JayEmJay

yukithemeddler:

twocrowns:

yukithemeddler:

See, nobody ever made the claim that the embryo is not alive. You are burning a strawman, and that is not logic. You are only dispelling something that you made up, which is not the pro-choice stance at all. This is not the 1980’s anymore. 

This is an excerpt of a Canadian pro-abortion blog by a well-known blogger and activist.

AntiChoice is the term ProChoice attributes to those who believe, based on fundamentalist religious ideology and not actual science, that abortion is MURDER! Wrong.

Something that isn’t alive cannot be killed.

http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.ca/2012/05/why-antichoice-is-wrong.html

You were saying about pro-choicers not claiming the fetus isn’t alive?’

That person is talking about a therapeutic abortion in an instance where a miscarriage had already occurred. There was no “life” because there was no "FETUS" at the time the abortion took place. 

You were saying? 

There was no therapeutic abortion. It was a spontaneous abortion. The argument isn’t over spontaneous abortion, it’s over whether abortion re: direct abortion, kills  a human being.

DebeauxOs goes on to say in the comments:

Pregnancy and birth - as one would imagine that a process that can produce a live, human being might - is a leap into the void, the unknown. 

In other words— birth produces a live human being. Before birth the fetus is not “alive”.

There’s no “fundamentalist ideology” when it comes to whether the fetus is an organism, or whether a human being is killed. The argument is at the level of values: do we value the equality of all human beings, or not? 

oh-snap-pro-choice:

twocrowns:

The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers’ practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. We revile their placards showing an enlarged scene of the aftermath of a D & C abortion: we are disgusted by their lapel pins with the little feet, crafted in gold, of…

It’s been proven that the vast majority of pro life graphics are of miscarriages and late term abortions, but HEY AS LONG AS WE’RE EMOTIONALLY MANIPULATING AND TRIGGERING PEOPLE TO TRY TO GET OUR INCORRECT POINTS ACROSS WHO CARES

-Ash

It’s been proven because you say so? 

I’ve never seen a study done on this.

There are many pics of miscarriages on the internet, 

The Centre of Bioethical Reform uses images of first trimester abortions and they have affadavits backing up their claim that they are authentic.

The thing is, and this was the original point of my post, the pro-abortion side will never show what  an aborted baby looks like. It’s really easy to refute photos with other, comparable, photos. But it’s never done.

yukithemeddler:

See, nobody ever made the claim that the embryo is not alive. You are burning a strawman, and that is not logic. You are only dispelling something that you made up, which is not the pro-choice stance at all. This is not the 1980’s anymore. 

This is an excerpt of a Canadian pro-abortion blog by a well-known blogger and activist.

AntiChoice is the term ProChoice attributes to those who believe, based on fundamentalist religious ideology and not actual science, that abortion is MURDER! Wrong.

Something that isn’t alive cannot be killed.

http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.ca/2012/05/why-antichoice-is-wrong.html

You were saying about pro-choicers not claiming the fetus isn’t alive?’

yukithemeddler:

You can call it whatever you like, but it will not change the fact that you do not respond to what I say unless it suits you. You ignore direct questions when you do not have answers, 

You don’t like my formatting, and this format is not conducive to long exchanges, so I am selective. I will answer direct questions in my ask box. The fact is abortion kills a human being. The embryo, from concception, is an organism from our species. That makes him a human being. Abortion takes the life of that embryo, and that is the goal of the abortion. It is absolutely irrefutable. The question becomes whether we support rights for all human beings, without qualification, or do we allow stronger human beings to kill weaker human beings.

yukithemeddler:

 Have you got evidence supporting the notion that the pictures perpetuated by anti-choicers due to the advent of the internet have changed anybody’s mind regarding the statement “the fetus is a blob of cells.”? I’d be inclined to think it was the spread of more accurate information, and the comprehension that there are various stages between blastocyst and fetus.See, I’ve never heard a single pro-choicer say that a fetus is a blob of cells. I have heard people including my OB/GYN say that an embryo is a blob of cells, because it is. The fact is, we are all blobs of cells, albeit highly specialized cells, so it’s actually a true statement anyway.  

I did not attribute the spread of information necessarily to pro-lifers, just to the internet. Again, you read into the statement.  Pro-lifers spread pictures of the unborn, and curious people searched for the info on the internet. It makes no difference who they got the information from, it could no longer be said that a “fetus is a blob of cells”.

