the pro-life stance (what I bolded). Why is a child who was not a product of rape more worthy of a life than one who is a product of rape (or a product of incest)? It's not the child's fault how it's concieved.

Exactly, which is I don't condone abortions due to rape. I think rape is very bad and I have looked at the stats. Not many rapes actually result in a baby being concieved. ETA: I think we were told in the last thread not to discuss this in here so I'll drop it now.

I of course do not think that any woman should be denied the right to her body, and I hope the above question isn't inappropriate or anything, but this is just something I'm curious about.

That's the problem I have. You don't want to deny a woman the right to her body, but basically you're denying a baby to his/her body. I'm not saying a baby's rights should trump the mother's, but why does the mother's automatically get to trump the baby's?

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by leah49

That's the problem I have. You don't want to deny a woman the right to her body, but basically you're denying a baby to his/her body. I'm not saying a baby's rights should trump the mother's, but why does the mother's automatically get to trump the baby's?

My reasoning is that for one thing, imo it's not a baby, it's just a bundle of cells. The woman also already has an established life that no one is going to argue. She's alive, she can tell people her thoughts and feelings, and if she is able to control where she wants her life to go, I think she should be able to. The embryo is just potential life imo. It is my opinion that a life should be given higher priority than a potential life. A potential life under no circumstances imo, should be given higher priority than an undebatable life.

Also, the only reason I would deny the "baby" a right to his/her body, is because he/she is implanted in someone else's body and is using their food and energy to survive. I think the person who has to make the choice to sacrifice her body to keep another alive should get priority in choosing what she wants to be happy.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Yoana

And you don't agree with greed/selfishness, I understand. However, from what position/authority would you be imposing those values (anti-greed/selfishness) on others? Because if it were up to you to decide whether abortion should be legal and you decide to make it illegal because you disapprove of greed/selfishness, then you're making a decision for others based on your own value system. I can't agree that this is right.

If that were my only issue you may be right. But in conjunction with the life above all arguement it makes perfect sense to me. I don't see how, if something is a life, that anything, including free choice, comes before that. When people make the decision to abort are they comfortable being selfish? Of putting their life first? I would think not. That's why all the hoopla about whether or not the fetus is a life. Once you hang the life tag on the fetus then all of a sudden it makes it much more difficult to give in to those selfish reasons.

Originally Posted by Yoana

Pro-choice, on the other hand, imposes nothing. If you're against abortion for whatever reason, don't have one. Make your opinion known, explain why you feel it's a bad idea, etc. - but ultimately leave other women to make that decision according to their own belief systems and values.

Pro-choice says that it's okay to place value on human life, if you feel it's in your best interest to do so.

Originally Posted by Yoana

I'd like to make it clear that I have no objections to your ultimate reason for being pro-life, that life is inalienable, as you have said. It was just that bit (that you don't like the idea of abortion because it's done out of considerations which run counter to your beliefs) that I objected to in my post.

No worries.

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

(Bolded by me) But what is your opinion is not fact. You cannot force anyone to believe what you believe nor expect them to get you to belive what they believe. You should not teach opinions as fact imo (ie. abortion is wrong).

It is a fact. That bunch of cells is a stage of life. It may not think, or feel, or touch but it will eventually. People say cells as if they were inanimate molecules. But a rock is made up of inanimate molecules and it will never come "alive". It will never have self conciousness or even basic instinct. At what point do we say that a stage of life is worth killing? We save whole habitats for certain frogs, for instance, because they won't lay eggs anywhere else. If the eggs are just cells then what's the problem? The problem is that those eggs, those cells, are the beginnings of the frogs life. No eggs--no frogs. Extinction. Life is special. In all stages, for the most basic of reasons.

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

I guess what it might come down to is: is the mother's right to have a choice more important, or is the fetus'?

As I believe the fetus is a life, and life trumps all, then the baby's rights are far more important. The mother's life was full of choices that she alone could make. The baby has had no choices.

Originally Posted by Yoana

I can't say I've had the same impressions. As far as I can see, it is still very much a taboo, and what we need to do, in my opinion, is work towards demythologising it and stripping it from the many constraints, bans and fears associated with it, including the notion that sex is only about love and family and nothing else.

