Abortion is a necessity at the moment.

[Pozessed]

I don't mean to be blunt, and I would never suggest having an abortion to someone individually. However as a society I think it's necessary. If abortion is deemed illegal it will hurt our society more than help it.

Abortion pros-

1. Ignorant, naive, neglectful, irresponsible, or spiteful people, may prevent themselves from having children.
2. It is still an option as a free choice.
3. Social progression may be delayed if birth is forced upon parents.
4. A life that will most likely be born into hardship was averted.

Abortion cons-

1. A life is lost.

I'm sorry to sound so callous, but I would never think to have an abortion or tell anyone else they should.

I also don't feel it's my right to allow government to interfere with safer, and more effective options for unwanted conceptions than the ones provided if abortion were illegal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't mean to be blunt, and I would never suggest having an abortion to someone individually. However as a society I think it's necessary. If abortion is deemed illegal it will hurt our society more than help it.

Abortion pros-

1. Ignorant, naive, neglectful, irresponsible, or spiteful people, may prevent themselves from having children.
2. It is still an option as a free choice.
3. Social progression may be delayed if birth is forced upon parents.
4. A life that will most likely be born into poverty was averted.

Abortion cons-

1. A life is lost.

I'm sorry to sound so callous, but I would never think to have an abortion or tell anyone else they should.

I also don't feel it's my right to allow government to interfere with safer, and more effective options for unwanted conceptions than the ones provided if abortion were illegal.

That's clearly one of the uglier posts I've encountered.

 

[Pozessed]

I agree, and I hate to have written it. However, pointing out the obvious can hopefully delude some of the ignorance on the issue.

 

[Quintessence]

As someone who supports reproductive liberties, I'm usually calling on pro-lifers as making poor arguments. This post reminds me that on occasion, I also have to call on people who have the same stance as I do for making equally poor arguments. I may support reproductive freedom, but in no way do I think it's necessary, nor do I think it's "better" for society. When it comes right down to it, I support it for personal reasons above all else, not for society.

 

[Pozessed]

As someone who supports reproductive liberties, I'm usually calling on pro-lifers as making poor arguments. This post reminds me that on occasion, I also have to call on people who have the same stance as I do for making equally poor arguments. I may support reproductive freedom, but in no way do I think it's necessary, nor do I think it's "better" for society. When it comes right down to it, I support it for personal reasons above all else, not for society.

Disagreeing doesn't make my arguments any less significant. What do you disagree with in my statements? Aside from it not being social necessity.

 

[BSM1]

Another callous abortion pro-

It's cheaper for the tax payers to pay for an abortion than to pay for raising the child for 18 years or more.

 

[LuisDantas]

As in so many other matters of moral choice, the law is next to irrelevant (and next to ineffective). This makes an interesting contrast with the matter of legalization of Cannabis, which seems similar to some people but not to me.

Abortion should be allowed, yet also avoided. It is the only moral stance worth pursuing.

Why should it be allowed? Because the alternative is forcing a mother (and perhaps also a father) who is not willing or able to care for her child into attempting it anyway. That is very clearly a bad idea.

Of course, there are many options besides the extremes of killing the child or pressuring an unwilling mother into the role despite her own wishes. The single most effective measure to diminish the number of abortions would be removing the stigma of unplanned pregnancies, and encouraging people to adopt more freely. Even better would be to also challenge the current expectations of children "having" a single pair of parents and acknowledge that children are, in reality, supported by an extended network of relatives and friends - or that they should be, in any case.

Ultimately, the decisive reason for abortions (other than those deemed necessary for medical reasons) is nearly always the social pressure exercised upon mothers to renounce a considerable set of their personal freedoms on the child's behalf.

Motherhood is a wonderful, holy experience - and for that very reason it should be spared the desecration of having it forced upon an unwilling woman.

For that matter, having loving parents is not something that should be denied children before they are even born, either. Nor should they be doomed into an early life of ill-hidden resentment, lack of emotional support and general misery.

 

[Quintessence]

Disagreeing doesn't make my arguments any less significant. What do you disagree with in my statements? Aside from it not being social necessity.

The pro and con list needs... significant revision. The argumentation struck me as flawed in general, regardless of my (dis)agreement with it. For example: "Ignorant, naive, neglectful, irresponsible, or spiteful people, may prevent themselves from having children?" Seriously? WTF kind of argument is that? That's not blunt, that strikes me as two millimeters shy of bigotry-driven eugenics arguments. I mean, if you feel that people you judgmentally condemn as "less-than" shouldn't have kids, that's your prerogative. However, it doesn't enhance the credibility of the position in the eyes of many, and to many, will outright discredit it. I don't like seeing positions I support being sabotaged by expressions of it that are so... problematic. That particular "pro" was the worst line on the lists.

Luis phrased things much better.