You’ve never heard a pro-choicer call a fetus a blob of cells? Then you haven’t debated abortion.

An embryo is not “a blob of cells” and I don’t care what an OBGYN says. An embryo goes through 23 definable stages. At the earliest stages, before implantation, the embryo has no distinctive morphological features— no body parts in other words— but that doesn’t make the embryo a indistinct mass of cells. Indistinct tissue cells don’t start differentiating and becoming different types of tissue. By the 5th week after fertilization, the embryo has distinctive morphological features— hardly a blob. Abortion activists use “blob of cells” to represent ALL unborn, as if they really only object to abortion up to 6 weeks. Whether the unborn child is 6 weeks or 36 weeks genuine pro-choicers support ALL abortions and want them legal, regardless of the reason.  But it’s tough to support a third trimester abortion, so “blob of cells” becomes a rhetorical stand-in for ALL the unborn, when in fact, the unborn lack morphological features for only about 3-5 weeks of their development out of a total of 38 weeks. So for the majority of the unborn’s development, they are plainly, and *visibly* human, but it’s tough defending the killing of something that looks just like a baby, isn’t it? So let’s call the unborn “a blob of cells”. 

The ” blob” moniker is meant to dehumanize the unborn child and deny his status as a human being. It’s like calling adults “a clump of biochemical reactions”. What? it’s true! Why would you do that? Because you don’t want your audience to acknowledge his humanity.

yukithemeddler:

 

Dr. Bernard Nathanson changed his tune when he converted to Catholicism, the very same religion you purport to be a member of, and the very one which is a vast, well-organized criminal organization for the purpose of hiding child molesters from legitimate prosecution for their heinous crimes. I do not take anybody who puts money into the plate at Mass to be a human being in support of CHILDREN. As for the doctor, his science is bad. If it had proven anything it would be currently accepted theory, and it is not. 

A vile slander upon my Church. Public schools and various institutions have covered up sex abuse that does not make them criminal organizations. That you would go from generalizing the misdeeds of a few to the body of Catholics shows your own lack of logic. What makes an organization a “criminal organization” is that its primary aims are criminal. That Catholic Church’s primary aim is to announce the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And the notion that people who support this Church, this goal “are not human beings” is a vile, hateful, contemptuous prejudice that has no basis in logic.

yukithemeddler:

 

Dr. Bernard Nathanson changed his tune when he converted to Catholicism 

He produced Silent Scream in 1984. He was baptized Catholic in 1996. So no. He converted to the pro-life side because he saw, with ultrasound, that abortion kills a human being. ‘

#prolife #fetalrights

#prolife #fetalrights

yukithemeddler:

twocrowns:

The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers’ practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. We revile their placards showing an enlarged scene of the aftermath of a D & C abortion: we are disgusted by their lapel pins with the little feet, crafted in gold, of a 10-week-old fetus; we mock the sensationalism of The Silent Scream. We look with pity and horror at someone who would brandish a fetus in formaldehyde — and we are quick to say that they are lying: “Those are stillbirths, anyway” we tell ourselves.

To many pro-choice advocates, the imagery is revolting propaganda. There is a sense among us, let us be frank, that the gruesomeness of the imagery belongs to the pro-lifers: that it emerges from the dark, frightening minds of fanatics: that it represents the violence of imaginations that would, given half a chance, turn our world into a scary, repressive place. ‘People like us’ see such material as the pornography of the pro-life movement.

But feminism at its best is based on what is simply true. While pro-lifers have not been beyond dishonesty, distortion and the doctoring of images (preferring, for example, to highlight the results of very late, very rare abortions), many of those photographs are in fact photographs of actual D & Cs; those footprints are in fact the footprints of a 10-week-old fetus, the pro-life slogan, “Abortion stops a beating heart,” is incontrovertibly true. While images of violent fetal death work magnificently for pro-lifers as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are biological facts. We know this. 

 —Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies Our Souls”, The New Republic, 1995

I look at you with contempt because your position is contemptible, the way you go about things is contemptible and most of all, your inability to reason offends me in behalf of the human race.  

I look at those gold pins with contempt because gold is costly and are you using that money to feed born children? No, you are using it to perpetuate a fallacy in a losing argument. I look at the Silent Scream with contempt because it has been proven to be sensationalist garbage and you still trot out that lie if you think you can fool someone into believing it is true. 

