Abortion is good.
how come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette? ---George Carlin
Abortion has always been a hot button topic, with advocates on both sides of the debate making various arguments. Many arguments tend to devolve into emotional rants or become very narrow in their focus, sometimes to the point of being uncompromising, as some take a hard stance that abortion is a bad thing. But I have decided to try and remove the emotional aspect (as much as possible anyway) and briefly provide purely practical reasons why abortion is a good thing.
1. It’s safer than pregnancy or childbirth : Most abortions, especially if done earlier, are generally safer and easier than enduring a pregnancy and childbirth. According to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2012), “ Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion .” After all, an abortion can be as simple as taking an abortifacient while pregnancy and childbirth can come with a whole host of problems , both minor to severe and even life threatening. While abortions can have complications , especially if done later during gestation, they are still safer overall than pregnancy and childbirth. Keeping abortion legal, where a woman can obtain an abortion in a clinical setting with qualified personnel, will help ensure that an abortion procedure remains as safe and easy as possible.
2. Abortion is cheaper than pregnancy and child rearing : Any parent knows raising kids is expensive. We’re talking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially when eventual college costs are factored in. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation , “ The average total cost for prenatal care throughout a typical pregnancy is about $2,000 .” It’s likely more if there are pregnancy related issues to deal with. By comparison, an abortion costs up to $750 in the first trimester, and up to $1,500 later in pregnancy, according to Planned Parenthood . Birth alone can cost thousands of dollars, especially if a C-Section is required or other birthing complications arise, necessitating additional healthcare costs and resources. Again, there are various factors which might affect actual costs. But by and large, abortion is certainly cheaper, especially when considering the costs of child rearing.
According to the USDA (2015), "a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family." That's not even counting expenses towards college. This may not be so much an issue for those earning a higher wage, but it is an issue for lower to middle income individuals, where some people live paycheck to paycheck and every penny counts. Factoring in child costs (food, clothing, education, healthcare, ect.) can break the proverbial bank. Economic costs is one factor women might take into consideration when deciding on abortion. Can they afford to have a child? Sometimes, the answer is no.
3. Abortion can benefit society : Given to economic impact of pregnancy, birth, and child rearing, many women may have difficulty making ends meet, especially if they are of limited financial stability. Many women in such situations also do not have the time or resources to better their own lot in society and may fall into or remain in poverty, which is also not a good environment to raise a child. In addition, pregnant women in economic hardships may not seek prenatal care due to costs, which might result in or exacerbate other medical conditions, thereby incurring even greater costs and use of resources. In such situations, government assistance might be utilized, which only costs taxpayers and creates economic hardships. According to Rutgers (2022),
Women who are denied an abortion because of restrictive laws not only are less likely to be employed full time, they are also more likely to live in poverty and to require public assistance compared to women who obtain abortions. Women who are able to delay childbirth until they have greater economic and emotional security are able to have closer relationships with their children and raise them in relatively better economic circumstances, with fewer indicators of delayed child development .
Socioeconomic concerns are a significant reason why a woman might choose to have an abortion, and it makes sense why. According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 10 million children living in poverty in this country (365 million in the world). Why add to that number by forcing women to give birth if they do not have adequate means to support children? Poverty can adversely affect the growth, development, health, and wellbeing of a child. Abortions will help reduce that and reduce financial burdens and difficulties. For those that do have a child, they may rely on government assistance, which economically impacts the taxpayers and probably doesn't boost income by a large amount. In effect, a child might grow up poor, and probably in a poor neighborhood with limited means and opportunities. Parental opportunities might also be limited, as time and energy are now used to earn a living wage and pay the bills. Therefore, having an abortion can break one's fall into or cycle of poverty and make life better for them. If a woman chooses to have a child later, then she might be in a stronger economic position at that time to have a better life for herself and the child.
4. Abortion is more convenient : Let’s face it, no one likes to be inconvenienced. It’s rather annoying and frustrating, to say the least, whatever the circumstances might be. Any parent who loses sleep to change or feed a baby at night, who misses work because of childcare issues, who gets called to the principal’s office at school, ect., knows what I am talking about. Some women may not want to be inconvenienced (physically, emotionally, economically, ect.) with pregnancy, childbirth, and/or child rearing, especially since the latter is a lifetime commitment. There are those who complain about women having abortions for convenience, to which I say, “who cares.” The reasons a woman may choose to have an abortion are varied and personal. But they are all equally valid to the woman in question and really no one else’s concern or business.
This is a basic list of why abortion is a good thing. It does not cover the concepts of woman’s individual autonomy and rights, as that can be an entirely different debate. There are probably other reasons why abortion is good, such as the issue of overpopulation and probably other factor I have not offered or considered. But I figured this would be a sufficient starting point. But what do you think? Are there other reasons why abortion is a good thing that should be included in the list? Can a logical, preferably non-emotional argument be made for or against the reasons offered?
