What are
/r/Abortiondebate's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/Abortiondebate:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/Abortiondebate:
Wordnik
Cambridge Dictionary
SemanticScholar
Academia.edu
HuffPost
Project Gutenberg
Shutterstock
Deepstash
Meduza
IPFS
Power Thesaurus
MasterClass
Google Podcasts
BBC iPlayer
The most popular reviews in /r/Abortiondebate:
Sex is necessary for most people. Here's an amazing study that correlates enforced celibacy with suicide among Mormon LGBT youth:
Sorry in advance, it's huff po but the journals themselves are linked:
>At conception, the egg (Ovum) and Sperm unite, and it turns into a blastocyst. It's not a zygote yet. The Blastocyst then must implant within the uterine lining
This is just completely false. When the two gametes unite it turns into a zygote (1 cel) which travels down the fallopian tube. It divides, from which point it's called an embryo - and in it's first stage it is referred to as a morula. Around day 5 a cavity forms and in this embryonic stage it's called a blastocyst, which will eventually implant. This is basic embryology and you can check it in any embryology book, like Langman's.
>While still restrictive compared to the US, Germany’s cutoff is 12 weeks, not 8
The abortion chapter in this book from 2011, originally published in German, says 8 weeks. Maybe the law has changed since then?
>there aren’t any of the problems in the US like requiring trans-vaginal ultrasounds, multiple visits with psychiatrists, waiting periods, etc.
Required trans-vaginal ultrasounds sound crazy / unheard of to me (I'm in California) so I looked it up. Apparently about half of US states require this, wow! Pretty sure there is no requirement for psychiatric visits though, let alone "multiple" visits. Our healthcare system isn't that cohesive, lol.
>you’re getting your wires crossed again
>you’re interpreting this one poorly
Without these statements I would've happily explained my stance, but why bother anymore. You wanted misinformation? "(fetal heartbeat) is a term that is not widely used in medicine" is just that. In my entire medical career people have used it, and it's in all the textbooks.
"The first heartbeat occurs approximately day 22-23 after fertilization, which is the 6th week of gestation in pregnancy." [Langman's Medical Embryology, 14th ed.](https://www.amazon.com/Langmans-Medical-Embryology-T-W-Sadler/dp/1496383907)
Again, I would love *love* to have a civil discussion about why there suddenly is a pushback against the term, what the differences are, etc. but *again* it's just condescending and bad faith replies, and I'm so done with it.
And Cambridge defines "child" as beginning at birth. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/child
If you want to appeal to common vernacular, then why does an excited pregnant woman so often tell her partner "You're going to be a father"?
And when you add in the fact that adoption exists, it's clear that parenthood is a separate concept from pregnancy and mere biological trivialities.
But you're getting a little off topic here. The original point of the discussion was that CPCs are and have been known to use dishonest and manipulative tactics to intercept pregnant women seeking abortion. And people need to be made aware of these tactics so they can avoid them and get the actual healthcare they're seeking out.
After exploring it for a moment, it depends on whose definition you use. For instance, the definition which comes up when searched on Google is the one I was working under:
>the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
The definition you linked is more broad.
Also, Cambridge has a separate definition:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/homicide
As such, I would say that further clarification and agreement on definitions is required.
Abortion is killing a child, it is not a solution. Do you know what fetus means? It comes from Latin, meaning young child or young offspring.
Prematurely born are underdeveloped, so would you be ok with killing them too?
Morality comes from humans ability to make up lies and abstract thought - a feature unique to humans.
We create those morals because it allows larger groups of people to coexist and produce even greater output than would be possible without said morals.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095
It is a form of emotional abuse, read a book every once in awhile
Take a look at this book by philosopher David Boonin:
Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal--Even if the Fetus is a Person
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Roe-Abortion-Should-Legal-Even/dp/0190904844/ref=sr_1_2
He addresses most or all of these criticisms of abortion rights.
Lmaooo more like “damn that religion too much of those starving African kids having religion held over them as a condition of the houses water and food they’re given” Mission trips are colonialism 2.0. Even secular ones come from a place of thinking outsiders know better than the people who actually live there https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Charity-Church-Hurts-Reverse-ebook/dp/B004X2JGSI
And you ARE stigmatizing sex because you’re acting like saying no to sex till menopause is a completely reasonable belief when it’s not. Abstinence is only realistic in the short term, not the long term.
