that other people need to be approved by me. Makes no sense at all.

Not only shouldn't abortion be "rare" they need to be more frequent than they are now.

People have sex. Contraception is imperfect and access isn't universal. Pregnancies go wrong. Circumstances change. Relationships fall apart.

The need for abortion is simply a fact of women's lives.

i live in a state where my access, as an adult (we have a parental notification law), is not restricted in any way and it is unconscionable that not all women can say the same.

Yes!! This!!!

K&R

Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. Abortion is one of the most stigmatized events of a woman's life and the widespread "rare" mantra propagates that.

Calling for it to be "rare" proposes that there is something wrong with abortion. It places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.

Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.


here is a good piece summarizing my feelings on this matter: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective

A common narrative in the political and cultural discussions of reproductive health focuses on reducing the number of abortions taking place every year. It’s supposed to be one thing that those who support abortion rights and those who oppose abortion can agree on, the so-called common ground. The assumption is that we can all agree that abortion itself is a bad thing, perhaps necessary, but definitely not a good thing. Even President Clinton declared (and many others have embraced) that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies among American women in 2005 were unplanned or unintended. And of those, four in 10 ended in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) In other words, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Without any other information, those statistics can sound scary and paint a picture of women as irresponsible or poor decision-makers. Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?

Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?

What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.

This comparison to cardiac or dental procedures is crazy, IMHO.

If there were well funded and hugely successful efforts limiting access to other procedures and preventative care, sweeping legislation being passed to stop them, protesting and bombing clinics and hospitals, killing surgeons, etc, then maybe.

Aso, it's not typical that a cardiac patient is judged by society for their personal history behind the surgery. They should have exercised, eaten better, oh, it is a genetic abnormality... We are only glad that the procedures exist to help those who need it. I feel the same way about abortion.

It's OK to wish that those procedures weren't needed, but to publicly wish them to be "rare" in the midst of significant and major attacks on access being imposed on them and clinics closing at record pace with some states bring limited to a single facility is, frankly, insane.

and agree 100% that it should happen as often as it needs to.

you will always be far more eloquent on this issue than i can ever be and you speak for me.

Thank you.

Thanks for the kind words and unfaltering support.

women should have easy and free/very nominal cost, access to the pill or other means of birth control so they can avoid being pregnant in the first place. Abortions have risks to them for the women, higher risks than the pill or other birth control methods.

That is why it should be safe, legal and rare.

it should have nothing to do with how many abortions are being performed. every woman should have the choice and access to have an abortion with no questions asked or judgments made.

I believe that one of the reasons lots of people believe it should be rare. There really are some women who don't bother with any kind of BC, and IF they get pregnant, oh well, just get an abortion.

not yours, either.

Do you really know any women like that?

And if you do, so what?

Like fizzgig said, it's not your business.

Good lord, what a stupid argument.

Some absurdly irresponsible person somewhere might have an abortion? GOOD.

When that imaginary person has a baby to care for then I'll get worried.

I had an abortion and it was not a fun experience. There was a lot of cramping and bleeding and pain involved. There were also emotions involved too, not all of them pleasant emotions. It is not an experience I would want to experience frequently. While not a fun experience, it was absolutely the right thing for me in my particular circumstance and is so for many women.

reason it is done is between a woman and her doctor, but it is not birth control

Birth control is a method to prevent pregnancy

I don't. Well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life. We now have ample evidence that babies do best when women are able to space their pregnancies and get both pre-natal and pre-conception care. The specific nutrients we ingest in the weeks before we get pregnant can have a lifelong effect on the wellbeing of our offspring. Rapid repeat pregnancies increase the risk of low birthweight babies and other complications. Wanted babies are more likely to get their toes kissed, to be welcomed into families that are financially and emotionally ready to receive them, to get preventive medical care during childhood and the kinds of loving engagement that helps young brains to develop.

I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life.

I’m pro-abortion because intentional childbearing helps couples, families and communities to get out of poverty.

I’m pro-abortion because contraceptives are imperfect, and people are too.

I’m pro-abortion because I believe in mercy, grace, compassion, and the power of fresh starts.

I am pro-abortion because it's a safe, legal and moral choice that that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

100brazillion% agree

what some people think or claim. I suppose there are some women out there who don't bother with birth control, thinking they can just have an abortion if they get pregnant. But not very many. Nor do pregnant women walk by an abortion clinic and think, Oh, what the heck, I'll just go in and have an abortion because I don't have anything better to do today.

