I've stated it before ... (based on S Dakota's potential ban)

The ban on abortion, while touchy and emotional warrants thinking about this:

How many children who aren't aborted are without homes?
How many children who aren't aborted are in foster care?
How many children who aren't aborted by "biological donors"+ are in a household poorly suited to existence?++

If there was a ban, dare I predict a national ban on it, who then raises the children? Should unreported criminals, sadists and molesters and rapists and child exploiters be granted them; especially since they would relish the opportunity to have a bevy of kids at their beck and call and access. Many of the people on the ban-wagon don't raise a single child at all, let alone foster or adopt a child. If you don't do that, you aren't part of the friggin' solution! So, shut up! If the argument is that adoption process is too tedious or full of too much red tape, therein lies the problem. When there is a suitable home for all children, I will agree that there should be a ban on abortion, for there is no call for it.

As far as abortion being in place of contraception, then I don't mind another $500 a year of my taxes being spent on free prophylactics. Heck, that's cheap and considerate. If that would help, go for it! In the end abortion is selfish in that I understand. I do know that many of the people seeking abortion tend not to be cut out to be parents at that time anyway, so the would-be child has that potential danger ahead of her/him. Children are destroyed daily, some or most by people who should never have had access to them in the first place (regardless whether they are genetically related to them or not).

+ you can't call people parents unless they raise their children. Siring offspring isn't parenting.
++ there aren't enough agents and people and not enough money to patrol houses with poor living for persons there. Find out stats on CPS (Child Protective Services) and find out that I'm right.