The small amount of truth amidst the lies of anti-choicers is much like the small amount of truth amidst the lies in the book your religion stems from, and as such it is not enough to sustain belief. It collapses under the weight of the lies and becomes something grotesque, something that cannot continue without enforcing the lies.

I read the entire pdf. file of that article and the author is still pro-choice. You, as an anti-choicer, do not get to offer advice to the opposition as how they “should” interpret your position in this manner. You, as an anti-choicer, have chosen to cherry-pick that article, like you cherry-pick your science (it is beating, but it is not a fully-developed heart is an example), like you cherry-pick that book of fables (where does it address your position on abortion in that book, other than to detail how to perform one?) and it offends me, YOU OFFEND ME, because you offend reason.

Thus, you engender my disgust, your tactics will be reviled, your feeble attempts to manipulate will be mocked and you will receive full measure of my contempt. What anybody else does in response to you is their own business. Between you and I? What you have sowed is what you shall reap. 

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of your movement, exposed all your lies…that 50 000 women died every year from illegal abortion, that the fetus is a clump of tissue, that most Americans supported abortion,  

It was a house of cards.

I remember in the 1980s, people used to say with a straight face that “the fetus is a blob of cells.” Of course that lie was refuted with the advent of the internet and the spread of fetal pictures, but you still get people who can’t admit the basic facts, that the fetus is alive, an organism and a human being.

The whole point of Naomi Wolfe’s article is that people who support abortion can’t come to grips with the truth about what happens to the fetus. 

I am a big believer in facts and logic. The abortion side has none. Just take, for example, your contention that the embryonic heart is beating, but not fully developed.

Nobody ever made the claim that it was fully developed! 

The point in mentioning the beating heart is to dispel the notion that the embryo is not alive. A being with a beating heart is obviously alive.

But you need to read into statements because the facts make pro-lifers right. So they have to mean something else. They can’t mean what they mean at face value, because if they do you lose.

So abortion supporters can’t state the plain facts. It’s Orwellian. They have trouble stating, plainly, that abortion kills a human being. They can’t. They know it makes them look bad.

This is not “manipulation”. It’s the application of straight facts and logical deduction. Honest abortionists agree with me. They know they’re ending life. 

The only disagreement is on the level of values: whether we value all human beings without qualification, or whether we allow a more powerful human being kill a less powerful human being. That’s what the abortion debate comes down to. All the arguments about bodily autonomy translated into: a woman has the right to kill the child inside her. It makes no difference whether you actually *agree* with this statement, because the autonomy ideology says that even if it *were* a child, a woman would have the right to kill that child.

Just own it: power trumps the right of one’s child.

I don’t really care about your opinion of me or your mockey, because it’s all very adolescent anyway, and it’s an attempt to deflect from the actual facts. People who care about facts and logic who research the issue of when human life begins, of what an organism is, will understand that what I say is true. So I’m not fazed by this. 

I note that you often react emotionally, e.g. with contempt. Emotionalism seems to be a tool, even as it’s denounced.

The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers’ practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics. We revile their placards showing an enlarged scene of the aftermath of a D & C abortion: we are disgusted by their lapel pins with the little feet, crafted in gold, of a 10-week-old fetus; we mock the sensationalism of The Silent Scream. We look with pity and horror at someone who would brandish a fetus in formaldehyde — and we are quick to say that they are lying: “Those are stillbirths, anyway” we tell ourselves.

To many pro-choice advocates, the imagery is revolting propaganda. There is a sense among us, let us be frank, that the gruesomeness of the imagery belongs to the pro-lifers: that it emerges from the dark, frightening minds of fanatics: that it represents the violence of imaginations that would, given half a chance, turn our world into a scary, repressive place. ‘People like us’ see such material as the pornography of the pro-life movement.

But feminism at its best is based on what is simply true. While pro-lifers have not been beyond dishonesty, distortion and the doctoring of images (preferring, for example, to highlight the results of very late, very rare abortions), many of those photographs are in fact photographs of actual D & Cs; those footprints are in fact the footprints of a 10-week-old fetus, the pro-life slogan, “Abortion stops a beating heart,” is incontrovertibly true. While images of violent fetal death work magnificently for pro-lifers as political polemic, the pictures are not polemical in themselves: they are biological facts. We know this. 