The other thing is that there's almost no support for unwanted/unintended pregnancies. Prenatal care isn't cheap, nor is giving birth, even if there are no complications of any kind. And then there's the costs of raising a baby.

No birth control is 100% perfect. Even if it were, if an accidental embryo results, I fail to see the logic of refusing the woman an abortion.

I believe it was Romania that did not allow birth control or abortion when Ceaușescu was in power. The result was that many women abandoned their babies who wound up in orphanages where they got almost no attention of any kind. I recall the stories and the pictures of those desperately unfortunate children.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]By which I meant that it should be legal (at all times), safe (as opposed to back alley abortions when its NOT legal), and by "rare" I meant that there should be free and plentiful access to contraception and sex education so that there are as few unwanted pregnancies as possible.

But I have come to see how using the term "rare" can be used to stigmatize women who get abortions and now I don't use it. Ultimately I believe it is that WOMAN's Body and SHE is the ONLY person who gets to decide the matter.[/font]

And fizzgig gets it!

You both rock!

i was of similar mind when i was young, but the older i get, the deeper i dig in my heels that all women should have unrestricted and judgement-free access to abortion.

... had access to sex education and birth control, abortions would be more rare. That is the sentiment behind the phrase "safe, legal and RARE".

It is not a matter of fewer abortions - it's a matter of fewer unwanted pregnanices resulting from a lack of sex education and easy access to birth control. Fewer unwanted pregnancies leads to fewer abortions. Unrestricted access to education and birth control would mean abortion becomes rare.

It's not rocket science; it's simple math.

but rare carries the connotation that abortion sometimes happens for the wrong reason, that there is no excuse not to get pregnant.

it is not my business why a woman decides to have an abortion and she has every right to do so without judgement from anyone.

... the "connotation that abortion sometimes happens for the wrong reason", or that "there is no excuse not to get pregnant".

Saying that abortion "should be rare" is a matter of reducing the number of abortions sought/needed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - NOT a reduction in the number of abortions provided to those who want them.

Unfortunately, there will always be unintended pregnancies - but sound sex education and easy access to birth control is high on the list of preventing unintended pregnancies from happening in the first place. THAT is the idea behind abortion becoming "rare".

I have had an abortion - so have many of my female friends. I've never thought any of them "had an abortion for the wrong reasons", or had "no excuse for getting pregnant".

Abortion services should be available for every woman at
all places at any time, affordable and safe.

I've had an abortion myself. It was not only "safe and legal", it was easily obtained AND affordable - which is as it should be for women everywhere.

We are well aware of the sentiment behind it. The reality is this is a marketing problem, and marketing does not respond to "here's what I meant".

Using rare has very large negative connotations no matter what the intent behind using it. Rare also provides an opening for abortion restrictions - "You said you wanted them to be rare, so we'll shut down all but one abortion clinic in the state. And stop exposing our children to that horrible pornography you call sex education".

... against polio, cases of polio become more rare.

What is the "very large negative connotation" there?

"You said you wanted them to be rare, so we'll shut down all but one abortion clinic in the state."

Saying that abortion should be rare is NOT a matter of restricting the number of abortions sought and provided. It is a matter of less unwanted pregnancies resulting in less need to terminate those pregnancies.

What is being argued here is that saying abortion "should be rare" somehow means cutting back on the number of abortions provided - which has nothing whatsoever to do with it. With access to fact-based sex education and birth control, the number of abortions SOUGHT goes down - ergo, the number of abortions needed to terminate an unintended pregnancy goes down.

The notion that saying "abortion should be rare" means "let's perform fewer of them on women who want/need them" is utterly ridiculous, and misses the point entirely.

The only thing I would add to "safe, legal and rare" is "easily obtainable and affordable".

Your example is something that is inherently bad, and so you want to make it rare.

Now you talk about needing to make abortion rare. Ta-da! You get the same inherently bad connotation because you are trying to make something rare. Abortion is bad like polio.

As said before, "safe, legal and rare" is a slogan. And it doesn't matter what the intended meaning of the slogan is, what matters is how the slogan is perceived.

Including "rare" doesn't work for the same reason Metamucil's slogan is not "Makes you full of shit". It's accurate, but does not result in a positive connotation. So Metamucil emphasizes getting rid of the shit they fill their customers with.


Nothing whatsoever to do with your intended meaning. It's a slogan. All you said was "rare". Now the reader/listener gets to wander off into whatever intention they want to apply to the slogan.