1. It’s safer than pregnancy or childbirth : Most abortions, especially if done earlier, are generally safer and easier than enduring a pregnancy and childbirth. According to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (2012), “ Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion .” After all, an abortion can be as simple as taking an abortifacient while pregnancy and childbirth can come with a whole host of problems , both minor to severe and even life threatening. While abortions can have complications , especially if done later during gestation, they are still safer overall than pregnancy and childbirth. Keeping abortion legal, where a woman can obtain an abortion in a clinical setting with qualified personnel, will help ensure that an abortion procedure remains as safe and easy as possible.
2. Abortion is cheaper than pregnancy and child rearing : Any parent knows raising kids is expensive. We’re talking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially when eventual college costs are factored in. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation , “ The average total cost for prenatal care throughout a typical pregnancy is about $2,000 .” It’s likely more if there are pregnancy related issues to deal with. By comparison, an abortion costs up to $750 in the first trimester, and up to $1,500 later in pregnancy, according to Planned Parenthood . Birth alone can cost thousands of dollars, especially if a C-Section is required or other birthing complications arise, necessitating additional healthcare costs and resources. Again, there are various factors which might affect actual costs. But by and large, abortion is certainly cheaper, especially when considering the costs of child rearing.
According to the USDA (2015), "a family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family." That's not even counting expenses towards college. This may not be so much an issue for those earning a higher wage, but it is an issue for lower to middle income individuals, where some people live paycheck to paycheck and every penny counts. Factoring in child costs (food, clothing, education, healthcare, ect.) can break the proverbial bank. Economic costs is one factor women might take into consideration when deciding on abortion. Can they afford to have a child? Sometimes, the answer is no.
3. Abortion can benefit society : Given to economic impact of pregnancy, birth, and child rearing, many women may have difficulty making ends meet, especially if they are of limited financial stability. Many women in such situations also do not have the time or resources to better their own lot in society and may fall into or remain in poverty, which is also not a good environment to raise a child. In addition, pregnant women in economic hardships may not seek prenatal care due to costs, which might result in or exacerbate other medical conditions, thereby incurring even greater costs and use of resources. In such situations, government assistance might be utilized, which only costs taxpayers and creates economic hardships. According to Rutgers (2022),
Women who are denied an abortion because of restrictive laws not only are less likely to be employed full time, they are also more likely to live in poverty and to require public assistance compared to women who obtain abortions. Women who are able to delay childbirth until they have greater economic and emotional security are able to have closer relationships with their children and raise them in relatively better economic circumstances, with fewer indicators of delayed child development .
Socioeconomic concerns are a significant reason why a woman might choose to have an abortion, and it makes sense why. According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 10 million children living in poverty in this country (365 million in the world). Why add to that number by forcing women to give birth if they do not have adequate means to support children? Poverty can adversely affect the growth, development, health, and wellbeing of a child. Abortions will help reduce that and reduce financial burdens and difficulties. For those that do have a child, they may rely on government assistance, which economically impacts the taxpayers and probably doesn't boost income by a large amount. In effect, a child might grow up poor, and probably in a poor neighborhood with limited means and opportunities. Parental opportunities might also be limited, as time and energy are now used to earn a living wage and pay the bills. Therefore, having an abortion can break one's fall into or cycle of poverty and make life better for them. If a woman chooses to have a child later, then she might be in a stronger economic position at that time to have a better life for herself and the child.
4. Abortion is more convenient : Let’s face it, no one likes to be inconvenienced. It’s rather annoying and frustrating, to say the least, whatever the circumstances might be. Any parent who loses sleep to change or feed a baby at night, who misses work because of childcare issues, who gets called to the principal’s office at school, ect., knows what I am talking about. Some women may not want to be inconvenienced (physically, emotionally, economically, ect.) with pregnancy, childbirth, and/or child rearing, especially since the latter is a lifetime commitment. There are those who complain about women having abortions for convenience, to which I say, “who cares.” The reasons a woman may choose to have an abortion are varied and personal. But they are all equally valid to the woman in question and really no one else’s concern or business.
This is a basic list of why abortion is a good thing. It does not cover the concepts of woman’s individual autonomy and rights, as that can be an entirely different debate. There are probably other reasons why abortion is good, such as the issue of overpopulation and probably other factor I have not offered or considered. But I figured this would be a sufficient starting point. But what do you think? Are there other reasons why abortion is a good thing that should be included in the list? Can a logical, preferably non-emotional argument be made for or against the reasons offered?
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
Posting to get the discussion started:
Isn't taking the "pill" the safest of all?
RU-486?
It wouldn't surprise me to see them banned as well.
Not for all women. The Pill can increase the risk of blood clots and some cancers. It can also increase blood pressure, which I found out personally. Mine went from 116/68 to 150/110 in 3 weeks after starting the Pill. That's not safe at all.
I think some do want exactly that.
That depends.
fringe evangelical cults and the vatican, thru their legislative and judicial minions, wish to impose their warped concepts of morality on everyone that doesn't believe the same way they do, despite what the US Constitution states. they seem to have conveniently forgotten that the idea of a nationalized religion was a prime motivator in the movement from the UK/EU to north america and the eradication of religious zealots in what would become america is a tradition older than our democracy. thumper wackos claim that bodily autonomy for american women is not a god given right. it's not the first time they've used religion as justification to sustain a group of second glass citizens they have created.
" Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress said over the weekend that Christian nationalists had a right to "impose their values" on everyone else ."
"We always put our love for God above everything, even allegiance to our country," he explained. "But that's not what they're really talking about. Listen carefully. They say they are opposed to people who say America was founded as a Christian nation, Americans who believe not only in the spiritual heritage of our nation but believe that we ought to use elections to help return our country to its Christian foundation."
" If that's Christian nationalism, count me in ," the pastor laughed. "Because that's what we have to do. And what's so hypocritical about this, Tim, is the left don't mind at all imposing their values on our country through the election process. They don't mind forcing their pro-abortion, pro-transgender, pro-open borders policy upon our nation."
Texas pastor openly calls on 'Christian nationalists' to 'impose their values on society' (msn.com)
What's really crazy is that they accuse the 'left' of trying to force 'pro-abortion' policy (yet no one is ever forced to get an abortion) and 'pro-transgender' policy (yet no one is forced to be transgender). All that is asked of religious conservatives is for them to keep their religious morals to themselves and to stop trying to take away other's rights in the name of 'returning our country to its Christian foundation' in violation of the constitution. When they say "We always put our love for God above everything, even allegiance to our country,", what they are saying is "fuck the constitutions establishment clause, we do what we want!".
These points make way too much sense for the emotional basket cases who insist that blastocysts are cuddly little babies taking a nap in mommy’s belly.
This may be "tongue-in-cheek" but do you think that the next thing the SCOTUS will do is take away the right of women to vote? Is it written in The Constitution specifically that women have the right to vote? I'm thinking that if it will be the the women resenting others' taking control of their bodies causing them to vote massively against the Republicans and that actually defeats the Republicans in the midterms, then the conservative SCOTUS will find a way to guarantee a Republican win next time around.
Is this article a parody ?
What would people think of an article like this
I dont think any one can dispute the "logic" of these assertions either.
-
Is abortion a "good" ? Very unfortunate wording, in my opinion, one assumes meant to instill controversy into the discussion.
Is abortion comparable to having the electricity go out while you are watching your favorite tv show?
You bring generally good points for the death penalty. Feel free to write such an article.
The wording of the title is deliberate, but not to incite controversy. Any discussion regarding abortion usually involves some level of controversy on its own. But while many, especially pro-lifers, try to argue (often based on emotion) abortion is "bad," I try to provide rational and objective reasons why it's "good."
I dont think avoiding inconvenience , especially in the cavalier way you phrase it, is a "good" reason for abortion, but maybe it depends on the meaning of "good".
The point of my talking about the "good" in the death penalty was to show how simple it is to claim just about anything is "good".
Abortion is necessary, but I wouldnt call it good.
That's a matter of opinion. I stated the reasons why abortion is good. Ultimately, it comes down to the woman's choice.
What restrictions, if any, should be placed upon abortion process?
None. However, I realize some might take issue with that. So I am willing to compromise and meet proverbially and almost literally halfway and say viability is a reasonable cutoff for elective abortions. I have yet to hear a rational explanation as to why elective abortions before viability should be restricted.
“What restrictions, if any, should be placed upon abortion process?”
What restrictions, if any, should be placed upon any, repeat any, doctor patient process?
This is a personal, private medical issue and it has nothing, repeat absolutely nothing, to do with any outside third party interventionists.
Agreed. Perrie offers a neurological argument that abortions should be restricted if the fetus has developed to the point where it feels pain (arguably, beginning ~16 weeks). Definitely something to consider as we learn more about fetal development.
I draw the line roughly at viability; that is, when the fetus has developed to the point where it has all of its organs and systems (~24 weeks). I do, however, see a difference between the 1st and 2nd trimesters. The 1st trimester should, IMO, be free of any restrictions ... abortion at will by choice of the woman. The later the pregnancy gets in the 2nd trimester (i.e. the closer to viability) the less I support restriction-free abortion (i.e. abortion sans professional medical agreement). Most women know they are pregnant in the 1st trimester and the longer the pregnancy the closer the fetus is to a biologically complete human being that is still in the womb. In the 3rd trimester, abortion should be available as medical procedure to protect the life of the woman or if fetal development has gone far wrong (e.g. 'freak' growth — a complex discussion in itself).
So Perrie is irrational too?
Lol. I guess we can get rid of the FDA and every other regulatory body and regulation. Doctors can do whatever they want!
Ivermectin is just the start.
Short of lame trolling, how do you conclude from my comment that Perrie would be irrational? And what is the purpose of you going personal rather than discussing the topic?
Excuse me? What is irrational about science?
So .... Abortion is “good” except as defined by you and/or Perrie?
Ridiculous. Abortion isn’t good per se. It may become necessary but I would never characterize it as good. Especially late term.
Never.
While neurological development is a continuous process throughout gestation, according to studies, the ability to perceive pain doesn't develop until the 3rd trimester, after viability. But I have always said viability is a reasonable compromise between both sides of the issue.
