Or because people stopped using cocaine.
People never stopped using cocaine for one thing. For another, in that very same link you posted, here is the theory I was referring to, which I find very convincing:
''
Steven D. Levitt & JJ Donohue, as recounted in the book Freakonomics, hypothesised that the reason behind the sudden drop in crime in the early 1990s was due to the Roe v. Wade outcome in 1973 and the subsequent legalization of abortions. The poor and young women who did not want their babies were allowed to have abortions and thus stopped the birth of a generation of socioeconomically disadvantaged children being born into a life more inclined towards crime. The end of the crack epidemic in 1990 coincides with the time when all those born after the Roe v. Wade outcome would have been in their late teens, a time when young men enter their criminal prime. As the years passed, more and more children who would have been born into a life more inclined to crime were simply not there, and crime dropped nation wide. To test for causality rather than correlation, the statistics the authors compiled show that the 5 states which allowed abortions before Roe v. Wade (California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington) had their crime drop earlier than the rest of the country. Also the states with the higher rates of abortion had the larger crime drops and vice versa.''
So I doubt ability to have an abortion has such a great effect on crime rate.
Why exactly? If anything there should be a drop in crime in a time of national unrest where people pull together for a common goal, as seen in WW1/WW2 in all European countries.
At least I try to explain myself and not just state "They are different, but not the principle behind why you think one is wrong and not the other."
If you made any effort to understand what I am trying to explain this would be much easier. As it is, I either must assume you have reading difficulties or are just displaying a juvenile refusal to think critically.
Show how a sperm and a fetus are similar?
Physically, they are different, of course. With regards to this argument, they both have the potential for to become human, and they both rely on other entities to become human. In the sperm's case, they rely on the fertilisation of the ovum. In the fetus' case, they rely on the circulatory and respiratory system of the mother to survive and develop.
You can quote dictionary sites all you like, it doesn't change the foundation of your argument, which I have found to be quite unsound.
If they couldn't even afford to buy a condom, then they definitely won't be able to afford an abortion, making it completely irrelevant if abortions are legal or not.
Where I come from, abortions are available free off the state health service. Secondly abortions aren't that expensive, especially when you consider people will risk going into debt to get one. Thirdly, people don't get pregnant because they can't afford condoms. They get pregnant because they are young and irresponsible, or because condoms break. In neither case should the female involved have to raise a child she doesn't want.
And if they were just to stupid to buy one, I truly feel sorry for them.
If they were too stupid, as you claim, do you really think they are fit to raise a child?
I would gladly take 9 months of major pain over death.
The millions of women who get abortions every year tend to disagree.
I object to it because abortion is not a prevention of a child its the termination, death, killing of, a child.
At the stage at which abortions are legal, fetuses cannot be considered human, let alone be considered a child. Granted we are killing a living entity. However, consider that we kill animals on a daily basis, which have far more developed brains than any fetus. Does that mean we should give battery hens human rights?
