AlonzoMourning23
Feb. 27, 2008, 08:10 PM
Yes, I'm pro-abortion. I don't mean pro-choice, I don't mean pro-abortion in cases of incest or rape, I mean that I'm pro-abortion. I'm pro-abortion because abortion is a great benefit to society. Now I'm not saying that I want to go out and kill fetuses for fun, that would be indicative of serious psychological problems, though barring late term fetuses I admittedly don't care one way or another about what happens to a fetus. It would be even better if these pregnancies didn't happen at all, but they occur at an astronomical rate that there is no real hope of removing the need for massive amounts of abortion.
We have significant issues with young mothers quitting school which means they have less opportunity to obtain quality jobs, and their children often lack the advantages that quality jobs can provide, such as quality schooling, safe and secure neighborhoods and quality health care. 31% of women will become pregnant as teenagers (link. What can we expect of a teenage mother who suddenly has a child to support? Statistically not much. Only one third of mothers who had children before the age of 18 graduated high school, and only 1% graduated college. It only gets worse from there. Over 75% of unmarried teen parents began receiving welfare within 5 years, are twice as likely to abuse or neglect their children versus mothers who wait until at least their twenties, and the children of these mothers are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school link Between 1991 and 2002 teen birth rates dropped 30% link. What if this had not happened? Estimates are that an additional 406 thousand children would be living in poverty, an increase over the current rate by 8.3% link. Everything from economics to even crime rates can be tied to teenage pregnancies, and both reduced teen birth rates and access to abortion have been associated with reduced crime rates (link).
The cost is economic as well, as 9 billion dollars a year of federal funding is spent on families that originated with a teenage birth, and an additional 1 billion is spent on children who had to be removed from their parents due to abuse or otherwise improper care. link Considering children of these families are themselves are much more likely to live in poverty themselves, and to become pregnant as teens themselves, how much is saved in the future if we were to reduce the amount of children teens have?
Studies have found that children of unintended pregnancies, largely due to the lack of abortion availability or refusal to seek abortion, are at increased risk for a host of problems, and this is not an indication that they aren't loved by parents. One study in particular paired children of unwanted pregnancies with children of intended pregnancies. Both groups were born to healthy, intact marriages to women of similar socioeconomic status. They performed poorer in school, despite having equivalent IQ test scores. They performed poorer socially and were more likely to be described as problem children by both teachers and parents. By their early 20's they reported less satisfactory romantic relationships, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors. By their 30's they showed higher rates of mental health problems. (link). Such widely divergent ends and the only significant difference at the start was whether or not the pregnancy was intended.
Beyond the affects on human societies, there is simply no need for additional humans. Humans have steadily taken away land, forests and resources that are essential to wildlife, and have polluted the lands they have directly claimed and in many cases simply decimated, if not wiped out, many species. From pollution of rivers, destroying of forests, and overfishing of oceans, stabilization of the human population, or even a reduction of it, is a significant step towards reducing the harm we inflict on the environment.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environm...robey.html
About 25% of all pregnancies in the u.s. end in abortion (link), and about 35% of women will have an abortion by age 35 (link). In the united states alone, since Roe vs. Wade, we'd be looking at about 50 million (47 millions at the end of 2005, and an estimate of about 2.5 million in 2006 and 2007) additional births (link). Our consumption levels are through the roof with 300 million people, and for Americans it's at rates far beyond what is even remotely sustainable if we had 2 planets.
To clarify, my view on the environmental benefit abortion provides isn't some anti-human rant either, instead it's a pro-environment and, to some degree, even a pro-human argument. We simply do not need population growth, it's detrimental to the well beings of the humans already born and everything else on this planet. It's not some sadistic rant about how we should kill people or some barbaric "[censored] em all" rant. But with abortion we have a method of preventing an even higher level of population growth without harming anyone who can actually feel harm or even understands what harm is. Simply put, the more humans there are the more destruction will be placed upon the environment, the more resources will dry up, and the more poverty misery will fall upon populations. And with things such as water and resources being used up, what is there will become much more valuable and risks fueling wars in areas where such resources are scarce.