Ok read Marvin Harris
That's a good textbook on modern anthropology theory, enjoy learning something.
What? Infants are born sapient. They have already imprinted on the sound of their mother’s voice. They start learning about the world on day one.
https://www.amazon.com/Scientist-Crib-Early-Learning-Tells/dp/0688177883
I thought roe was based on 9th amendment which basically says just because rights are not in this constitution doesn’t mean the citizens do not have those rights. Also the 14th amendment which has the right to privacy. You can make a very good case that forcing a woman to give birth is using her internal organs against her will and thus an extreme violation of her right to privacy. Of course, I believe roe was more based on a doctor’s right to privacy to perform abortions rather than the violation of forced birth.
If you want to know more about roe v Wade I highly recommend this great one woman Broadway show that is now on Amazon prime. She studied law and debated a lot about the constitution.
Also Jon Stewart interviews three professors of law about the flawed legal reasons behind the overturning of roe. The professors’s area of expertise is the constitution. https://youtu.be/Twb_v78C1q4
Nevertheless, I am no lawyer but I believe it is crazy for each state to have such different laws on this. Is there any other action that is legal in one state yet in another it can put you in prison for life?
Also other people have said gay marriage and inter-racial marriage is based on the same right to privacy as legalizing abortion. Aren’t those also creating rights out of thin air?
I think broadly that conservatism is wrong philosophically. (I used to be one as well.) Shall I try to illegalize it?
I'm pretty skeptical that you've really taken a look at the arguments involved. But I'll invite you to respond to something like David Boonin's position in A Defense of Abortion https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521520355/ref=ppx_od_dt_b_asin_title_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
No one is owed a baby. No one is obligated to provide babies. This is such unbelievable entitlement. Also, no one willingly sells their baby. There are 20 million children in poverty while only 13,000 babies are "given up" for adoption every year. This thoroughly demonstrates women are several orders of magnitude prefer to raise children in abject poverty than to have to sell them. Multiple surveys show that of woman who lost children to adoption had the option to keep a baby, they would have. The only reason women "choose" adoption is because they have zero alternatives. That's not "choice." That's coercion. During the Baby Scoop Era of the mid 20th century, hundreds of thousands of white girls and women across Europe, US, Canada and Australia were forced into trafficking their babies. Thousands of girls and women in developing countries are still forced into giving birth and trafficking babies through adoption agencies.
Baby Scoop Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Baby_Scoop_Era_was%2Chigher_rate_of_newborn_adoption.?wprov=sfla1
The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586489429/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_JEKBQC0KC9PNR38K3YY1
🙄
No one willingly sells their baby. Quit trying to justify weaponizing child poverty to coerce women into human trafficking.
The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586489429/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_JEKBQC0KC9PNR38K3YY1
🙄
No one willingly sells their baby. Quit trying to justify weaponizing child poverty to coerce women into human trafficking.
The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption https://www.amazon.com/dp/1586489429/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_JEKBQC0KC9PNR38K3YY1
The main question here is- are we actually winning if we're strengthening arguments we don't want to strengthen?
What have I won if I gain some more support for abortion from conservatives if, by doing so, I create even more opposition against minorities? Abortion is not my sole cause; is it worth it for me to throw under the bus people I believe deserve respect just to achieve an end?
There's an interesting book on this topic.
I personally think that abortion can be a social benefit, but my viewpoint is a liberal one that I don't think will appeal to conservatives.
>aborted children were unwanted so they probably would have grown up to be resentful criminals
There's a big difference between acknowledging that the ideal situation to raise children in is one where they were wanted, planned for, and had adequate resources . . . and claiming that every child who wasn't planned is gonna be a criminal. C'mon, man.
>And stop pussyfooting around the murder argument, just admit it’s murder, it is.
I really, really don't think it is. I'm not pussyfooting around when I say that I look at an aborted embryo from a seven-week pregnancy and not a single fiber of my being feels that it is murder.