The fact is that sex isn't always an act of love and I don't see why we should pretend that it is, or insist that it should be - that only serves to make people acting on their natural sex drives feel guilty or sick. The desire to deny sex's many functions and aspects in the family and outside of it is, in my opinion, both pointless and counter-productive. Sex didn't suddenly become just a physical act, it has always been such, it's just that for centuries people have pretended that it's something very exclusive and ok only under certain conditions (i.e. marriage or at least love), or else trying to make it so, and to be honest, I don't see many positive results from this campaign.

If sex is just meant to be with no restrictions then why do we bond with our young? If people want to argue lack of family support as a viable reason for abortion how can we, as a society, claim that the family unit is not important and deny the role that healthy sex plays in stable family? Why would there not be open marriages and have everyone raise their children together?

Originally Posted by Yoana

Many people don't believe that life begins at conception though. If you're not willing to take our understanding of foetal life, why should we agree to take yours? You're basically saying that we should all adopt the pro-life stance on it - life begins at conception. That's hardly a compromise.

I addressed this above. As far as compromise. I compromise on an elementary level, but as I said society needs to shift how they view things. It would be nice if this could be done without laws but as we see laws enforced all the time based on how a few in the government determine the greater good for all I think it's a fairly empty aruement. IMHO. It's like banning trans fats. More and more cities are banning it for the betterment of the population. You could make the arguement that people should be free to choose whether or not to consume trans fats. And maybe some people agree with you. But the laws get passed. Then soon other states and counties see the benefits of no trans fats in diets and either pass their own laws banning it or simply stop eating the trans fats and put those food companies and restaurants out of business. The same arguement can be made for smoking in public places. Only the difference here is we are talking about a life. Not trans fats or smoking. I would think a life is worth that.

Originally Posted by Yoana

I can't really agree with that. There are many, many instances of men abandoning pregnant women in any given epoch.

Yes, but there used to be a stigma associated with it. And a man would hardly brag about the ten children he fathered that he isn't taking care of either...

Originally Posted by DeliciousMoon

The embryo is just potential life imo. It is my opinion that a life should be given higher priority than a potential life.

That, to me, is purely opinion. As I said above when is a baby magically "alive"? When it looks human? The facts indicated in any elementary school is the life cycle of a variety of animals. From conception forward it is labeled as life. There is not stop in the cycle when voila it is alive when it wasn't before.

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

Again, it used to be that men took care of their children. They owned up to their responsibility. Society has shifted away from that.

I'm afraid I would dispute that, too. In times gone by, women who became pregnant outside marriage were often publicly disgraced while the man wasn't. Or the man was put under social pressure to marry the woman, regardless of whether they were compatible or whether this was in anyone's best interests (and I don't think shotgun weddings are a good idea or would be the answer to reducing abortions), but was under no legal obligation to do anything.

In the UK, at least, the child has more legal right to financial support from his/her father than has ever historically been the case (although in practical terms the law is still hard to enforce if the father is determined to shirk his duty or doesn't have the money to do so)

And I believe that this choice about abortions offers them an easy way out.

I would agree that some men pressurise their partner to have an abortion against her will and that does disturb me.

I think also the attitude of some women who don't want the father's in the lives of their children (for whatever reason) do them a disservice. When you have women absolving them of their responsibility it tends to breed even more nonchalance.

I think it depends on the circumstances. If the father has been violent to her or has a history of not turning up to access visits, I think the mother has every right to cut him out of the child's life, in the child's interests.

I also think that women who don't want the father to play any part in the child's life are a very small minority, and far smaller than the number of men who sadly don't want to play any part (other than possibly their legally required financial part) in their children's life. I have a number of divorced friends who say they wish that they could legally force their ex to have access to his children, because it's tearing the children apart that they never see him. I know no-one who has deliberately cut her children's father out of their life. That's obviously a statistically insignificant, anecdotal view, but much of what I've read suggests that it reflects the broader picture.

I'm probably going to get brickbats from just about everyone for saying this, because it's obvious that a lot of people on this forum disagree with me, but I am glad that social attitudes and sexual mores have changed. I am glad that contraception and (preferably as a little-used last resort) abortion have separated sex from procreation; that women now have the opportunities that men have long enjoyed, to have guilt-free, consequence-free sex, if they so choose; that women who have aspirations other than being a mother and homemaker (not that there is anything wrong with aspiring to be a mother or homemaker, but it's only one of many choices and is not right for everyone) do not have to give up those aspirations because of one small mistake (and so are now on an equal par with men, who have never had to give up their career and dreams if they accidentally get someone pregnant).