Make a rational case as to why not then. Simply declaring abortion as "not good" ismeaningless without something objective to back it up. Your "feelings" do not make for a persuasive or convincing argument.
Make a point instead of making bogus trolling accusations.
By that approach it’s just as meaningless/irrational calling it good. Intimating that all abortion are good is not rational.
Interesting that you miss that distinction.
I have read that this can occur earlier. Regardless, the ability to perceive pain strikes me as a very significant factor.
Buzz off with your lame trolling accusations. Let the conversation go.
My point is made. Calling all abortions “good” is ghoulish. I’ve seen no counterpoint proving otherwise so I assume you truly do believe all abortions are good.
Right?
Excuse me, where did I say abortion is good? It is necessary sometimes and it is a women's right when it is defined and has parameters.
Where do I call abortions "good"? Deliver a quote.
If I recall correctly, the development of pain receptor pathways develop earlier. The brain simply lacks the ability to perceive and process pain until later. But at that point in pregnancy, a woman is highly unlikely to suddenly want an elective abortion anyway. So it becomes a moot point.
The article title says it.
You didn’t refute the title did you?
Perrie did not write the article. Get a clue.
Writing a comment in an article is not ipso facto acceptance of the choice of language in a title or body or of any other comment. Nor is it acceptance of everything written in the article. ( This should already be known to you. )
I took the title to mean that "the right for a woman to choose to abort" is good. My comment qualified where I see free rights to abortion existing as a personal choice for a woman. That is because the issues of abortion vary as the pregnancy ensues.
You responded to my post 4.1.11 and did not comment on this part:
You ignored that. So one can infer you don’t agree with that comment and agree that abortion is good as titled
[Deleted]
Write a serious —non-trolling— comment and I will consider a thorough response.
Then one can "infer" anything if someone chooses to not reply to a portion of a trollish comment? Nonsense.
You haven't provided any counterpoint to why it's good. If you want to claim it's bad, then make your case. Preferably without the emotional rhetoric.
Strawman argument. I never said ALL abortion is good. If you bothered to understand the article, you would know I focused on the good aspects of abortion with explanations given and supported by citations. You've offered nothing to refute any of them.
You didn't refute the points cited in the article, did you?
Because it's so hard!
I agree with that. And I do think that the ability to perceive pain starts sooner than the 3rd trimester
G: Anyone who supports restrictions before viability is irrational.
TIG: I agree. Perrie supports abortion restrictions before viability.
Is it that hard to follow?
I was commenting. I didn't feel it was necessary to agree or disagree with the title. Please only respond to what I have written.
Excuse me? Where I did I claim that?
I'm neither 14 nor Donald Trump. I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is irrational.
Making that argument is either the sign of stunted development, massive insecurity or ignorance. Please don't attribute it to me.
Your selected quotes are totally out of context Sean. The actual comments are not what we meant in context. Please don't do that.
Where did I bring up your age or Donald Trump? Answer: I didn't.
I didn't attribute that to you. Stop playing word games.
You contrived an exchange that did not take place. Pure intellectual dishonesty on your part. Here is what took place:
I quoted this directly to establish the clear context for my reply which was:
I agreed with Gordy that I have not heard a rational explanation for why elective abortions before viability should be restricted. I then went on to offer the nuances of my position.
It's absolutelt in context. TIG selected this sentence "I have yet to hear a rational explanation as to why elective abortions before viability should be restricted " to highlight and respond : yes (period).
Then listed your apparently irrational position about when pain is felt.
I agree with you Perrie. I'm not the one calling science irrational. It's obviously perfectly rational to believe fetal pain is a basis to restrict an abortion.
That's perfect. Your argument is that fetal pain is not a "rational" basis to restrict abortion. I also find it amusing you categorize your own opinion as irrational.
That's fine. It's amusing how desperate the need is of abortion supporters to pretend that all disagreement with their moral positions is irrational. It's really funny to see.
You are only saying part of what Tig said, which isn't fair.
Here is his position:
I think that is a lot clearer than what you presented.
Yes, Tig and I have a differing opinion on the cut-off time, but that is the point of a discussion. To share ideas and maybe hear a point that you might have not considered, given good facts or opinions.
But you are playing gotchya instead. I'm not cool with that.
What exactly is your problem, Sean? It appears to me that you are failing to directly read and instead are inserting your own meaning into my words.
I consider Perrie's position quite rational. I listed it along with my own views providing nuance.
You ignored this sentence:
That means I think we should consider Perrie's view as part of the nuances. Hello? The problem is your 'reading'.
It is not even gotcha, it is putting forth a position that I did not make and then playing gotcha on the strawman. Slimy crap.
I understand. I don't think you do. It's right there in black and white.
Its obviously rational to believe fetal pain is a basis to restrict abortion. Some people might think other interests outweigh the issue of pain. It's a moral argument where everyone is going to put different weight on different factors to come to the "just" conclusion. But to argue that its irrational to believe fetal pain is basis for restricting abortion is laughable. It's a perfectly valid and rational, just as the use of any other arbitrary cut off date along the process of human development. Blackmun wrote about that 50 years ago when he invented the trimester system.