 —Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies Our Souls”, The New Republic, 1995

your-lies-ruin-lives:

 

Actually, the points behind not posting those pictures are 1. They’re 9 times out of 10 pictures of someone’s wanted pregnancy that perished. You are literally using pictures of one thing and trying to pass it off as another. That is manipulative. And deceptive. Your words are to be thus doubted since you have no problem propagating the lies. And 2. If you have to win over with emotional manipulation, you don’t really have a point. 

Oh, sidebar point, your research will never trump the years and years of education a doctor has had. A medical degree takes more than just a few googlings and seminars. They take about 12-16 years of education. It’s the most time consuming thing someone can study. I am going to listen to board certified physicians in good standing before someone on the internet who has read some medical books but has no degree to show for it. 

And someone has shown what abortion looks like.  It looks rather like someone just had a period, doesn’t it? ;) 

Wanted pregnancies? We don’t know that. Could be wanted or unwanted, and unless you have the woman’s story, you don’t know. 

An abortion is an abortion, whatever the motivation. The aborted baby will look different at different stages of gestation. It’s still the taking of life.

I don’t use emotional manipulation. Just facts and logic. It’s abortion advocates who react emotionally who feel manipulated because they don’t like the emotional reactions they get from the facts. But that’s not the same thing as emotional manipulation.

As for education: You do not need 12-16 years of education to learn the facts necessary to conduct this debate, and if you don’t believe me, conduct your own research on fetal biometrics, or abortion methods or whatever else you want to argue.  

And you posted a cannister with productions of conception. where are the identifiable parts of the unborn child?  Normally, after an abortion, someone would take the contents of the cannister into a backroom and then piece together the unborn child to make sure he was entirely removed. The piecing together of the unborn child would have been where you would have had to take the pictures, so we can see what happens. A cannister full of placenta and blood says nothing about the nature of abortion.

doctorofdragons:

twocrowns:

Whenever pro-aborts tell you abortion pictures are fake, just remember… they never show you “real” pictures of aborted fetuses. 

They’ll show tissue.

Just not the identifiable parts.

Considering that most abortions happen within the first trimester, then yeah it will mostly look like tissue. We’re also not assholes who want to deliberately trigger people with graphic and inaccurate photos. We’re not insensitive shitheads who take pictures of people’s miscarriages and abortions that were performed when the fetus was dead or already dying and use them to support some narrow-minded crusade.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter what abortion looks like though. It’s a fucking right that all people with the capacity to become pregnant are entitled to. And I can tell you right now there are other procedures in medicine that are far more disgusting and graphic to see than an abortion procedure.

Whether or not identifiable parts will appear can depend on a number of factors, such as gestational age, method of abortion, degree of development, etc.

You don’t want to trigger people, but you’re perfectly unwilling to prove your point. Yeah how convenient an excuse.

The facts about abortion do matter because women make their decisions based on facts, or they should. They are told that their babies are “blobs of tissue”, and everything else to dehumanize them. They do not know what abortion really is. This is what informed consent means— that they know what an abortion really is.

When I had laser eye surgery, the clinic made absolutely certain I knew exactly what I was doing, and had me sign a line-by-line consent form, saying that I understand what was about to happen to me.

Women who undergo abortions don’t all understand.

yukithemeddler:

twocrowns:

 

If the abortion terminates a pregnancy, but the baby comes out alive, is that a successful abortion?

If a pregnancy ends with a live baby as the result, that’s known as ” a birth”. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? 

TwoCrowns>Yeah, but it’s a special kind of birth. It even has its own code in ICD-10. It means the abortion was not successful.

No. It’s known as “the dreaded complication”.

What the hell are you talking about? Citation needed, reputable science only, please. 

TwoCrowns>It wouldn’t be a scientific phrase, but what it’s known as. If a fetus didn’t die as expected by abortion, wouldn’t that be a complication.

Babies who come out alive are left to die, because otherwise the purpose of the abortion has not been achieved.

Citation needed. Birth results in live babies, silly.

TwoCrowns>Babies can be born before viability and die. Ask any perinatologist. Abortions are done on babies of the same age, and if something goes wrong, the babies can survive the birthing procedure. If the baby lives, then the abortion is not successful, until the baby dies. 

It would only take one abortion advocate to agree to have her aborted fetus photographed to prove pro-lifers wrong, right? But that’ll never happen, because it would only confirm what pro-lifers are saying.

Who is “an abortion advocate”? 

TwoCrowns> Anyone who advocates for legal abortion.