Its really frustrating that someone who is advocating for the justified murder of human life out of convince claims that I don't know human rights but.. okay.
It seems like you're forgetting that rights are suspended when it intrudes on the primary rights of others. The right of bodily autonomy is suspended if the persons bodily autonomy may threaten the life of others such as the highly infectious. We put restrictions on what you can and cant do all the time. Are you saying you're in favor of people that provide serious threats to others health being allowed to do what ever they want? should we let people with SARS just walk among the population or do we do the right thing and quarantine them?
I read through this book "who says you're dead?" that illuminates the balance of these rights. Ill link it below if you're interested.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Says-Youre-Dead-Concerned/dp/1616209224
Not at all, no.
The book referenced is by a very well respected academic.
But if I took any book I have not read by a well respected author as gospel, then I would be holding wildly contradictory beliefs.
I would have hoped to see an actual argument be made, rather than a link to a book.
Here is a link to a book arguing that God exists: https://www.amazon.de/Reasonable-Faith-Christian-Truth-Apologetics/dp/1433501155 you convinced now?
Have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift? That's what you sound like.
In case you haven't https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
> Feeding your child and giving them a place to sleep isn't a bodily autonomy
Yes it is. It is explicitly a restriction on autonomy. Force that requires a person to use their body is no different when comparing carrying a child while pregnant versus taking care of that same child 10 years later. How you are using changes. But it is still about the autonomy of your body and restrictions placed on it.
> #autonomy
>
> ###Definitions
>
> from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
> noun The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence.
> noun Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination.
> noun Self-government with respect to local or internal affairs.
> noun A self-governing state, community, or group.
If you don't like this, stop asserting your claim and prove it. I'd be curious to hear something from a PCer other than "THAT'S DIFFERENT!"
> Also it was funny you jumped to killing 10 year olds
u/DtTrigger says he doubts that "pro-choicers would be okay with alternatives to abortion," basically.
You: "Why can't I smoosh something with my DNA that isn't using my body"
That's the context.
Whether you define these nutrients as "food" or not is irrelevant, but: "Material, usually of plant or animal origin, that contains or consists of essential body nutrients, such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins, or minerals, and is ingested and assimilated by an organism to produce energy, stimulate growth, and maintain life." https://www.wordnik.com/words/food and, the point is that in both cases, one has to do labor (no pun intended) to bring nutrients to a helpless being.
>if this point were true, then contraceptive sex, oral sex, anal sex, and heterosexual sex would not exist. they do, so the point is false.
Why do you think that? Surely we can agree that chopping off your healthy feet in order to become an amputee is disordered behavior, and yet such people do exist.
>What part of that specifies that it must be done at a government level with government support?
Most recent definitions of genocide define it must be via a concerted (organized) effort, which requires an institution, usually a nation-state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGallagher201337-35
>What part of that specifies that it must be done through murder
Similarly, the word itself contains "cide" which is kill/destroy. Again refer yourself to the more recent definitions...
>Finally, holocaust. It's a difficult topic, but there is a difference between Holocaust capital and holocaust non-capital. The Holocaust was a holocaust, which refers to any mass destruction or slaughter. The word can and is still used in other contexts, not just to refer to that one specific event.
There was only one Shoah, and it is disgusting and inappropriate to use the persecution of Jews for whatever agenda you have, when there is already a word "genocide" for which you can use.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/there-was-only-one-holoca_b_460939
Just as a side note here, it's very ironic to me that pro-choice logic and language, in calling the fetus a parasite, naturally then terms the mother as a host (And in fact, as can be seen right here, you have done just that) but if a GOP lawmaker does it, he gets slammed: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jose-oliva-host-abortion_n_5c7962ffe4b0de0c3fc06257
>You specifically have to be conscious to be sentient:
>
>https://www.wordnik.com/words/sentience
Again, you're playing word games. Conscious or unconscious, a human has a capacity for experience and feeling that a fetus has only at later parts of development.
Honestly I just want to cut this off here. You're going in circles and I have no interest in continuing this a week past my post.