Unlike even many of the pro-choice posters on CoS, I don't think that having an abortion because a baby would get in the way of your career or lifestyle is "selfish", or at least no more so than a woman going to extraordinary lengths to get a baby (e.g. foreign adoption, IVF treatment). In both cases, they are taking steps to get the lifestyle they want - what's the difference (and has been pointed out on numerous occasions on previous versions of this thread, multiple embryos are often destroyed in the process of IVF. Some people, however, perceive this as being less "selfish", because the woman does it with the intention of having a child. I can't follow that reasoning at all, unless it's based on the assumption that all women should want children, and those who don't conform are somehow "unnatural" or "inferior")?

I am so glad we have moved on from the days when all women were expected to marry and have children, regardless of their desire or aptitude for that type of lifestyle, and condemning women who end a pregnancy to have a career as "selfish" to me smacks of the oppressive "one size fits all" ideology (although I do take the point that most of you are quite happy for women to have a career not a family, as long as they don't destroy a foetus/embryo to attain that goal.)

I have ethical reservations about abortions at a relatively advanced stage of pregnancy (after about 4 or 5 months) because by that stage the foetus is developed enough for me to perceive it as a person with its own rights, but I do not believe that "personality" or "life" in any meaningful sense begins at conception and I do not see an embryo of less than 3 months as having the degree of sentience to count as a "person". Sorry to put it so bluntly. I know a lot of you disagree and I do respect that - but I was just trying to make it clear that I'm not inhuman - I wouldn't be advocating abortion on demand if I believed it involved killing conscious beings who could think and feel as a human baby can at birth.

I also don't judge people who are in a position of wanting an abortion because they had unprotected sex. People make mistakes and, goodness knows, in the heat of emotion this can be an easy (if extremely serious) mistake to make. I don't ever think people should be forced to have a child in those circumstances and I think it is a terrible thing to view a child as something which a person "ought" to be forced to bear as a "punishment" for their foolishness. I think ending the pregnancy early on is a less bad outcome than bringing a child into a home where he/she is unwanted or abandoning him/her to the vagaries of the care system.

If people have multiple abortions as a regular form of contraception, then that is disturbing, but I think someone who went through all that trouble rather than simply using contraception must have underlying problems (or live in a country where access to contraception is difficult).

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

If sex is just meant to be with no restrictions then why do we bond with our young? If people want to argue lack of family support as a viable reason for abortion how can we, as a society, claim that the family unit is not important and deny the role that healthy sex plays in stable family?

I didn't deny that, I just said that it's not all that it is. I just can't agree that we should preach that sex is only ok in a combo with love and/or a monogamous relationship. I do see that as restrictive and ultimately harmful, not to mention out of tune with reality.

[leah49]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I'm afraid I would dispute that, too. In times gone by, women who became pregnant outside marriage were often publicly disgraced while the man wasn't. Or the man was put under social pressure to marry the woman, regardless of whether they were compatible or whether this was in anyone's best interests (and I don't think shotgun weddings are a good idea or would be the answer to reducing abortions), but was under no legal obligation to do anything.

In the UK, at least, the child has more legal right to financial support from his/her father than has ever historically been the case (although in practical terms the law is still hard to enforce if the father is determined to shirk his duty or doesn't have the money to do so)

I think it's like that in the US. I think I understand what the original poster meant. It's not such a stigma to be a father who's not being a father. They have a lot of ads nowadays saying "Have you been a father today?" so they're trying to change that, but you don't get the shame with not being a father to your children that I guess used to be there.

I won't say it's the cool thing to do, because it's not, but I do think it has to do with TV and movies where there are characters who do father lots of children with more than one mother and they kind of glorify themselves for it. I'm not saying guys in real life are like this, but it does help to change the way one thinks about it. It sort of desensities us to it.

I would agree that some men pressurise their partner to have an abortion against her will and that does disturb me.