The slogan does not start a 3,000 word essay on the subject. It has to stand alone. And when it stands alone, other people can apply any intent they want. And they can apply safe, legal and rare in any order they want, and in any way they want. "It's already safe (doctors do it), it's already legal (Roe), so time to work on rare by closing down most clinics" fits the slogan despite the fact that this is the opposite of your intent.


Misses your point entirely. But again, it's a slogan. Your intent has been stripped away for the sake of brevity because it is a slogan.


unabtainable and unaffordable abortions are not safe.

Abortion should be safe and legal.

... is obvious. There is no negative connotation to striving to make abortion rare, any more than striving to make polio rare. That's because both can be reduced in number - polio through vaccines, unwanted pregnancy through sex education and easily accessible birth control.

"It's already safe (doctors do it), it's already legal (Roe), so time to work on rare by closing down most clinics" fits the slogan despite the fact that this is the opposite of your intent."

Again you are equating making abortion rare with NOT PROVIDING THEM when sought, rather than by reducing their necessity via preventative measures such as BC and sex ed.

"unabtainable and unaffordable abortions are not safe."

Now you've totally lost me. If you can't obtain an abortion, how can that non-abortion be unsafe? How are unaffordable abortions not safe? If an abortion is expensive, how does that render it unsafe?

You are reading waaaaay too much into three words by attempting to interpret how they can be perceived, as opposed to their actual meaning and intent. Interpreting the notion of making abortion "rare" as meaning "let's shut down abortion clinics" is really beyond the pale.

TO YOU. You are not the target of the slogan. The slogan could be "abortion is Satan worship" and you and I would still support abortion.


You're only looking at the verbs. You aren't bothering to look at the nouns, because that is not the story you want to tell. And it's blinded you to the fact that you just said abortion was just like polio.

"Abortion, it puts children in an iron lung for life". Golly, I wonder why we didn't use that.


Reading. You need to try it.

Oh wait...that's never going to happen. Clearly if we only shouted "Rare" louder, that would fix everything!


No, you've never bothered paying attention so I couldn't have just lost you. See, you're saying the same thing over and over again without bothering to understand anyone else's position.

Anyway, you wanted to add two conditions. Those conditions do not have to be applied at the same time. An unaffordable abortion is not safe, because if you can't afford it you are going to go an unsafe route. Same with "unavailable".


One word.

Anyway, it's entirely apparent that you don't actually want to talk to anyone about this, so go continue to fail to expand abortion access by dying for keeping the word "rare" in a slogan that is utterly failing to accomplish what you want.

... because if you can't afford it you are going to go an unsafe route. Same with "unavailable".

You didn't include "alternate or unsafe route" the first time around. That's why I didn't understand how an unobtainable or unaffordable abortion could be "unsafe".

"And it's blinded you to the fact that you just said abortion was just like polio."

Now THAT is a real stretch. I said that polio and the necessity for an abortion are both things that can be reduced via preventative measures, i.e. inoculation against polio, sex ed and birth control in the latter case. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that "abortion is just like polio".

What it comes down to is this: No one who is pro-choice is going change their position on easy access to abortion by virtue of hearing the word "rare". And no one who is anti-choice is going to change their position based on that one word either.

People do not base their deeply-held positions on a topic like abortion on whether a "slogan" is worded one way or the other.

"so go continue to fail to expand abortion access by keeping the word 'rare' in a slogan."

Sorry, but that reasoning is so ludicrous it is astounding. Again you are equating the word "rare" with denying access to abortion, or refusing to expand its accessability and affordability.

"Let's make child hunger rare" does not mean let's feed fewer hungry children. It means the opposite. It means let's feed as many hungry children as possible, so that a hungry child is a rarity rather than commonplace.

Wanting abortions to be rare is NOT about denying access to one; it's about reducing the necessity for one - which sex ed and BC would accomplish to a great extent.

So let's end this nonsense. The minute you stated that I said "abortion was just like polio", I realized I was dealing with someone who is not interested in honest discussion, but would rather attribute statements to people who never made them.

We're done here.

Anyway, "rare" is ok only when seen from a medical standpoint--as in reducing the need for invasive procedures. "Rare" should never have moralistic tones, and unfortunately its too easy to find them when using limiting language, regardless of intent. I always see "rare" as a outcome of decent reproductive health access. The problem is abortion is no one else's business but the woman who is getting one.