With abortion the environment benefits from not having to provide for more humans, teenage and young women benefit from not being saddled with a baby they aren't equipped to take care of, and society benefits from having less people who need the help of social programs, or who are simply unequipped to get ahead. With more abortion there will be a lower percentage of abused and neglected children, there will be less women and their children in poverty, more people will be able to hold quality jobs and receive education. There will also be more money for programs designed to benefit those in poverty and others in need, as there will not be 9 billion dollars a year being spent on these families, and untold billions spent on the results of these children who often end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty or, in a worse case scenario, end up in the criminal justice system. For people in poverty who need every bit they have to advance in lives, and hopefully one day be able to provide children with a stable family in safe environment conducive to success in life, an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating to their future.
If you want my opinion, if you're a teenage pregnant woman then have an abortion. Even if you want the child consider how your current situation will will affect your future and your ability to parent. If you are considering the abortion then err on the side of caution and have the abortion. If the pregnancy is unwanted have the abortion. If you are not financially able to care for it have the abortion. If you are drug addicted have the abortion, and if you're in school or plan to be then have the abortion. People should have children only when they have established their lives and have a stable place in the world. They should not be attempting to raise a child when they really don't even know who they are yet or where they're going.
Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But they should be, since society necessitates it for so many reasons, safe, legal and frequent. As to the medical procedure of abortion I'm indifferent. Get one, don't get one, unless it's more than 6 months old I don't really give a damn either way, and even then I wouldn't want to prevent anyone who wants an abortion to have one. Better that than an unwanted child.
We have significant issues with young mothers quitting school which means they have less opportunity to obtain quality jobs, and their children often lack the advantages that quality jobs can provide, such as quality schooling, safe and secure neighborhoods and quality health care. 31% of women will become pregnant as teenagers (link. What can we expect of a teenage mother who suddenly has a child to support? Statistically not much. Only one third of mothers who had children before the age of 18 graduated high school, and only 1% graduated college. It only gets worse from there. Over 75% of unmarried teen parents began receiving welfare within 5 years, are twice as likely to abuse or neglect their children versus mothers who wait until at least their twenties, and the children of these mothers are twice as likely to repeat a grade in school link Between 1991 and 2002 teen birth rates dropped 30% link. What if this had not happened? Estimates are that an additional 406 thousand children would be living in poverty, an increase over the current rate by 8.3% link. Everything from economics to even crime rates can be tied to teenage pregnancies, and both reduced teen birth rates and access to abortion have been associated with reduced crime rates (link).
The cost is economic as well, as 9 billion dollars a year of federal funding is spent on families that originated with a teenage birth, and an additional 1 billion is spent on children who had to be removed from their parents due to abuse or otherwise improper care. link Considering children of these families are themselves are much more likely to live in poverty themselves, and to become pregnant as teens themselves, how much is saved in the future if we were to reduce the amount of children teens have?
Studies have found that children of unintended pregnancies, largely due to the lack of abortion availability or refusal to seek abortion, are at increased risk for a host of problems, and this is not an indication that they aren't loved by parents. One study in particular paired children of unwanted pregnancies with children of intended pregnancies. Both groups were born to healthy, intact marriages to women of similar socioeconomic status. They performed poorer in school, despite having equivalent IQ test scores. They performed poorer socially and were more likely to be described as problem children by both teachers and parents. By their early 20's they reported less satisfactory romantic relationships, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors. By their 30's they showed higher rates of mental health problems. (link). Such widely divergent ends and the only significant difference at the start was whether or not the pregnancy was intended.
Beyond the affects on human societies, there is simply no need for additional humans. Humans have steadily taken away land, forests and resources that are essential to wildlife, and have polluted the lands they have directly claimed and in many cases simply decimated, if not wiped out, many species. From pollution of rivers, destroying of forests, and overfishing of oceans, stabilization of the human population, or even a reduction of it, is a significant step towards reducing the harm we inflict on the environment.