My aunt was forced by her ex-husband to have two abortions. They did eventually have a son together. I do wonder what life would have been like if the first baby to be aborted had been born instead.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by Melaszka

I'm probably going to get brickbats from just about everyone for saying this, because it's obvious that a lot of people on this forum disagree with me, but I am glad that social attitudes and sexual mores have changed. I am glad that contraception and (preferably as a little-used last resort) abortion have separated sex from procreation; that women now have the opportunities that men have long enjoyed, to have guilt-free, consequence-free sex, if they so choose; that women who have aspirations other than being a mother and homemaker (not that there is anything wrong with aspiring to be a mother or homemaker, but it's only one of many choices and is not right for everyone) do not have to give up those aspirations because of one small mistake (and so are now on an equal par with men, who have never had to give up their career and dreams if they accidentally get someone pregnant).

Unlike even many of the pro-choice posters on CoS, I don't think that having an abortion because a baby would get in the way of your career or lifestyle is "selfish", or at least no more so than a woman going to extraordinary lengths to get a baby (e.g. foreign adoption, IVF treatment). In both cases, they are taking steps to get the lifestyle they want - what's the difference (and has been pointed out on numerous occasions on previous versions of this thread, multiple embryos are often destroyed in the process of IVF. Some people, however, perceive this as being less "selfish", because the woman does it with the intention of having a child. I can't follow that reasoning at all, unless it's based on the assumption that all women should want children, and those who don't conform are somehow "unnatural" or "inferior")?

I am so glad we have moved on from the days when all women were expected to marry and have children, regardless of their desire or aptitude for that type of lifestyle, and condemning women who end a pregnancy to have a career as "selfish" to me smacks of the oppressive "one size fits all" ideology (although I do take the point that most of you are quite happy for women to have a career not a family, as long as they don't destroy a foetus/embryo to attain that goal.)

I think these are excellent points - to me, abortion is closely connected with women's rights and having it banned would for me bring women back to where they were before - prisoners of their biological function.

I want particularly to stress my agreement with the second paragraph. I have wondered, too, why wanting a baby at any cost is never seen as selfish. Is it because most people can identify with it?

Also, I'm glad you brought up the IVF issue. I still haven't read an explanation from the pro-life side why it's ok but early abortion isn't. If you oppose abortion because it destroys a life, and life begins at conception, then destroying excess embryos should be no different from abortion, morally, should it? Then why is it ok to kill embryos in this case, but not in the case of abortion? The only explanation I can come up with is that it's because women wanting to have babies constitutes a justification for killing off embryos which abortion doesn't provide, in which case it comes down to the reason behind wanting to abort, and not the taking away of a life per se - it reads to me as saying that a baby or in most cases babies can be sacrificed for the indisputably noble goal of wanting to have a child, unlike the selfish goal of wanting to have a career/some other life. Please corect me if I have it wrong and give the right explanation behind condoning IVF-related destruction of fertilised eggs. I'd be very grateful. And if I have it right, I'd like to know why wanting a child is not selfish but wanting a a career is. I'm sorry, but it does seem to imply that being a mother is better and more praiseworthy than being something other.

[The_Madwoman]

This is something I never quite understood about the pro-life stance (what I bolded). Why is a child who was not a product of rape more worthy of a life than one who is a product of rape (or a product of incest)? It's not the child's fault how it's concieved.

It's not the child's fault, but the mother shouldn't be obliged to carry a product of a sexual violence against her for nine months as well.

I'm probably going to get brickbats from just about everyone for saying this, because it's obvious that a lot of people on this forum disagree with me, but I am glad that social attitudes and sexual mores have changed. I am glad that contraception and (preferably as a little-used last resort) abortion have separated sex from procreation; that women now have the opportunities that men have long enjoyed, to have guilt-free, consequence-free sex, if they so choose; that women who have aspirations other than being a mother and homemaker (not that there is anything wrong with aspiring to be a mother or homemaker, but it's only one of many choices and is not right for everyone) do not have to give up those aspirations because of one small mistake (and so are now on an equal par with men, who have never had to give up their career and dreams if they accidentally get someone pregnant).

Unlike even many of the pro-choice posters on CoS, I don't think that having an abortion because a baby would get in the way of your career or lifestyle is "selfish", or at least no more so than a woman going to extraordinary lengths to get a baby (e.g. foreign adoption, IVF treatment). In both cases, they are taking steps to get the lifestyle they want - what's the difference (and has been pointed out on numerous occasions on previous versions of this thread, multiple embryos are often destroyed in the process of IVF. Some people, however, perceive this as being less "selfish", because the woman does it with the intention of having a child. I can't follow that reasoning at all, unless it's based on the assumption that all women should want children, and those who don't conform are somehow "unnatural" or "inferior")?