But I see the point some are making. I didn't put a shame connotation on rare because to me it meant any female who wanted birth control would have free access to it to prevent pregnancy.
Having had an abortion myself it did disrupt my life for a few days and cost me money that put me behind in paying for the bare necessities until I could get caught up. I never wanted to have another child and since at the time I was still young and planned on being sexually active for the rest of my child bearing years if I had gotten pregnant again I would have another abortion.

"The only qualifiers on it should be safe, legal, and accessible." EXACTLY!

The dispute is not over the (so-called) right to life versus the right to choose...the dispute is about the right to force women to be nothing more than breeding stock. It is an all-out attack on any effort by any woman to belong to herself, make her own decisions, and live her life as she sees fit.

I stand firmly for the right of all women to live our lives as we see fit, and to make our own decisions without the interference of wrong-wing fundy fanatics who want to reduce us all to breeding cows.

But men, who control our culture, don't get pregnant. They don't always understand that they have anything at all with women getting pregnant.

Every time I read crap connected to denying women access to abortion, I can't help but wonder, Where are the men? Are all of these women getting pregnant in some miraculous way that doesn't involve an actual man?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

I vote pro-choice, and I am a man.

pro-life, but when there is a follow up question "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be reversed?" you get a different response with more people NOT wanting Roe reversed.

bottom for 2014 indicate that 21% believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, 28% only legal in certain circumstances, and 50% legal in any circumstances. That trend does include men in the mix, however, it implies your observation that the majority still believe Roe should not be reversed, but still the figure that 50% of women consider themselves pro-choice, and 40% pro-life is troublesome, unless they do not understand the question.

A person can be against abortion, but pro-choice, and that would probably be a more revealing statistic.

my guess is that they want to keep Roe "just in case" for themselves and maybe their daughters...you know, "things" can happen in life...

One in three women have an abortion by age 45. Six out of ten are already mothers.

That is why we're trying to destigmatize it. It's OK to be pro abortion. Rare is not the goal. Access to contraception, access to services to support women who decide to birth, and access to abortion services should be the focus. Not the number or frequency of abortions.

believe women should not have autonomy over their own bodies.

They ask "Are you opposed to abortion?" and put the respondent in "pro-life" if they say yes.

They do not ask "Should the government stop women from getting abortions?". Because that's an overwhelming "No", and thus not an interesting story to tell.

There are lots of people who are personally against abortion (as in they say they would not get one), but do not feel they have the right to tell others that they can not have one.

"Pro-life" groups know they are only about 30% of the population, and try to pad their numbers by conflating opposing abortion for yourself with opposing abortion for others.

A lot of abortions would probably show how badly young women are being failed by abstinence policies in school as well as a failure in society to make birth control as easy to access as possible. Other than that, I agree on the implication of "rare".

self-defense is always legal.

For over 40 years this truth has taken back seat to language that emphasizes the reality that terminating a pregnancy is the end of a life. Advocacy has been allowed to spin around irrelevant questions about when life begins and the preciousness of human life.

Life began a billion years ago and comes to each generation in an uninterrupted stream. Life is precious because death cannot be undone.

None of that precludes the right and necessity of self-defense. Our society accepts that self-defense and defense of society and nation sometimes requires homicide. Trying to frame abortion as something else is an affront to common sense of even the most marginally educated.

No matter how unpleasant the idea of terminating life may be, no matter how each individual may hope and expect to never need to invoke it, the right to self-defense is fundamental to human rights.

Women must have this right of self-defense as a matter of equality. The nature of our species' reproductive physiology focuses this as a woman's issue, while the advance of technology has made this right enforceable. Birth control and abortion are pathways to realization of this right.

For over 40 years promotion of reproductive rights as self-defence has been pushed off the table by rhetoric about legal and religious claims of humanness and false suppositions that innocence of the unborn can not be harmful.

It's time to recognize that abortion is an act of self-defense.

I'm pro-self defense and pro- women's right to self-determination.

Rare = unnecessary.

and recommended a whole bunch!

Apparently agreeing 100% with you, even down to the exact way someone words their support for your chosen issue is the only acceptable mode of thinking to you. Yay Thought Police!

Good luck with that.

