Again, and I am going to stress this a billion times over. I believe solidly in the idea that personal experience/accounts of situations is not valid, is not trustworthy, and never will be either of them.

If you experience something, and I disregarded it, it is probably for a reason. I'm getting a lot of the same vibes from you as people I've spoken to in the past, and it's always been on this same topic. I'm going to assume the experiences you had were highly subjective and quite possibly explained by things like placebo, or other situations. If we are talking about physical situations, I am going to assume there is some sort of data that contradicted your accounts, and I pointed to that.

Now, I have no idea what conversation you were talking about, I don't pay attention to the usernames of the posts I am responding to. If you could give more context I would be grateful because right now I really have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to "our past conversations".

You believe fewer people will get abortions... Because reasons ?

Well here you fucking go, have some data.

Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/the-bad-old-days-abortion_b_6324610.html

1981 1,577,340

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html

This was the number of legal abortions in 1981 total. Population increased in the time by about 1.5, so the number estimated up in the other quote of 200,000 to 1.2 million makes it kind of hard to draw a conclusion on the number of abortions going up or down.

A study I found is actually very good, here's some of what it says:

This is a bit off the topic, but I find this statistic interesting:

Furthermore, abortion legalization may have led to an improvement in the average living conditions of children, probably by reducing the numbers of youngsters who would have lived in single-parent families, lived in poverty, received welfare and died as infants.

Back on track:

The number of children adopted in a given year is therefore a rough proxy for the number of newly available "unwanted" children. Legal access to abortion would be expected to reduce the number of unwanted children and thus the supply of children available for adoption and the number of adoptions. Previous research suggests that abortion restrictions less onerous than outright prohibition reduce the number of infants relinquished for adoption in the United States.

Our results indicate that adoptions, particularly of children born to white women and by petitioners unrelated to the child, decreased in the 1960s and early 1970s when states repealed their laws restricting access to abortion. Roe v. Wade also may have lowered rates of adoption of children born to white women. Legal reforms allowing small increases in access to abortion, such as allowing the procedure for women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, did not affect adoption rates of children born to white women.

Before the availability of legal abortion became widespread, relinquishing children for adoption was one of few options open to women with unwanted or mistimed births. The number of adoptions rose from 91,000 in 1957 to 175,000 in 1970, then fell to 130,000 by 1975; the decline of the early 1970s coincided with the legalization of abortion.10 During this period, the population of women of childbearing age (15-49) grew steadily, birthrates among unmarried women rose and total birthrates fell

Adoptions by petitioners unrelated to the child accounted for the bulk of the decline: These adoptions fell 63% between 1970 and 1975, whereas adoptions by relatives per 1,000 white women declined by 19%.

We also controlled for several variables that reflect women's opportunity costs of children and that measure economic conditions: the employment-to-population ratio in the state (i.e., the number of people employed divided by the number aged 16 and older), unemployment rate, real per capita personal income, real manufacturing wage and real average Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefit per recipient family (included as a measure of welfare generosity). The wage, income and welfare variables were deflated using the consumer price index for urban consumers and were measured in natural logs in the regressions.

Relative to other states, states that repealed their abortion restrictions before Roe v. Wade saw significant declines in adoption rates for children born to white women; these declines were 34-37%, depending on whether adoptions are measured per 1,000 births or 1,000 population. The effect of repeal was not significant for adoptions of children born to nonwhite women. Reforms that legalized abortion in certain circumstances lowered adoption rates of children born to nonwhite women by 15-18% but did not have a significant effect among whites. Adoption rates did not change significantly after Roe v. Wade for states that had not repealed restrictive laws, but the estimates for whites suggest a negative effect similar in magnitude to the effects of repeal prior to Roe.

This is a bit disturbing considering the circumstances were most often rape/incest/similar situations:

Reforms that legalized abortion in certain circumstances lowered adoption rates of children born to nonwhite women by 15-18% but did not have a significant effect among whites.

https://www.guttmacher.org/about/journals/psrh/2003/01/did-abortion-legalization-reduce-number-unwanted-children-evidence

The Institute defines SRHR to encompass the rights of all individuals to make decisions concerning their sexual activity and reproduction, free from discrimination, coercion and violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttmacher_Institute

I do not believe this would be a very biased study. I found quite a few that talked about abortion going up, but many of them did things like talk about "deaths" rather than "abortions" so I wasn't willing to trust them.