You're really dicing that a little fine arncha'? The reality is women also oppose abortion. Abortion support is "mainly" in blue states. Abortion opposition is "mostly" in red states.
Liberals "largely" abort their unintended pregnancies. Conservatives "largely" don't.
States that are more opposed to abortion rights have fewer abortions — but not fewer unintended pregnancies
And, again, directly from the pro birthers themselves, the avergae pro birther is a 34 year old caucasian male that is unmarried.
It's relatively easy to see why red states have less abortions. They restrict abortion more. This in turn increases the poverty class state.
I find it hilarious that the movement of pro birthers was founded by the catholic church and militarized by the evangelical movement. The entire movement thus has a theological perspective and thus is attempting to legislate faith.
I'll never convince you as fetus is not a human life. So, let's move past that fundamental disagreement, because it's a distraction. A fetus cannot survive on its own. It is reliant upon the body of the mother to exist. You have no more a claim to the body of the mother than the fetus. You cannot demand her organs be donated for example, or her life force be used to sustain someone via blood transfusion, without her consent. This makes your position untenable and incompatible with the entire structure of "consent." The right to life does not thus include the right to live, especially since pregnancy -always- includes risk to the mother.
It's simply opinion for someone to assert that a woman who has sex has thus consented to the risk of pregnancy. A woman does not bear the responsibility to carry to term a fetus she did not consent to carry. This is typical of the theological perspective, dictating what the role of a woman in our society is. Especially coupled with the conservative hypocrisy; let's not allow people have access to affordable contraceptives, or, fund them publicly for the poor (which you have to agree in the long run costs less than supporting an unwanted child), and, the conservative/christian war on sex education, which again, costs less in the long run than the unwanted child.
And let's address adoption. This is nonsense. A woman has the right to choose not to consent to the use of her organs for someone who was injured in a car crash; why is it any different that a woman be forced to allow her organs to be used for nine long months, and then, endure a 24+ hour exhausting, painful, irrevocably altering birth or c-section, so a baby can be born?Pregnancy complications are a top ten cause of death for women in our society. This is absurd and ridiculous, especially since you're forcing a woman to lend her organs and life force to someone else for a pre determined term and through the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
And, no, abortion is not used as a form of contraceptive. This sort of malignant thinking is entrenched in the theocratic roots of anti-woman malignancy and demonization. I have zero tolerance for this argument because -you cannot prove it.-
Anyway, back to the original point - the average pro birther is a 34 year old caucasian unmarried male. That statistic comes from pro "life" networks - not from me. I think the use of pro life by these groups should now be disallowed. They are pro birth. They generally support politicians that would cut social safety nets. They support politicians that think legitimate rape cannot impregnate a woman. They support politicians that would refuse public support to these mothers.
It's an untenable position. The problem pro choice folks have is that alot of them do not dismiss harshly enough the emotional arguments of the pro birth position.
None of you are impacted by abortion. None of your lives are altered. None of you are oppressed by abortion. In fact, you're better off because of it. Because someone -will- have to pay for those kids, and the tax payers will be the ones who have to do it.