>This isn’t the same. I AM, at that moment, sentient. I’m just asleep. This is not a state of lacking sentience. In fact, it is a state
>
>required for the maintenance of sentience
>
>.
Being a fetus for 9 months is also required for sentience.
And no, you are not sentient when you sleep. You specifically have to be conscious to be sentient: https://www.wordnik.com/words/sentience
If you are asleep you have brain activity, not sentience, and when we decide what makes people as valuable as you or me, and not just like an insect, that standard doesn't work.
That honestly is a really interesting question. When you asked it the second time I think it clicked more.
If I am going to be super strictly honest about my negative feelings, I might say something like, "the speciously-named pro-choice cause isn't all about choices after all!"
Another good one perhaps more subtle due to the dual meaning of ostensible, "the ostensibly self-titled pro-choice movement has a long way to go before I am convinced of their sincerity."
You could say specious pro-life, but that's possibly ambiguous as to whether you mean they are "mistitled and PL" or "mistitled as PL".
My unusually large vocabulary is strangely also captured at this website. 😁 Thankfully, for the rest of us, and in case I forget.
A sperm is not an individual human.
The development of an individual human begins at conception:
You were once an fetus and an embryo. You were never a sperm.
It's complicated.
I believe they think so, I have family members who genuinely consider the termination of pregnancies to be comparable to murder.
There's no doubt in my mind that they believe they are doing what they can to save lives.
That being said; I genuinely don't believe that even if you consider fetuses to be people, that the number of lives negatively impacted by unwanted pregnancies will be worth it.
There's no studies that I know of proving that anything good comes from forcing people to continue a pregnancy even though they don't want it, and there's at least one study for the opposite.
I'm tired as fuck, so have a link to the scientist discussing her study and one to the study: https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/877846258/study-examines-the-lasting-effects-of-having-or-being-denied-an-abortion
The study: https://www.amazon.com/Turnaway-Study-Consequences-Having-Denied-ebook/dp/B0831S4XB2
Excellent! I watched the select committee hearing on bbc iplayer https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0c6rwzk/select-committees-northern-ireland-abortion-law-committee
Can you get that in the Republic?
>I didn't assert any minimum requirement >any supposed "non-specific" labels would at the very least include modifiers to denote exactly what is being referring to.
I am simply calling the unborn child what it is as listed in the dictionary. This is not an argument ad misericorian. The idea that I am intentionally trying to confuse someone into thinking that we are talking about a born child is incorrect.
>and a baby or child are humans who have been born
That ignores the fact that there are different definitions and usages. When have discussions like this, it is important that all parties be willing to clarify their terms in order to avoid obfuscation or confusion. I would challenge you to point to anywhere that I have refused to clarify my terms. I included modifiers like "unborn" to make it clear what I am talking about.
>I disagree with your opinion that any such hierarchy exists.
It's not simply my opinion. See the source I cited that lays out this aspect of moral theory.
>Absolutely not.
Even if you agreed that the fetus was a person? If that were the case, then why would one persons rights always trump the rights of another person?
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-analogy#2-different-types-of-analogy
> In writing, analogy can be useful to explain an unfamiliar concept or idea. Using an analogy to link this idea to something that is familiar can help the reader better comprehend what you’re trying to say. It’s also a catchy and clever way to help get a point across.
With the sticks, it was a way the father could show his sons how them working together is stronger than each working by themself.
With pregnancy analogy, when the mother, unborn, or pregnancy has an inanimate object stand-in for them, that doesn't mean they are literally the same, just it is a way to try to get a specific concept across.
Mandating dictionary definitions is what is called the fallacy of "appeal to definition".
https://deepstash.com/idea/43973/the-argument-from-dictionary
While a dictionary can substantiate your use of a word as a common usage, it is fallacious to use a dictionary to try and limit the use of a word.
As a PL person, I am not fond of the "clump of cells" argument, but I prefer to debate it than eliminate it by rule.
https://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448
He’s just the one that comes to mind. Others have observed it too. I remember listening to an interview once where they made the point that demographers have said that in the future the majority of people will be descended from today’s religious people and rich people because they’re the ones that have the kids.
>Again, not a child.
