Curvey_Brunette wrote:The result in both instances is the same - No child!
They are wholly separate concepts, retard. One PREVENTS CONCEPTION, the other DESTROYS A CONCEIVED
EMBRYO/FETUS. There is no semantical correlation between the two concepts at all. If you're going to argue about this stuff, you need to have at least a basic understanding of the concepts you're using.
You stated that very few women used abortion as a form of contraception when your own web link states that 46% of women in 2000 did just that.
No, it does not. It states that they use it for non-medicinal prevention of childbirth. That is NOT CONTRACEPTION. It IS "birth control" - all contraceptives are birth control, but not all birth control is contraceptive. This is not that hard to understand (for those with sufficient IQs, of course).
Now, if you want to argue about whether one instance of abortion constitutes people using it as a form of "birth control" then we might get somewhere. My contention is that "birth control" as the term is generally used is a recurring, preventative method of not having children. Therefore, one instance of abortion is NOT birth control. Women can go years using the pill as a form of birth control (note the recurring use of it - that implies that it is being used a "birth control").
People who have multiple abortions are using abortion as a means of birth control. And those people constitute a very, very small minority of people who have abortions. Which was my original point.
I suppose in your view the morning after pill isn't a form of contraception either even though it achieves the same result as condoms, the mini-pill, the pill, caps, UDI's, deppo injections and abortion?
Of course it is a contraceptive, because it......wait for it.............here it comes............PREVENTS CONCEPTION! Therefore, by definition, it is a contraceptive. Do you *still* not see the difference between a contraceptive and abortion?
And what the hell is a "UDI"? Do you mean an IUD?