Happen to have any proof or evidence whatsoever to support the notion that “that’ll never happen, because it would only confirm what pro-lifers are saying” by any chance? 

TwoCrown>It’s a prediction. The only evidence I need for my prediction to be true is that abortion advocates not provide pictures of aborted fetuses.

Please limit your terminology to the accepted identifications and burn your strawmen elsewhere, please and thank you. People’s medical procedures are none of your business and unless you can read people’s minds? You don’t get to guess at their motivations. 

When so-called medical procedures kill human beings, it’s everyone<s business. Motivations are not even in play.

your-lies-ruin-lives:

twocrowns:

your-lies-ruin-lives:

twocrowns:

your-lies-ruin-lives:

arguing-about-abortions:

twocrowns:

Whenever pro-aborts tell you abortion pictures are fake, just remember… they never show you “real” pictures of aborted fetuses. 

They’ll show tissue.

Just not the identifiable parts.

Your pictures are for the most part real, but horribly misrepresented. Many have been proven to be still births, miscarriages, or therapeutic abortions. A few I’ve seen were from a deceased pregnant person. 

You also favor showing late term abortions, which make up less than 2% of abortions overall. You’re also great at lying about the fetal age; saying it’s 8 weeks along when in reality it’s 14 weeks.

9 out of 10 “abortion” pics were taken by a doctor presiding over a miscarriage or stillbirth. So they can contribute to the documentation of causes. Because they are still trying to figure out what causes the large percent of pregnancy loss. 

The 1 out of 10 are actually abortions. Late term. For fetus who had severe abnormalities that would have made them incompatible with outside life. Or in cases where the pregnant person was near death and they had to control the removal so the pregnant person didn’t get sepsis or other complications in the process of a life saving treatment. 

So yes. Prolifers are showing inaccurate depictions. If you can’t be relied on to show accurate representation, how can anything else you say be relied upon? 

And the evidence for them being stillbirths/miscarriages is…?

The Centre for Bioethical Reform shows first trimester abortions, and they have affadavits to back up their claim.

Late-term abortions are not all because of congenital anomalies or health issues. Sometimes healthy babies are killed.

The best proof to refute they’re fake is more photographic evidence of aborted fetuses. Which is never shown and never will be. It would only confirm what pro-lifers have been saying.

Your evidence for them being real is lifesitenews or some other biased nonsense. Doctors have come forward with families permissions to state that it was a miscarriage or stillbirth.


This site details the big pics. (tw: graphic imagery) The ones most used. And if you read statements from doctors (ones you can search on a medical board certification site, not one that says they’re a “former abortionist” that shows up nowhere but a prolife centered site.) state that even if they are aborted fetuses, they are inaccurate of the representation of gestational age. (And as someone who has had a miscarriage at 9 weeks gestation, when most abortions happen - if not before-.. I can tell you that it just looked like a super heavy period. There was nothing fetal looking at all about it. It looked like a big, stringy blood clot.) 

Every article I find about detailing how they’re truth are on prolife centered sites only. I cannot find a single source that is nonbiased stating how they’re factual. So inaccurate representation of age is still a form of emotional manipulation and deception and still proves that the prolife movement is acting on the emotions of others and taking advantage of the ill educated. 

Three of the pics are not of abortion. I’m talking about abortion pics.

The 6 week fetus would have stretched if you picked him up upside down. If the gestational age is closer to 7 (from fertilization), we’re talking about a 1.7 cm embryo. Plus,just like born people, embryos tend to grow at their own rates.

The picture of the 6-week old  embyo shown as counter-evidence is more of an early 6 weeker rather than a late one. A later 6 weeker’s fingers are better defined.

The second abortion picture by Robert Wolfe looks a lot like an abortion picture I retrieved from a book placental pathology. (See link)

Wolfe’s picture probably still has placental tissue, but it seems consistent with a D & E. Source (p. 15) http://books.google.ca/books?id=bwmi0E3veosC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Regarding “Baby Malachi”—  You cannot know the reason why the baby was aborted just from the colour of the skin. Intra-amniotic injections are done on live fetuses not just dead ones. If so, then we have reason to believe the baby suffered. If you read accounts about intra-amniotic abortions, the mothers will describe how the babies thrust about, obviously in pain. “Salting out” is not done any more, but intra-amniotic injections are sometimes given to perform feticide because it’s easier than actually injecting the fetus.