Of course it's a child. Child is used in the relational sense here, not the developmental age sense. That's how you get titles like:
"Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents" https://www.amazon.com/Adult-Children-Emotionally-Immature-Parents/dp/1626251703
>even more reason the woman has a right to an abortion, there was no consent to existence, so its done by the woman by continuing the pregnancy.
So in your view, the life of someone else should be in the hands of the person with the biggest interest in their demise? Isn't that more than a small conflict of interest?
>No, I've just seen your responses in another thread.
My objection remains. It's text. It doesn't "sound" like anything. It's just how you decide to read into things.
>Pretty sure abortions happen before a child is created
If there was no child at the time, no one would have an objection to abortion.
We need to be able to rely on each other, not be bullied by someone else's abusive and intrusive belief system!
I'm hoping to locate a medical professional willing to teach women how to perform abortions for each other. Instructions and guidelines on the process and appropriate techniques will save thousands of women's lives if Roe v. Wade is taken away from us.
Education is critical -- for example, many women are unaware than doctors (and law enforcement) have no way of determining if a pregnant woman took mifepristone and misoprostol (RU-486) or miscarried naturally.
Of course, it's far better to have a doctor or nurse perform the abortion in a safe, clean environment. But realistically, very few medical professionals will risk their licenses to practice AND a prison sentence! We can't go back to the bad ol' days of coathangers and massive infections that leave women sterile... or dead.
Fear and shame are not birth control... EDUCATION is the only thing that will keep us safe from having our bodies used by others.
I recommend reading "The Story of Jane -- The legendary underground feminist abortion service" by Laura Kaplan. The book is available on Amazon Kindle for $14.95 at https://www.amazon.com/Story-Jane-Legendary-Underground-Feminist-ebook/dp/B01N09XN9M/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Story+of+Jane&qid=1630091190&s=books&sr=1-1.
Well, since I just recommended this book elsewhere:
Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro Life Movement before Roe Vs. Wade
https://www.amazon.com/Defenders-Unborn-Pro-Life-Movement-before/dp/0199391645
I never finished reading the book. It was pretty long, but my source is Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro Life Movement Before Roe. Vs. Wade.
It should be noted that by the early seventies, the movement was bi-partisan. The movement started out more anti-contraception in the beginning. There was a lot of fear that contraception would lead to a legalization of abortion, but arguments against both contraception and abortion were that civil societies would start seeing them as a solution to poverty and the fight for a just wage for workers would be pushed aside.
I wouldn't say that the arguments were all perfect in the past. The idea that men respected women better before the pill seems to deny the rampant sexism that had existed, but the book tracks the arguments and really shows where they originally came from and why they were argued the way they were.
https://www.amazon.com/Defenders-Unborn-Pro-Life-Movement-before/dp/0199391645
Baby is sort of a colloquial term. It could go either way.
When people are generally talking about the unborn and abortion is not on the table, it is common to refer to the unborn child as "your baby" or "my baby".
Strictly speaking, I don't think the word choice matters. For the purposes of this debate, whether you call it a baby, an unborn child or a ZEF, it is still a human individual with human rights.
And you can be called a child as an adult. "Child" can be used relatively.
I am always going to be the child of my parents. And it is not uncommon to refer to the "adult children" of someone.
For instance a quick Google search turned up the following (completely unrelated to abortion) title of a book:
"Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents: How to Heal"
https://www.amazon.com/Adult-Children-Emotionally-Immature-Parents/dp/1626251703
>when we talk about a bird child in the egg we still call it a egg it's only when it hatch dose it become a chicklin
Actually this is a misnomer. An egg by itself is more than just the chicken. It is the chicken as well as the shell and the yolk it uses to grow. An egg is not a chicken because it is more than just the chicken.
Also, you have to be wary of categorization errors. For instance, a seed is not a tree, but that is only because a tree is the name for the adult stage of that organism's life cycle, not because a seed is not the same type of organism as the adult.
That seed and that tree are both of the same species, and every tree that has ever existed of that species was first in that seed. The seed, like the egg, is both the young tree and the stored food and shell that nourishes the young member of the tree species until it can develop its own roots.