What on Earth is wrong with you? That is the exact opposite of what I wrote.
That should be a red flag that your reading is wrong.
It is disgusting watching people present strawman interpretations instead of engaging in an adult, thoughtful discussion.
What is obvious is that you have chosen to invent a position for me rather than deal with what I wrote. Slimy tactic.
Sean, that is an insult to my intelligence. If you are going to continue in that fashion, please stop engaging with me.
Lol. I can read just fine. If you believe Perrie's response was rational, the honest response to Gordon's absolutism is NO, Period.
Then explain why Perries response is rational and why you disagree with it. You can't agree with Gordy's dogmatic claim that no restrictions before viability are rational and simultaneously claim Perrie's position providing a basis for such restrictions is rational too.
So you now disagree with Gordy's absolutist statement that are no rational argument for restrictions before viability?
Wrong. This proves yet again that you are just trolling. I have stated that 'Agreed' was in response to what I quoted (objecting, in general, to abortions prior to viability).
You ignore my initial comments which qualify my 'Agree' and then ignore all subsequent comment where I directly address your confusion. That, Sean, is proof that you are trolling; you stick with your demonstrably wrong reading no matter what.
Make an argument instead of slimy trolling.
Perrie. It's impossible to logically believe both Gordy's statement and that your position is rational.
I know your team needs to stick together above all else and is desperately trying to push a square peg through a round hole to do so, but words have meanings and they are there in black and white.
Again, go to TiG@4.1.6 where I agree in principle with Gordy's general statement and then immediately qualify that to be more specific.
For those who care to understand what people write, my comment @4.1.6 provides a general answer and then immediately qualifies to offer the nuance.
Those who wish to troll will cherry-pick one word and ignore the balance of the comment (or twist its meaning).
I think the precedent in Roe was sufficient, legal up to viability which was generally 22 to 24 weeks.
If anti-abortion activists want to fight the late term abortions, which of course are always the ones they want to depict to enrage their base, maybe they should stick to fighting late term abortions. Of course, that should be easier since less than 1% of abortions in the US are after viability so they would have far fewer targets of their rabid hate.
Then you cannot comprehend agreement in principle with qualifications.
For example:
The first sentence is the general statement in principle. It does not mean capitalism is without flaws, but rather that I would say capitalism is net good (vs. net bad) compared to the alternatives.
The second sentence offers nuance, qualification on the general principle. I could add many more sentences in qualification. But you should get the drift from this one example.
Gordy is correct in his net principled statement and Perrie's position is rational; I also think my position is rational. All of this is clear in @4.1.6. I have given you plenty of explanation in subsequent comments and you continue to troll.
er....
Do you understand what an absolute statement is?
The claim was there are NO (that means none) rational objections to pre viability abortions? So go back to your SAT days and recall that
Absolute statements are not general statements and all your spinning doesn't make them so.
This is how the discussion plays out under your perversion of English:
1. Capitalism is perfect and all regulations are bad,
2. Correct. Regulations are necessary to optimize capitalism.
Then Gordy is wrong. Sadly, I have to make this explicit.
Any nuance or qualification to absolute statement makes it false. Pretending otherwise is dishonest trolling.
So I'm curious, what is a rational objection to pre-viability abortions?
On what points am I wrong? Explain.
I have never said that Gordy and I have the same position, so please stop with the nonsense.
There is no team. This is all in your head, and it also dictates how you discuss things. The rest of your comment has no bearing on me. You are the one trying to pigeonhole us, not the other way around and frankly, I find it dismissive.
Now if you have any information other than making personal comments to add to this discussion, please put them forth. Otherwise, stop addressing me.
Do you understand what a statement in principle is?
Good grief man, you need to read instead of imagine. This is what I quoted from Gordy:
Gordy has yet to hear a rational explanation does not mean "there are NO rational objections". It naturally leaves room for a rational explanation to be provided; it is thus not an absolute statement. You translate his obvious meaning into a strawman and then continue to argue it. And you do so even when your objection is explained. You insist that you know the meaning of an author better than the author. That is classical trolling.
And now instead of using my example to understand my point you twist my example. Pathetic, Sean, that instead of engaging in a discussion / debate you choose to repeatedly troll this article.
He made no absolute statement in what I quoted. See @4.1.61.
I don't know how to respond to this. How can you read anything I wrote and claim that's what was I arguing?
It's such a misrepresentation that I literally can't comprehend how can you make that claim.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Go for it.
Leftists would wet themselves in hypocritical outrage.
Screams of systemic racism would be heard everywhere as a disproportionate amount of blacks would be terminated for violent crimes.
Anyone supporting the death penalty would be called racist, barbaric, fascist, and genocidal.
Both sides are equally idiotic when comes to abortion and the death penalty.
I guess the Right-to-Lifers don't have a problem with a fetus being determined to be so deformed as to require very expensive maintenance for years after its birth, let alone the emotional damage to the parents. I'd like to know if their attitude would change if it happened to them or will they believe that God meant them to suffer.
