First of all, I never said abortion was an easy choice. It's just easier than parenting or adoption.
But in saying so, you're still saying it is an easy choice. It is NOT, in ANY way, an easy choice. Further, let's not make this into a "X is harder than Y, thus X is a much more noble thing." It isn't right to discount a hard decision just because you don't like the outcome.
The issues you raised regarding adoption (birth parents invoking their rights) is more of an issue for those seeking to adopt, not those that are seeking to place their child in an adoptive home. In fact, the fact that birth parents can invoke their rights should be more of an encouragement to those considering adoption. Maybe more parents are looking towards international adoption than domestic, but there are still enough prospective adoptive parents to go around. Very few biological parents even consider the possibility of adoption. For those that do, their child has an almost instant home.
Say I have a child. I don't know what to do, but I decide to keep it. A year later, I decide that it is not possible to keep the child for whatever reason--money, psychiatric issues, healthcare, school--whatever. Yeah, that 1 year old child is going to be so easy to adopt, there are lots of people out there lined up! NOT. Stop idealizing adoption, when it isn't so rosey and idealistic. How many kids are going to grow up in the system, bouncing around from foster home to foster home, or even group homes, only to age out of the system? Quite a few! If there are enough people looking to adopt domestically, why do we have all of these children who are in the system and have no prospect of ever being adopted? Most people want little ones without problems, not older children who may come with a lot of baggage (physical, psychological, emotional). How about the babies born addicted to crack and with fetal alcohol syndrome? Or those with Downs? These children do not have instant homes, and adoption isn't so easy and simple.
And why exactly is it a good thing a birth parent can come back 10 years down the road and attempt to invoke their rights? Who the heck does that benefit?!?
About the healthcare, you are probably correct. I'm sure it is much more difficult to get a hold of than I made it seem. Nevertheless, it is available. There are also nonprofit organizations such as maternity homes that are available, if sought after. I'm sure they are rather rare since not many people look into them nowadays. But once again, although it may take some searching, they can be found and they offer a great deal of support to those that want it.
(I'm actually in a public health field) There are NOT enough resources available! A nonprofit doesn't have limitless resources. They're only able to help as many people as their resource (i.e. money) allows. It isn't so easy to tell a woman "well, there's a maternity home where they'll take care of everything!" when the reality is that there are so few open spaces in so few homes that it is not a viable option.
Further, it doesn't matter if something is available if it is not accessible. As I said, if a woman has to lose a day of pay, get a sitter for their other child, and take the bus to the only place they can get free prenatal care, it really does no goo to have such a resource available.
Okay. What's the difference, other than the fact that the women do not physically perform the abortions on themselves?
When you're arguing a point, providing invalid information doesn't lend anything to your credibility. Putting out inncorrect information and then saying in essence "so what, you know what I meant" isn't a positive thing.
The only contraception that is not an abortifacient is the barrier type so what your advocating would actually increase abortions. It also makes you a child sex advocate by offering the contraception to children.
The pill is considered to be one because it does not allow a fertilized egg (if sperm reaches one) to impant.
Because no one has ever gotten pregnant and carried a successful pregnancy while taking a hormonal contraceptive
And I mean, if a virgin can get pregnant (hello, Jesus
), if God wants one to be pregnant a little pill isn't going to stop him! Abortifacient... it really depends on what your definition of when life exists. Since not all sperm who meet the egg actually implant--quite the opposite actually. Depends on what data you're looking at, including IVF as that is a spectacular way to see how many are used vs how many actually implant, 10-40% of fertilized eggs implant. That means 60-90% of them don't. And that is in a natural cycle. So, to what extent do we blame a hormonal BC for this implantation not occurring??
Contraceptives should be available to those who want it. What makes an 18 year old more deserving of access to condoms than a 17 year-364 day old??