Quote: Forests: Nearly half of the world's original forest cover has been lost, and each year another 16 million hectares are cut, bulldozed, or burned. Forests provide over US$400 billion to the world economy annually and are vital to maintaining healthy ecosystems. Yet, current demand for forest products may exceed the limit of sustainable consumption by 25%.
Biodiversity: The earth's biological diversity is crucial to the continued vitality of agriculture and medicine -- and perhaps even to life on earth itself. Yet human activities are pushing many thousands of plant and animal species into extinction. Two of every three species is estimated to be in decline.
Stabilizing population: While population growth has slowed, the absolute number of people continues to increase -- by about 1 billion every 13 years. Slowing population growth would help improve living standards and would buy time to protect natural resources. In the long run, to sustain higher living standards, world population size must stabilize.
As population and demand for natural resources continue to grow, environmental limits will become increasingly apparent.6 Water shortages are expected to affect nearly 3 billion people in 2025, with sub-Saharan Africa worst affected.2 Many countries could avoid environmental crises if they took steps now to conserve and manage supplies and demand better, while slowing population growth by providing families and individuals with information and services needed to make informed choices about reproductive health.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environm...robey.html
About 25% of all pregnancies in the u.s. end in abortion (link), and about 35% of women will have an abortion by age 35 (link). In the united states alone, since Roe vs. Wade, we'd be looking at about 50 million (47 millions at the end of 2005, and an estimate of about 2.5 million in 2006 and 2007) additional births (link). Our consumption levels are through the roof with 300 million people, and for Americans it's at rates far beyond what is even remotely sustainable if we had 2 planets.
To clarify, my view on the environmental benefit abortion provides isn't some anti-human rant either, instead it's a pro-environment and, to some degree, even a pro-human argument. We simply do not need population growth, it's detrimental to the well beings of the humans already born and everything else on this planet. It's not some sadistic rant about how we should kill people or some barbaric "[censored] em all" rant. But with abortion we have a method of preventing an even higher level of population growth without harming anyone who can actually feel harm or even understands what harm is. Simply put, the more humans there are the more destruction will be placed upon the environment, the more resources will dry up, and the more poverty misery will fall upon populations. And with things such as water and resources being used up, what is there will become much more valuable and risks fueling wars in areas where such resources are scarce.
With abortion the environment benefits from not having to provide for more humans, teenage and young women benefit from not being saddled with a baby they aren't equipped to take care of, and society benefits from having less people who need the help of social programs, or who are simply unequipped to get ahead. With more abortion there will be a lower percentage of abused and neglected children, there will be less women and their children in poverty, more people will be able to hold quality jobs and receive education. There will also be more money for programs designed to benefit those in poverty and others in need, as there will not be 9 billion dollars a year being spent on these families, and untold billions spent on the results of these children who often end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty or, in a worse case scenario, end up in the criminal justice system. For people in poverty who need every bit they have to advance in lives, and hopefully one day be able to provide children with a stable family in safe environment conducive to success in life, an unwanted pregnancy can be devastating to their future.
If you want my opinion, if you're a teenage pregnant woman then have an abortion. Even if you want the child consider how your current situation will will affect your future and your ability to parent. If you are considering the abortion then err on the side of caution and have the abortion. If the pregnancy is unwanted have the abortion. If you are not financially able to care for it have the abortion. If you are drug addicted have the abortion, and if you're in school or plan to be then have the abortion. People should have children only when they have established their lives and have a stable place in the world. They should not be attempting to raise a child when they really don't even know who they are yet or where they're going.
Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But they should be, since society necessitates it for so many reasons, safe, legal and frequent. As to the medical procedure of abortion I'm indifferent. Get one, don't get one, unless it's more than 6 months old I don't really give a damn either way, and even then I wouldn't want to prevent anyone who wants an abortion to have one. Better that than an unwanted child.