I have a young friend who's little boy was born with a severe form of dwarfism. He's over a year now and still has a breathing tube and a feeding tube. He's absolutely adorable and seems to be happy.
But she knew her baby had this disease when she was in her second trimester. I admire she and her husband for willing to take on a special needs child. They have pure hearts. But I couldn't do it. I know my limitations. If I had had that kind of diagnosis I would have cried and cried but I would have had an abortion, especially if I already had one healthy child. They will probably not have any more children
A ghoulish stance.
Abortion can be necessary in some cases but intimating that it is “good?”
Ghoulish.
An emotional based retort.
It sure is. Life without emotion is a shallow existence. Truly shallow.
Most liberals understand this when they pick and chose which topics to get emotional about.
Emotion doesn't lend itself to a rational or logical discussion. It just makes one seem irrational and foolish, like a child throwing a tantrum. Certainly not convincing in the least.
Only a fool goes through life without emotion.
[Deleted]
And the discussion here is viability, when the baby feels pain etc. I guess all y’all don’t think all abortion is good. So why title it that way?
Doing so is not rational or consistent.
How do you feel about the woman pregnant with her tenth child and living off of welfare and food stamps? Frankly, she pisses me off.
Agreed. Do you agree that all abortion is good?
Not at all. However, it should be safe, legal, and rare.
Only the foolish argue with emotion over reason.
The issue is why is abortion good, not when there should be limits.
That happens rarely these days. A woman is strongly encouraged to have her tubes tied after the third child if she's living on public assistance. Happened to my brother's "woman"
that statement gets you a 2nd class ticket on the thumper crazy train...
[Deleted]
Okay, I’m out.
[deleted]
You've offered no real debate. Only constant complaining.
I'd like to see everyone who responds to this article reply as to whether or not abortion is a GOOD THING, which is the assertion of the written article.
The right, in principle, for a woman to choose to abort is a good thing. That right, IMO, varies as the pregnancy ensues and based on myriad conditions. But it is good IMO for a woman to have the freedom to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at least within the 1st trimester.
Another way to look at this is "denying abortion in all cases is bad".
The article does not make that argument, certainly not in any specific way. Rather when the article mentions specifics it is to say that abortion is a positive good.
If I wanted to I could make arguments like in this article as to why involuntary euthanization is a good thing.
It would save people money they would otherwise spend taking care of the old.
It is more convenient than keeping old and sick people alive where they would futilely require resources and attention
etc.
It is easy to make these sort of arguments if one wants to be dogmatic.
Maybe you should read more of what Gordy has written. For example, do you think Gordy is arguing that a woman should be free to terminate a pregnancy at any time?
For example:
I read the entire article.
It’s safer than pregnancy or childbirth
if everyone bought into that eventually there would be no population problem because there wouldnt be any people
Abortion is cheaper than pregnancy and child rearing
a lot of things are cheaper than something else. it would be cheaper to feed your kids dog food than fresh fruits and vegetables, - doesnt make it a "good".
Abortion is more convenient
this one is the jaw dropper. i think if you polled to see what is most disapproved of about abortion
"it is done for convenience" would be at the top of the list.
It might be convenient for parents who are struggling to raise their children because they take too much of the parents personal time , to take them into the woods in another state and leave them there. For convenience sake.
People want children, John, so women will endure the hazards of pregnancy and childbirth to raise a family. Abortion is cheaper but then again there's no tears to dry, homework to check, basketball games or band concerts to attend or seeing your first born graduate with honors, and your second born raising his hand to swear an oath to his country.
Not quite John. The article explains why, via the enumerated posts, why abortion is a good thing. I only very briefly touch on the bad things. But that is not the focus of the article. I never said anything about abortion as a whole being good/bad.
So you disagree with the article.
Are those serious attempts at refuting the article points or are you just trying to be facetious?
No, I don't. I understand what the article is trying to say. That abortion with the right reasons is a good thing
I think that abortion is justifiable on the basis that women should have a right to control their own bodies and because a convincing argument can be made that fetuses are not people. That is about it.
When we start going into reasons abortion is a "good" thing we are going on a very problematic ethical slope.
I not only attempted to refute your points, I refuted them.
You would have been better off just saying women have the right to abortion than trying to explain why it is a good thing.
If I have a 90 year old mother who cant walk and is in pain is it ok for me to smother her with a pillow even if she has not asked me to?
Then make your case. I explained why abortion is a good thing. Objectively explain why its bad or refute the points made.
If that was a serious attempt, then it's laughable at best.
Is it OK to kill your mother or grandmother because they are inconvenient or it would save you money to do so?
Your argument in favor of abortion being a "good " thing is based on why LIVE children would be a burden.
Of course, agreeing with abortion solely because the unborn fetus is not a person or because it is a womans right to autonomy does not allow the expansion of the argument into areas like "convenience". The inconvenience you are referring to would only eventuate if the child was born, you know alive. So the "inconvenience" of a live unwanted child would be the same as the inconvenience of caring for a sick and helpless old mother.
