wrote in message
...
It is a medical procedure. like all medical procedures it carries some
risk. for
girls younger than 18 having an abortion carries much less risk than
carrying a fetus
to term. that is on average. of course, carrying a fetus to term is
always a
medical risk for a woman and an early abortion done at proper facility
probably
carries less risk than going to full term as well. abortion as "birth
control" is
not ideal as there are always some medical risks. now the morning after
pills or
taking a higher dose of birth control pills seems like a better
methodology when
normal birth control measure fail.
In that sense, I dont think it is rational to be "pro abortion" any more
than it
would be to advocate other kinds of medical procedures unnecessarily.
Of course I believe women making a choice to not carry to term can be
absolutely the
best ethical/moral choice for herself and family.
I dont see how Sanger advocating choice is being "pro abortion".
Ingrid


We don't disagree on this. I said the same thing about the medical aspect
of abortion. But, you can be pro-abortion, and not a lunatic, especial if
the alternative is to be anti-abortion. The religious-right tries to assert
that abortions are used as form of birth control. I'm sure that is true for
a few people as in any large sample you will find people at the extremes. I
don't think that the average person would see abortion as a rational form of
birth control. As for Sanger, he claimed to be pro-abortion in the
interview that I heard. I believe his point is that if you look at abortion
as a medical procedure, then there is no reason to avoid the term
"pro-abortion" assuming that you approach it in a rational manner just as
you would any other invasive procedure.