My intent wasn’t to imply that reducing restrictive abortion laws leads to fewer abortions, but more to bring up the point that including MORE restrictions won’t necessarily or inherently reduce the number of abortions. Sorry for the sloppiness, and the slow response.

Are you only okay with killing zygotes? If you are, then great :) but that also means you are not pro-choice for the second and third trimesters.

Otherwise, the use of the word zygote is dishonest.

(Disclaimer – I am ok with 2nd trimester abortions and conflicted about third trimester ones, but then I don’t hide behind the word zygote)

“I can’t see how a zygote (which is not a viable fetus, btw) could
possibly have more rights than a female-bodied person of reproductive
age.”

So we’re only speaking of zygotes here? Logically, from what you are saying we should keep the abortion of zygotes but it may be permissible to ban the abortionof fetuses, since they are no longer simple clumps of cells. Since fetus stage is reached at about the 9-10th week of pregnancy, only first trimester abortions should be legalized.

If your position is not this, and that a woman should *still* have the right to abort her whatever after the 3rd month, say during the second trimester, then you wrangle over zygote vs feotus for nothing : you still have to consider whether or not a fetus has rights. That answer can be “no, they don’t”, but you certainly can’t simply side-step it by talking exclusively about zygotes.

“If anti-choicers actually cared about the survival rate of pregnant
women and zygotes, they would advocate for contraception, safe sex in
general, and legal and safe abortions.”

Some people who think abortions should be legal are nonetheless uncomfortable with them, and they advocate for all of those things.

I assume that when Gwen said “unsafe” she meant for the prospective mother.

Okay, I think we can both agree that it would be awesome to cut down on unplanned pregnancies in general. I like Yrro’s plan to subsidize contraception :) Also, better sex ed overall.

And gosh, I should’ve realized my “fancy words” would only confuse you, since you can’t see the difference between a zygote and an actual human infant.

even if the fetus[sic] has some rights, should they override the rights of the mother to her own body?
I can’t see how a zygote (which is not a viable fetus, btw) could possibly have more rights than a female-bodied person of reproductive age. I realize this is a loaded topic to bring into this discussion, but I’m vegan so I’m especially wary of this argument – so a cluster of human cells is sooooooo special, but it’s okay to torture adult pigs, which are smarter than human toddlers? Then eat them? Okay then. (Not that you necessarily eat / condone factory farmed meat, Yrro Simyarin, just explaining what I see as a common fallacy in this argument, for personal reasons.)

Or does it pragmatically make sense to ban something when there is still a high motivation to seek it out on the black market?
If anti-choicers actually cared about the survival rate of pregnant women and zygotes, they would advocate for contraception, safe sex in general, and legal and safe abortions.

Worth considering – a study by Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill has found that legal abortion is safer than childbirth, having a lower mortality rate and fewer complications. (via shakesville)

Sometimes I think that if we’re going to have a government response on it, of all things we should tax subsidize a free IUD to any single woman, and skip 90% of this debate.
I would support this :) but why just single women? many married women need / want contraception as well.