I am so glad we have moved on from the days when all women were expected to marry and have children, regardless of their desire or aptitude for that type of lifestyle, and condemning women who end a pregnancy to have a career as "selfish" to me smacks of the oppressive "one size fits all" ideology (although I do take the point that most of you are quite happy for women to have a career not a family, as long as they don't destroy a foetus/embryo to attain that goal.)

I want particularly to stress my agreement with the second paragraph. I have wondered, too, why wanting a baby at any cost is never seen as selfish. Is it because most people can identify with it?

I believe so. After years and years of women's emancipation, having kids is still highly demanded from society. Wanting desperately lots of children is ok; not wanting is OMG terrible.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by The_Madwoman

I believe so. After years and years of women's emancipation, having kids is still highly demanded from society. Wanting desperately lots of children is ok; not wanting is OMG terrible.

All other issues aside, women sort of are obligated to have children unless nobody's going to have children...

[Pox Voldius]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

All other issues aside, women sort of are obligated to have children unless nobody's going to have children...

That's fine for women who want children. But I think the human population is quite large enough that having children doesn't and shouldn't need to be an obligation anymore. The species isn't going to go extinct if some women decide they don't want children.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Pox Voldius

That's fine for women who want children. But I think the human population is quite large enough that having children doesn't and shouldn't need to be an obligation anymore. The species isn't going to go extinct if some women decide they don't want children.

My point is, the expectation that women will have children is not exactly unreasonable. It's kind of hard to avoid, actually, if you've ever been born.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

My point is, the expectation that women will have children is not exactly unreasonable. It's kind of hard to avoid, actually, if you've ever been born.

I think what was meant was more in the lines of social expectation, which often borders on pressure, from individual women to become mothers, not the general knowlegde that women give birth. Emancipation or not, the strongest social messages around me still seem to be that being a mother is the most noble thing for any woman to do, and preferable to any other life plan.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I think what was meant was more in the lines of social expectation, which often borders on pressure, from individual women to become mothers, not the general knowlegde that women give birth. Emancipation or not, the strongest social messages around me still seem to be that being a mother is the most noble thing for any woman to do, and preferable to any other life plan.

I know, but what I'm trying to say is that most people probably don't really consider it that way. There's a strong contingent of people who probably sincerely believe it's just a fact of life that girls will grow up and have children. The social pressure may in fact follow from the biological constraints on the situation. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how difficult it is to argue the point with people who believe that having kids is some sort of mandate. All I'm saying is that people tend to lose sight of individuals when they form opinions on matters like this. However much I agree that you, Yoana, as a woman, are free to have children or not according to your wishes, I doubt most people see it is a matter of choice at all. And for women in general, it really isn't.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I know, but what I'm trying to say is that most people probably don't really consider it that way. There's a strong contingent of people who probably sincerely believe it's just a fact of life that girls will grow up and have children. The social pressure may in fact follow from the biological constraints.

It probably does, but that doesn't make it any less annoying. I also think that Pox's point about overpopulation is very valid, too.

[canismajoris]

This is getting confusing

In any case, consider that population isn't really changing at a consistent rate around the world. Japan, for example, has been trying to do something about its decline for years.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

This is getting confusing

Sorry I meant that with gender equality and all that one would expect women to enjoy some freedoms - including the freedom to not become mothers, and that should surprise or offend nobody. Biological function is all ery well, but we live in a culture-based, not nature-based society (or so I wish anyway).

In any case, consider that population isn't really changing at a consistent rate around the world. Japan, for example, has been trying to do something about its decline for years.

Oh, so have we. I think most European countries have a problem with a declining population. The thing is though that wherever you live, and whichever country's population you boost by having a child, you also add to the general world population as well.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

That is why the goal must be to make abortion unnecessary. If there are no unwanted pregnancies then there will be abortions only when medically necessary. Of course this is only a nominal goal, because even with effective education and prevention there will be accidents and mistakes. But approaching the matter this way would not seemingly allow for illicit abortions to take place, because there will be no demand.

But again, you are arguing for something else using abortion as a proxy, no? I mean what is the purpose of making abortions unnecessary (except medical)? Are you really going after curing "unwanted pregnancies"? If so, why?