 

[freethinker44]

That particular "pro" was the worst line on the lists.

I think it is at least tied with number 4 for worst. Poor people can use abortion to stop having poor children? This is considered an advantage to allowing abortion?

 

[Quintessence]

I think it is at least tied with number 4 for worst. Poor people can use abortion to stop having poor children? This is considered an advantage to allowing abortion?

Ah, I didn't think of that one from that angle. I just thought it was an odd statement because it assumes poor people can even afford abortions. They're not cheap.

 

[freethinker44]

Abortion pros-

1. Ignorant, naive, neglectful, irresponsible, or spiteful people, may prevent themselves from having children.
2. It is still an option as a free choice.
3. Social progression may be delayed if birth is forced upon parents.
4. A life that will most likely be born into poverty was averted.

All of these pros could be solved with better education and easier access to birth control, and I'm not talking about the complete joke that is advocating abstinence.

Except for number 2, which shouldn't be apart of anyone's list of pros or cons.

 

[Falvlun]

I think it is at least tied with number 4 for worst. Poor people can use abortion to stop having poor children? This is considered an advantage to allowing abortion?

In the book Freakonomics, the author hypothesizes that the reduction of crime rate in the '90's was linked to the legalization of abortion in 1973. The theory goes that that particular cohort of young adults prone to raping and pillaging, that would have been born to families not equipped to properly raise them, were never born, hence less raping and pillaging. Interesting theory, don't know if it has anything to support it.

 

[Sunstone]

In the book Freakonomics, the author hypothesizes that the reduction of crime rate in the '90's was linked to the legalization of abortion in 1973. The theory goes that that particular cohort of young adults prone to raping and pillaging, that would have been born to families not equipped to properly raise them, were never born, hence less raping and pillaging. Interesting theory, don't know if it has anything to support it.

If I recall, Peter F. Drucker showed some years before Freakonomics that the rates for major crimes correlate closely with the proportion of the population that is comprised of young males.

 

[Pozessed]

The pro and con list needs... significant revision. The argumentation struck me as flawed in general, regardless of my (dis)agreement with it. For example: "Ignorant, naive, neglectful, irresponsible, or spiteful people, may prevent themselves from having children?" Seriously? WTF kind of argument is that? That's not blunt, that strikes me as two millimeters shy of bigotry-driven eugenics arguments. I mean, if you feel that people you judgmentally condemn as "less-than" shouldn't have kids, that's your prerogative. However, it doesn't enhance the credibility of the position in the eyes of many, and to many, will outright discredit it. I don't like seeing positions I support being sabotaged by expressions of it that are so... problematic. That particular "pro" was the worst line on the lists.

Luis phrased things much better.

What do you label someone who is going to have an abortion? Are they not naive, neglectful, irresponsible, ignorant, and/or possibly spiteful during the situation. At best you could consider them confused and irrational, but that would ignore why they are being confused and irrational.
Again your argument seems nothing more than "I don't agree with your wording", that doesn't make it less true.

 

[Pozessed]

I think it is at least tied with number 4 for worst. Poor people can use abortion to stop having poor children? This is considered an advantage to allowing abortion?

I didn't label anyone as poor, you did. I said poverty, aka a constant struggle to survive.

 

[Pozessed]

In the book Freakonomics, the author hypothesizes that the reduction of crime rate in the '90's was linked to the legalization of abortion in 1973. The theory goes that that particular cohort of young adults prone to raping and pillaging, that would have been born to families not equipped to properly raise them, were never born, hence less raping and pillaging. Interesting theory, don't know if it has anything to support it.

Even with evidence this argument would be subjective wouldn't it?

 

[Pozessed]

All of these pros could be solved with better education and easier access to birth control, and I'm not talking about the complete joke that is advocating abstinence.

Except for number 2, which shouldn't be apart of anyone's list of pros or cons.

Your argument ignores the majorities ideals that government has no right to make personal decisions for people.

 

[freethinker44]

I didn't label anyone as poor, you did. I said poverty, aka a constant struggle to survive.

Does it matter? Considering they are synonyms and all.

By the way, that's not exactly what poverty means but I suppose it could be used that way in a stretch. This doesn't add to or take away from the discussion or anything, just that misuse of semantics is a pet peeve of mine. Sorry.

 

[freethinker44]

Your argument ignores the majorities ideals that government has no right to make personal decisions for people.

I wasn't making an argument for or against what you said. It's true, abortion would solve those things. However, better education could prevent the need, for many, to even consider abortion in the first place.

 

[Pozessed]

Does it matter? Considering they are synonyms and all.

By the way, that's not exactly what poverty means but I suppose it could be used that way in a stretch. This doesn't add to or take away from the discussion or anything, just that misuse of semantics is a pet peeve of mine. Sorry.

You realize your assuming people should be, or are as literal as you? Do you have a better way to word to define my description of poverty?