And regarding the picture Dr. Ross suspects is a fake. The fact that Texas passed an abortion ban on third trimester abortions doesn’t automatically mean the photo is a fake. There may have been a loophole that allowed that particular abortion, or a court action that allowed it, or it may have been an illegal abortion, or it may have been performed before the ban went into effect, but photographed afterwards. The “refutation” is based on refutation, not solid evidence.

Solid evidence would be a photo of a similar nature. But that’s not going to happen isn’t it? 

Abortion advocates won’t present the evidence of what happens to unborn children from abortion.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to rationalize the misconception, exploitation of a grieving family’s loss, and emotional manipulation. Sadly, the ignorant will follow along with your tactics, but folks who’ve done their reading from unbiased sources from licensed, registered doctors, will not. (Hey, golly gee. There’s a few sites out where you can check if your doctor is a board certified physician in good standing. If you can’t find someone on there or they’re a specialist in anything but OB/GYN, you probably don’t have a legit doctor telling you anything.) 

Employing emotional manipulation is the tactic of the ones who know they aren’t going to get anywhere anyway else. You are trying to use emotional manipulation to win your case. But you have no case. A fetus is a fetus. 

Shielding people from the facts in the name of protecting “feelings” *is* a form on manipulation. “Don’t talk about that! It might trigger people!” 

Gee, how convenient.

I’ve consulted a number of medical textbooks. And that’s how I was able to evaluate the “counter-argument” to those pictures and know that they really did not stand up to  examination.

A fetus is a “fetus”. What is a fetus? A fetus is our offspring. That makes him a human being. There’s no dancing around that conclusion. Abortion kills a human being. 

Again, if you think pro-life pictures are biased, show what aborted fetuses look like. Get a willing abortion advocate, a willing abortionist, and a photographer.

Not gonna happen is it? 

That was my original point, and it still stands.

crazylittleredhead:

twocrowns:

crazylittleredhead:

arguing-about-abortions:

twocrowns:

Whenever pro-aborts tell you abortion pictures are fake, just remember… they never show you “real” pictures of aborted fetuses.

They’ll show tissue.

Just not the identifiable parts.

Your pictures are for the most part real, but horribly…

Remember whenever pro-lifers show pictures of dead babies, they forget to tell you about the women who had to make the heart breaking decision to abort a child who was severely deformed and could never survive outside the womb or who had to have abortion because they couldn’t physically continue a pregnancy to term. Remember whenever a pro-lifer posts these images they make women re-live the horrible loss not only of late term abortions but late term miscarriages as well.

We generally don’t know who the women are, nor the women reveal themselves. 

Not all abortion photos are of late-term babies, and we simply don’t know what the women were thinking when they had their abortions, or even the reason why they had them. Not all late-term abortions are for medical reasons. 

It’s unfortunate that women must deal with loss, but it’s even worse that unborn children are killed in the name of female empowerment.  We don’t stop talking about war or other traumatic subjects because it might trigger people, there’s no reason we should stop talking about the reality of abortion, or showing it.

1) They don’t reveal themselves because if they did they would be harassed by pro-lifers and perhaps be risking their lives to reveal themselves or share their story.
2) Exactly. You don’t know the story of every woman or ANY of the women who had the abortions you feel free to show other people. You have no idea what they went through or why they made their decision. Some other practical reasons include domestic, mental health, the economic inability to raise a child or numerous other equally as valid reasons.
3) The women who have late term abortions for medical reasons mourne the loss of their children. It is respectful to ask them to repeat this painful experience over and over and over again for political reason. Where the hell is your compassion? Losing a child is one of the most difficult things any family can go through. These women don’t deserve that.

Collectively we as women don’t deserved to be bullied and intimidated by people who could care less about our bodies or our health. You know what statistically is the best way to prevent abortions? Birth control. You want to stop abortions from happening send a donation to Planned Parenthood.

1) Plenty of people have revealed they have had abortions and nobody “risks their lives” doing that. 

2) I have no idea what they went through. What they went through does not justify killing their children. 

3) They may very well mourn the loss of their children, but their emotions are no reason not to talk about late-term abortion. Do we stop talking about war because it might upset soldiers? No. Truth is more important than emotions. 

"Collectively we women don’t deserved to be bullied" and I say collectively, fetuses don’t deserve to be killed.

Contraceptive failure is one the biggest contributing factors to abortion.