Excellently said. I'm reminded of this quote I've shared before, from Lynn Paltrow, in Jennifer Block's book <em>Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care</em>:
>"She also maintains that they [criminal punishments for women smoking/drinking/taking drugs during pregnancy] must be seen in the context of a culture that celebrates the woman who conceives quadruplets after multiple fertility treatments- treatments that put the fetuses at risk for severe prematurity, neurological damage, and death- yet imprisons the woman who puts her fetus at far less risk with illegal drug use.
I see that you edited your comment, so hopefully it's okay to ask another question here. There's a situation I once read about in Peter Korn's book <em>Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic</em> (side note that I have no idea how common or uncommon it is amongst providers of later abortion):
>Patients think doctors and nurses can look at a picture of a fetus on an ultrasound and just intuit its gestational age, but in fact the age is estimated by measuring the diameter of the skull, called a biparietal. In advertisements and over the telephone, people are told Lovejoy will consider abortions in cases where the fetus is up to 23.5 weeks from the date of the woman's last period, which translates into 5.3 centimeters, exceptions made on a case-by-case basis. Chuan's [the patient being discussed here] ultrasound showed a biparietal of 5.4 centimeters. Suchak [the doctor] knew he was dealing with a fetus between 23 and 24 weeks gestation, a judgment call.
>[ . . . ]
>Removing the fetus he had examined the feet, generally a more reliable indicator of gestational age than the ultrasound. The fetus was further along than they had thought- his best guess was between 24 and 25 weeks.
In a case where there is a bright legal line separated by days, do you feel like this doctor ought have been charged with murder for performing an abortion on a fetus he incorrectly thought was within the legal gestational timeframe for an abortion?
I would start with Our Ecological Footprint. It's a great source for scholarly work on the topic. One of the authors is often cited (for example in this paper) on the topic.
Birth can also be traumatic, some women develop PTSD others wish they had never had children
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Regretting-Motherhood-Study-Orna-Donath/dp/1623171377/ref=nodl_
I have a book for you called "Pacifism as Pathology"
https://www.amazon.com/Pacifism-Pathology-Reflections-Struggle-America/dp/1904859186
One of my favorite quotes from that book goes like this:
"I will not be a good Jew and walk peacefully into the ovens."
I think your tepid reply "more or less" (I characterize it as such without insult intended, just compared to your passionate paragraphs you wrote just above that) would be completely different if you were a member of a threatened group facing real violence or murder, or descendents of a threatened/genocided group who were such victims.
The book I suggested to you above talks about how pacifism as the ideal strategy most often comes from the opressors and those who face no threat and it is an illusion (fantasy) as to its effectiveness.
I may agree with you about that. And I know you are not claiming that this changes what I said significantly.
So now I am honestly curious, because I don't know myself. Is this quote below a scientific fact or a consensus among scientists? I don't think it hurts the pro-life case either way, but I want to hear whether this would constitute a fact in your view:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, <strong><em>Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition</em></strong>. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.
There's a great book that I got from Amazon by Peter Korn called <em>Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic</em>, where a journalist/writer observed the goings-on of the Lovejoy Surgicenter in Portland for a year. The book covers all aspects- the clinic director, the doctors, the protesters, etc. and all are very interesting, but one of the most interesting to me was getting a first-person peek into the job of the counselor who prepped patients and cleared them for the abortion.
Obviously, in medicine, quality of service can vary- there can be bad doctors in any field- but the standard operating procedure for abortion counseling is very thorough; they probe into why the woman is seeking the abortion, does she understand and know about other options and want resources for that, is she making this choice freely and without pressure or coercion, does she understand the procedure and the potential risks and what aftercare is required, does she have any questions, is she sure this is what she wants or would she like to talk through it some more/go home and think about it first? You get to see her go through sessions with multiple patients and see how each one goes; it really is informative and enlightening.
I strongly recommend it if you want better insight into how abortion counseling goes.
Apparently, the violinist argument was first made in 1971. It was a moral philosophy paper by Judith Thompson. If you want to know how the debate looked in the 60s and before, I'd suggest reading Defenders of the Unborn. https://www.amazon.com/Defenders-Unborn-Pro-Life-Movement-before/dp/0199391645