Why dont you explain why I'm wrong.
For starters, you didn't refute the fact that pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion. Making some outlandish statement about no population doesn't address thr point made.
You don't address the fact that having kids is expensive and can be economically detrimental to those with limited resources. So it's not feasible and practical to put off having children until such resources are more secure.
Your last example is just plain absurd. Convenience is whatever the woman decides it is. Having kids can be inconvenient. But no one is advocating child abandonment. Although, such situations is not unheard of either.
Do let me know when you can provide a more rational and less sensational argument John.
Sorry Gordy, you're losing. Any argument for abortion as a "good" that is not based solely on the woman's right to control her own body immediately goes onto slippery ethical ground.
Because it is expensive to have a kid does not , in itself, justify abortion any more than saying I will kill my three year old because she is too expensive would justify killing a three year old.
I'm sorry you are not grasping that Mr. Logical.
The only one not grasping the obvious and logical here is you John. Also certain others here too whom I'll refrain from naming. But I digress. For example, I did not specifically address a woman's right to control her body in the article. So I don't know where you pulled that from. Although, I do support a woman having total say, control, and autonomy over her body as anyone else else does.
Financial burdens do not legally justify killing or abandoning children. But there is no such restrictions with abortion and its just as valid a reason for abortion as any other. It seems your arguments are based on conflating gestation with child rearing, which are two separate issues.
I disagree.
I do agree that abortion needs to be rooted in a woman's right to control her own body. But once that is established, there are definitely good results that come from the ability to exercise that freedom. Unwanted pregnancies that simply push infants into a social system is not a good thing. Forcing a woman to take the risks of an unwanted pregnancy is not a good thing. Increasing the population with unwanted pregnancies going to term is not a good thing. (Just a few examples.)
Imagine a society where a woman is raped and is forced to give birth to an unwanted child. The factors here critically include, but are more than solely a woman's right to control her own body.
Very good points.
Does positive good, which is what you claim abortion is, only correspond to what is the legal status of the activity? Is it possible that something could be legal but still not "good" or ethical?
You are losing this argument.
You needed to lay a separate groundwork for the acceptability of abortion before you claimed its justification on the basis of economic considerations. Otherwise you are in very murky ethical territory, which you are.
The seeded article does not do that, which is kind of the point of my objections to it.
Good corresponds to the points made in the article. You still haven't addressed them with anything of substance. So your declaration of my "losing" is both trivial and humorous. But whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better I suppose.
Yeah right Gordy, ok. We all know your arguments are invincible. /s
Now you're just engaging in juvenile tactics. Get back to me when you have something of substance to offer. Or not at all. I don't really care which.
In this original work article, the author explicitly states that he is intentionally focusing on issues beyond a woman's right to control her own body.
You presume the author does not consider choice of control to be the critical factor of abortion. I find that to be a very strange thing to presume. But, just to be clear, maybe you should ask the author directly since he is right here. See if Gordy holds that abortion is not, at its core, a woman's right to control her own body. That is, see if Gordy would support abortion if it did not include a woman's right to control her own body. I think his answer is obvious, but you should ask him to be certain.
I have been engaging opinions with Gordy on this seed. maybe you've missed it.
I have written here about what his article is about, not what his personal beliefs outside of the article are. Do you two guys always have each others backs 1000% lol? I can remember 12 or 13 years ago on Newsvine when you two were a tag team.
I have made very straightforward objections to aspects of your article , which you havent addressed at all. It is what it is.
I suggested you ask Gordy directly and specifically about his position on a woman's choice of control. Replying to me (especially with meta) does not accomplish anything.
TiG seems to understand my intentions and points regarding the article far better than you. You've offered your opinions, to which I addressed. I noted they were rather out there. Maybe you should try to be a little more objective.
Ridiculous.
Wow, great rebuttal.
Which was my point. Calling abortion “good” is simply ghoulish. Calling abortion sometimes necessary or appropriate works but “good” is not how It should be characterized
Calling it “good” is simply apathetic maybe even sociopathic in some cases.
Abortion is good for the objective reasons cited in the article. Describing it as ghoulish or whatever is simply an emotional reaction. Abortion is no more "ghoulish" than any other medical (especially surgical) procedure.
Want some advice?
See #8 above.
Meta protections of the IAC not excluded.
Yeah, I’m sure you really do believe that.
I’ll stick with ghoulish. Because it is.
By comparison surgery to repair an ACL could be generally characterized as “good” and not ghoulish by any reasonable definition.
Your opinion is noted. Is exploratory surgery "ghoulish?" Organ transplants? Not everyone has qualms about medical procedures.
Gordy, how people "rebut" you is not up to you. Sometimes one word is all that is needed.
I have, of course, used much more than one word in this thread, but one word works too.
You "announce" that your description of abortion as a positive "good" is the end of the discussion. Your, uh, opinion, is not established fact. To best of my knowledge about half the population or so would never consider abortion to be a good under any circumstances. Are they all just over emotional dumbasses?
As is yours.
Not everyone goes through life with such apathy.
