digitrev wrote:I have often heard the argument that the father has no right to tell the mother what to do with her body. I.E. the father has no right to make a decision directly affecting the mother. However, these same people often also wish for the father to somehow provide for the mother and her child. The mother's decision not to abort requires that the father be financially responsible for the mother and the child. I.E. the mother has a right to make a decision directly affecting the father.
Agreed. See my statements regarding the male-equivelent of abortion (essentially disavowing any bond, rights, and responsibilities associated with the child prior to its birth) in the thread above.
In Canada, in 2003, 104 248 abortions occurred. I not aware of the total cost this incurred, but at a fairly conservative estimate of roughly $10 for the procedure, and $20 incurred over the recovery time, this incurs a cost of roughly $3 million. Factor in an amount of time spent in a hospital while recovering (56 429 abortions while at hospitals) which could be used for people who have a higher need of this space and time. This is a fairly high cost, with respect to money, space, and time.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. That abortion is too costly for society? That gets into a whole slew of arguments, for example "What the hell is the purpose of a prosperous society except to provide for the needs and wants of its citizens." But before we even get that far, consider:
Giving birth takes up a vastly larger amount of all of the above assets. Medical resources, money, recovery time, and so on. A birth procedure costs more, the mother is hospitalized longer, more doctors are tied up for a longer period of time, the bed is occupied longer, space in the nursery is occupied "longer" (i.e., "at all"), and then you have maternity leave, family leave, etcetera, sapping potential money from the collective workforce.
Add to that the cost of feeding and housing the child, who may or may not grow up to be a productive adult, and in fact has a lower probability of doing so as it will not receive the same degree of care, given that its parent(s) will, on average, be younger, less prepared, less skilled, less wealthy, and generally will want the kid less.
Then add the cost to the criminal justice system for handling the offspring of these "unwanted" pregnancies, which are statistically more likely to engage in both petty and major crime.
If you're arguing from a financial/resources point of view, abortion is a godsend, and giving birth borders on being unpardonably selfish and destructive.
digitrev wrote:However, I personally believe that this time, money, and space would be much better spent on drastically improving the adoption system. However, I do not know the numbers behind this, so I can't say for sure whether or not this would have a large effect on the quality of life in adoption clinics.
See the money, time, and space I refer to above. Apply the same principle.
Finally, I would ask you fellow forum goers to refrain from any ad hominem arguments, and deal strictly with what I said.
In the future, know that such a statement is an implied assumption that we otherwise *would* engage in such arguments, and can be considered insulting.