It is in fact so important an issue to the GOP that out of some 40,000 laws of all types enacted in 2011, as RMuse wrote here recently, “there were nearly 1,000 bills in state legislatures to restrict a woman’s right to legal abortion services” (up from 950 in 2010). Alternet lists the 10 worst states in which to be a woman. The lone piece of good news was the unexpected sanity of Mississippi voters. Interestingly, the GOP is now trying to co-opt the War on Women for their own, accusing liberals of waging war on “pro-choice” women, or declaring that Obama is waging a war on women and that the Obama White House has been a hostile work environment. This is while Congress, already in 2012, has taken no less than eight votes against women – in just three months. It is frightening to think what the final toll might be by December 31.

http://www.politicususa.com/proof-war-women-2



On the heels of a record-breaking number of new abortion restrictions that have been enacted over the past four years, state lawmakers are continuing to push forward with a stringent anti-abortion agenda in 2015.
By last week, states had already introduced more than 100 bills intended to regulate access to abortion, according to researchers at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Lawmakers are working to restrict the procedure in more than half the states in the country:

According to the Sunlight Foundation, which tracks legislative activity, states continue to introduce multiple restrictions related to abortion each day. Proposed legislation on the state level includes bills that would require women to watch anti-choice videos before they may proceed with an abortion, bills that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, bills that would restrict clinics’ ability to prescribe the abortion pill, and bills that would completely outlaw the most common surgical abortion procedure.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/02/11/3621701/states-abortion-bills-introduced-2015/

It's very important to us and part of what contributes to the success of these efforts is complacency and the general idea that abortion is "bad" and should be "rare". Yeah, fuck us for trying to rally our allies to help change the rhetoric at such a critical time.

And making my point for me.

Good luck with that.

The intent is not to 'be the word police', or 'be divisive'.

We genuinely want to discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in the OP.

*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

I have had several conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.

Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.


Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.


See? It's possible to support education and access to contraception and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.

We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

It's not that controversial.




Carry on.

Being Word Police is exactly how it comes off.

And it's definitely off-putting. You can post a ten thousand word police explanation missive and it won't change that.

Or not...

Ms Kettle.

The party has evolved since, you should, too.

I've had the discussion with two women gubernatorial candidates and one sitting US Senator. All were much more willing to listen then some DUers.

when discussing other issues of health. So, yeah, I do hope we get to the day when abortions are rarer. It means that women have access to the contraception they need, and need fewer invasive procedures to control their own lives.

I would much prefer that my daughters have all birth control options, and when they have and use all options, there will be fewer abortions.

Abortion, at the end of the day, is still a surgical medical procedure. Like all surgical procedures, it carries a risk of complications, including death. Abortion should be a last ditch method of birth control for that reason alone. It is FAR safer for a woman to prevent a pregnancy via the pill or the use of condoms than it is to terminate the pregnancy via an abortion.

Almost 2/3rds of all abortions in the us occur in the first 9 weeks. Nonsurgical abortions account for over 1/3rd of all abortions, and are increasing due to new medications coming on the market.

So it's not correct to say that abortion is still a surgical medical procedure. As far as the side effects you mention, most aren't that severe. Severe side effects occur in less than 1% of abortions. But whatever such statistics you can come up for abortion, carrying a pregnancy to term is worse.

It's nice to dream about abortions becoming unnecessary or rare, but the reality is that most women will have an unplanned pregnancy by the time they are 45.

I'm an unrelenting supporter of abortion rights, of women being able to choose to have an abortion for ANY reason, without ANYONE's permission, AND of abortions being 100% funded by taxes, at no cost to the woman involved. So I clearly agree with your qualifiers.

That said, I'd like them to be rare. I'd like there to be a much, much more intense focus on safe, healthy, effective contraceptives and support for safe, clean (disease-free) sex between consenting adults. I'd like women and men, and yes, adolescents, to have safe, easy, and abundantly available contraceptive choices from puberty on. I think if these things got an adequate amount of attention and resources, abortion would BE rare. It's not the goal of those things, but simply a natural outcome.

I'm an only child because of my mother's illegal abortion, which almost killed her and guaranteed that she'd never have other children. My own abortion at the age of 16 left me convinced that I didn't, and don't, want other girls and women to have to experience what I did.

For that reason, it should be rare - when there are alternatives that prevent women from having to go through it in the first place.

... whereas the real moral hazard in play is people under the disturbed notion they need to have a say in a woman's healthcare decisions.

Can't be said enough.

to be honest

one can still say that Texas has abortion which is safe legal and RARE.

We don't want this, we also want WIDELY AVALIABLE.

Safe, legal and accessible.