Missed the mark badly with that one
I've cited no opinion. I stated abortion is good for the reasons outlined in the article. Do you objectively agree or disagree with them? If not, then state your case. Making things personal does not help your argument or credibility.
Wrong John! I didn't say abortion is a "positive" good. I said abortion was good based on the reasons provided in the article. Neither did I say anything about how people offer their rebuttals. It's the quality of the rebuttal that matters, and yours thus far (such as they are) have been of rather low quality. I'm sure people can come up with envy of reasons why abortion is bad. That's why I took a more "devils advocate" approach and came up with reasons why it's good and I explicitly stated I was trying to avoid emotional reasons or responses, as that causes some to become quite irrational, which some here have effectively demonstrated too. Feel free to objectively address those reasons.
Brings to mind C-Sections....
I wonder if anyone finds C-sections ghoulish? What about natural birth? That's certainly messy.
How about a child that is born with Trisomy-13? Here's a child that probably won't make it past its first birthday and will be probably be dead in less than 6 months after birth. Meanwhile in that short little life is pain for the wee one and constant, expensive care for the parents. In this case, abortion is a good thing so that the child is not subjected to a short life in constant pain
Abstinence is safer, cheaper, and more convenient than abortion. And it seems apparent that abstinence would benefit society more than does abortion since abstinence not only avoids unwanted pregnancy but also avoids sexually transmitted diseases.
Abstinence is superior to abortion by all the listed measures.
Monogamy also avoids STIs, Nerm. Surely you don't think that a committed, monogamous couple who don't want children should abstain from sex indefinitely? I think the couple in question would find that to be very inconvenient.
Doesn't change the fact that abstinence is superior to abortion by all the listed measures.
not everybody wants to live like a nun or monk.
Girls (and Boys) just want to have fun!
Abstinence runs contrary to human nature for most human beings. Because of the natural drive to defy abstinence, it is not a very effective solution.
“…abstinence…”
…teach it, preach it…but you’ll never reach it.
Is the list an exhaustive exploration of all options, Nerm?
It is not.
Nor is your statement true, even by the listed measures. Socioeconomically, divorce can be very costly. I'm going to venture to state that couples of childbearing age who are not sexually intimate are at greater risk of divorce than couples who are sexually intimate.
There are all sorts of societal expectations that humans control their behavior. Some have even gone so far as to place expectations on language; one of the most fundamental defining behavioral traits of humans.
Abstinence and celibacy are behavioral choices, too. If humans cannot control their sexual behavior then societal expectations on other human behaviors seem to defy human nature, too.
Abstinence is also the most unrealistic. Abortion is safer, cheaper, and more convenient than pregnancy, birth, and child rearing.
Rebuttal by gross exaggeration isn't really a rebuttal. Abortion may well be safer, cheaper, and more convenient than pregnancy, birth, and child rearing. But abstinence is even safer, cheaper, and more convenient than abortion. Abstinence is superior to abortion by those measures.
I'm not arguing against abstinence being better than abortion. Only that it's completely unrealistic.
Why would abstinence be any more unrealistic than "no means no"? Abstinence has already become a societal expectation under certain circumstances. It would seem what would be needed is an expansion of circumstances to apply societal expectations for abstinence that already exist.
Medical science has advanced to the point that sexual intercourse is no longer a necessity for pregnancy. We really do have the means to abolish sexual intercourse altogether. We have the means to make pregnancy a choice.
Because people get horny.
People get angry, too. But there are societal expectations that people control their anger.
Maybe because people usually have a sex drive and like sexual intimacy.
There are also societal expectations that people control their sex drive the same way people are expected to control their anger. We've seen that play out in the news cycle with stories about sexual coercion, sexual harassment, and sex crimes.
Abstinence is an enforced societal expectation in many circumstances.
Sex related crimes is a different matter. But in thecontext of consenting adults, it's not an issue. Abstinence is something likely to be opposed by most people and impossible to enforce. Not everyone is a cold fish.
Having the right and the medical ability to to have abortions is good
I can agree with that to a point.
Climate change caused by overpopulation is bad, abortion helps reduce overpopulation, so abortion is good
So easy to say as long as you and yours already have their spot established in the overpopulation equation ....
Yes, it is. So why continue adding to overpopulation?
Keep 'em coming!
Baby's do horrible things to the vagina. That's why I am 100% prochoice. I admit i like it snug and if a bowling ball has been dropped out of it, I am out. Kids? swipe left!
One word: episiotomy
Too many children in a family is a major cause of poverty continuing for generations
Indeed. Kids are expensive.
And they are very, very high maintenance. One needs to a) want and b) be prepared (emotionally, financially, physically) to be a parent. It is a 24x7 responsibility for at least 18 years.
Indeed, but are they as expensive as the elderly?
Depends on the care. Residence in a long-term-care nursing facility can easily consume $100k per year.
But how does your question relate to the discussion? The elderly are kinda on the other end of the age spectrum.
There are various factors that can influence costs with both. Both can be quite costly.
One can argue its a responsibility for life. Especially if grandchildren come into the mix.
Something that is not wanted often is not taken good care of