A close second is choosing to shave my armpits

We'll they say that buuuttt...

"in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years"
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

And at the height, there was roughly 1 million in a year

Apparently It's so hard that, statistically speaking, either a large percentage of women keep doing it over and over or most women in the country have booked their place in the queue in advance

Because some pregnancies are unplanned

So? If it's "just a clump of cells", it shouldn't be an issue. I don't labor over whether I clip my toenails.

Some people with an unplanned pregnancy will choose abortion, others will choose not to have an abortion, and others have a tough time deciding whether to have an abortion or not.

Because you keep making it a hard decision.

I sure hope so.

Then at the very least that answers your own question.

But that's not the answer given, now is it?

.............yyyyyyyyyes it is, the social stigma you're creating is very heavily cited in these discussions.

I am flattered, though, that you think my arguments are so persuasive as to convince all of the world's women it is the hardest decision in the world to murder their child.

It's not murder, and it's not a child

Whilst enjoying how easy it is for you to say that without awareness of the irony.

What's ironic is that despite arguing abortion is common place and socially acceptable, those advocating for baby murder also argue pro-life advocates are also magically capable of swaying the consciences of women who disagree with them.

I wear leather gloves for work and I eat meat on the regular, but you don't see me arguing these are difficult decisions because of the arguments of vegans.

It's almost as if in their own consciences women know they are murdering their children and the more we talk about it, the harder it is for them to suppress their conscience.

"those advocating for baby murder"

Who is doing that?

"It's almost as if in their own consciences women know they are murdering their children and the more we talk about it, the harder it is for them to suppress their conscience"

They aren't murdering children though. Do you think a fertilized egg is a newborn baby?

There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg." Once fertilized, it ceases to be an egg. Nobody said "newborn." A zygote is a human baby in the earliest stages of development — as is described by the vast majority of medical dictionaries. A fetus is defined as "an unborn human child."

Dehumanization is one of the stages of genocide. Those perpetrating the genocide will use language which denies the humanity of the victimized group to justify their atrocities. Calling a baby a "fetus" or a "zygote" or a "fertilized egg" doesn't change the reality they are a "human child" and it doesn't change the fact you're complicit in a genocide by using this rhetoric.

"There is no such thing as a "fertilized egg.""

Yes, it's an egg that has been fertilized

"A zygote is a human baby in the earliest stages of development"

It's not a baby. And it's not a child. You called abortion "murdering children". It's not murder and they aren't children.

"Calling a baby a "fetus" or a "zygote" or a "fertilized egg" doesn't change the reality they are a "human child" and it doesn't change the fact you're complicit in a genocide by using this rhetoric"

A fetus is a fetus. A zygote is a zygote. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg. None of these are children. And I am not complicit in any genocide.

Do you stand outside vegan cafes throwing bricks at the people to eat there?

Do you build an environment that makes it easy for people to want to?

That'll be the flaw in your false equivalence then.

Do you firebomb pro-life crisis pregnancy centers? Do you attempt to assassinate Supreme Court Justices? Do you publicly threaten and call for violence against prolife politicians, activists, and organizations?

Which is more consistent with the views of the respective movements?

People claiming to be pro-life committing acts of violence in direct contradiction to the CORE and DEFINING values of the pro-life movement which holds human life is SACRED and should be given DIGNITY and RESPECT...

OR,

People claiming the child in the womb is disposable, also believing violence against people they disagree with is an acceptable tactic to continue to avoid the consequences of their actions?

That's a loaded question, fallacious, and shameful.

"People claiming to be pro-life committing acts of violence in direct contradiction to the CORE and DEFINING values of the pro-life movement which holds human life is SACRED and should be given DIGNITY and RESPECT...

OR,

People claiming the child in the womb is disposable, also believing violence against people they disagree with is an acceptable tactic to continue to avoid the consequences of their actions?"

False dichotomy

"People claiming to be pro-life committing acts of violence in direct contradiction to the CORE and DEFINING values of the pro-life movement which holds human life is SACRED and should be given DIGNITY and RESPECT..."

Except when it comes to capital punishment or starting a war for gain or after unwanted children are not aborted but born, their families are on their own afterwards and any assistance they might need is suddenly no one else's business?

Anti-abortion does not automatically translate into pro-life, and the way they tend to cheer killing once life makes it outside the womb indicates something of a glaring contradiction with the faux stance.

The same goes with the 'other side,' pro-choice but anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
Not to forget the save-the-animals stance, which forgets the plants and to which the 'pro-lifers' sneer at and use as an excuse to stockpile a mini-armory in the garage for,,,

The easy part is where the guy gets to stick his thing in her and have no repercussions for it and not have to pay for it.

and pay the $75

That would be too hard on the guy! After all she got herself into that situation.

Sarcasm!

And she chose a quickie frolic with him over his nice guy bestie that actually likes her...

I mean, the solution we have is no sex outside of marriage, where a man and woman must be committed to each other for life, and committed to the raising of their children and to the care of each other. BuT tHaT's mISoGyNiStIc!

"the solution we have is no sex outside of marriage, where a man and woman must be committed to each other for life"

And while we're at it, we can reinstate the death penalty for blasphemy, and kill people who practice witchcraft. How do those sound to you?

naah, just too hard for manly men to keep their manly prong inside their manly pants when wifey ain't around because she's out showing what a manly man who ain't the loser she got stuck with can do with her man-needing bod.

Can I recommend some Middle East countries you'd be happier living in? Where it actually really is illegal you have sex outside of marriage?

Can I recommend not murdering your children?

You already made a recommendation: criminalizing sex outside of marriage. Two comments ago. Do you not remember?

Actually he didn't say anything about criminalization.

Sex outside of marriage is very risky Both in unwanted pregnancies and in the spreading of STD's.

You probably don't even know that human papillomavirus that ALL children must be vaccinated vaccinated for is an STD.

......... So your solution is to chase up deadbeat fathers for money and we're somehow still asking why this is considered a difficult decision?

What a mystery.

Abortion is for sleaze bag men.

Duh! I had no idea that the founders debated abortion.

At the time, abortion was outlined in several medical handbooks that would have been considered standard library. One of them was written by one Benjamin Franklin, so that's one Founding Father right there who literally wrote the book on how to do it.

Abortion was completely unregulated at the time except in Maryland. Legal charges of murder would only arise if the woman would die as part of the procedure, usually by overdose since abortions were most popularly performed by ingesting plant extract. Most religious and legal thought at the time put the "ensoulment" also known as "quickening" of a pregnancy at about 16-22 weeks. The first law to be passed against abortion for women "quick with child" was Connecticut in 1821.

In 1792, there was a case of a woman who everyone assumed *probably* had an abortion but the hard evidence of this needed a real trial to take place before it could really be evaluated seriously. Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall and Patrick Henry advocated AGAINST prosecution. So that's three Founding Fathers debating abortion right there. In the end, the defence somehow managed to convince the court that there never was a pregnancy in the first place so the debate was never settled. (The woman later admitted that she was, in fact, pregnant, but everyone was long done with the case by that point so nothing came of it.) In an interesting side note, the woman later married Gouverneur Morris of New York, who is one of the signers of the Constitution - so that's a fifth Founding Father who decided he was not that fussed about abortion.

I'm sure you'll find more if you dig deeper. But that requires you to actually make the effort to pick up a shovel for yourself.

Very interesting history lesson you posted below.