Why women have abortions

[Scott]

Some girls get pregnant when they are way too young and immature to raise a child. It is cruel to allow her to mentally and emotionally damage a kid as she is growing up at the same time.

I think we can agree that if a female is too young and/or immature to raise a child, they shouldn't be doing it. That doesn't really raise whether they should have an abortion or not. I personally believe that a female shouldn't have to carry a pregnancy to term if they don't want to. I think we can agree, however, that if, for whatever reason, a pregnant female who isn't capable of properly raising a child carries their pregnancy to term, that there should be mechanisms so that this child is raised properly. From what I've seen, this simply isn't the case. From what I've read, the primary problem isn't that a female (or male for that matter if the father chooses to care for their child) isn't capable of caring for their child per se, but rather that they don't have the financial resources. Here's an article on the subject:

https://standtogether.org/stories/strong-safe-communities/the-current-foster-care-system-is-broken-heres-why

And while I'm not Christian, this Christian organization seems to have some good points on the current problems within the foster care system:

Acknowledging The Systemic Problems in the US Foster Care System

Explore critical flaws in America's foster care system where 360,000+ children face prolonged stays, overwhelmed caseworkers, and insufficient family support—a broken system in need of urgent reform.

cafo.org

 

[IBDaMann]

The lack of affordable childcare in America is a problem.

The lack of affordable housing is a problem in particular areas; contract killing should be legalized there as a vehicle for addressing the problem.

The lack of universal healthcare is another.

Do you really think that the lack of universal healthcare justifies contract killings?

Then ,school tuition can cripple a family forever.

So you think we should be putting out hits on teenagers?

Having a child can make it impossible for a mother to further her education.

Do you think then that women in such situations should abstain from getting pregnant?

That inhibits the future of mother and child.

Doesn't killing the child severely inhibit the future of the child?

 

[Scott]

As with the word convenient, there are multiple definitions- some would apply in this case, some wouldn't. I'll list the first 3 that I found from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**

• adjective Not convenient, especially.
• adjective Not accessible; hard to reach.
• adjective Not suited to one's comfort, purpose, or needs.

**
Source:

inconvenient — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

The 1st definition refers to convenient, in which case looking at the definitions I saw of convenience would be helpful. Those can be seen here:

convenient — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

The 2nd and 3rd definitions get into the definition directly. I find the third one to be particular educational- in a single definition, it lists 3 things after the "not suited to" bit: comfort, purpose and needs. There is frequently a -vast- difference between what one finds comfortable and what one actually needs. Today, I read an article I found to be quite interesting that gets into the needs part of this equation when it comes to why women have abortions. It can be seen here:

Poverty is the Commonest Reason For Abortion: This is not a choice

www.bmj.com

Let's get back to the words "contract killing" which captures the contractual nature of the killing of a living human.

I think that deep down, you know that this argument is going nowhere. For the audience, IBDaMann believes that abortions are a subset of contract killings. I don't.

 

[Scott]

I think we can agree that if they are sexually active, they haven't stopped having sex.

Exactly. The pregnancy is never "unplanned", just "unwanted". The moment a foreseeable result is accepted, it is planned.

Again, you're mixing up a possible outcome with a planned one. They're not the same thing.

If they were still having sex, the pregnancies were deliberate.

That's like saying if you still drive, any crashes were deliberate.

Nope. It's like saying that if you still drive, the driving is deliberate and a possible crash is totally and deliberately accepted.

Now you're just twisting the metaphor. You said that if a couple is "still having sex, the pregnancies were deliberate". That's just nonsense. The only thing that is deliberate about people having sex is that they are having sex. While getting pregnant is certainly a -possibility- when having sex, there's no evidence that having sex means that any resulting pregnancies are deliberate.

 

[Scott]

No dictionary defines any word.

I've agreed with that point multiple times. Once again, I have never claimed that dictionaries define words. I -have- claimed that dictionaries have -definitions- for words. Here's what ChatGPT had to say on whether dictionaries have definitions for words:

**
Do dictionaries have definitions for words?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes — dictionaries are specifically made to provide definitions for words.

A dictionary entry usually contains:

• The word itself (the headword).
• Its definition(s) — explanations of what the word means in different contexts.
• Often also pronunciation, part of speech (noun, verb, etc.), etymology (origin), and sometimes usage examples.

So, in short: yes, dictionaries do have definitions for words — that’s their core purpose.

Would you like me to explain how dictionaries decide which definition to put first when a word has multiple meanings?
**

I decided to take ChatGPT up on its offer to "explain how dictionaries decide which definition to put first when a word has multiple meanings":

**
Yes please.

ChatGPT said:​

Great question! When a word has multiple meanings, dictionaries need a system for deciding the order of definitions. The approach varies by dictionary, but here are the main methods:

1. Historical order (etymological ordering)
   
   • Some dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), list senses in the order they first appeared in the language.
   • This shows the “history” of the word: earliest meaning → later developments → modern uses.
2. Frequency/importance order
   
   • Many learner’s dictionaries (Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary, Cambridge, Longman) put the most common and widely used meaning first.
   • This helps learners see the sense they are most likely to encounter.
3. Logical or semantic grouping
   
   • Some dictionaries cluster related senses together so readers can see how meanings connect.
   • For example, “head” (body part) might come before “head” (leader) because the second is metaphorically derived from the first.
4. Hybrid approaches
   
   • Some modern dictionaries mix methods: they may start with the most common sense, then order the rest historically or semantically.

So, the order of definitions isn’t random — it’s guided either by the word’s history or by how people use it most today, depending on the dictionary’s purpose.

Would you like me to show you side-by-side examples of the same word defined in different dictionaries, so you can see how the ordering changes?
**

 

[Scott]

The lack of affordable childcare in America is a problem.

The lack of affordable housing is a problem in particular areas; contract killing should be legalized there as a vehicle for addressing the problem.

Care to give an example of a "particular area" where you think that "contract killing should be legalized" as a "vehicle for addressing the problem"? For that matter, I'm curious as to how you're defining "contract killing" here as well.

 

[Scott]

The lack of universal healthcare is another.

Do you really think that the lack of universal healthcare justifies contract killings?

I certainly don't. I -do- believe that a pregnant woman with few financial resources may consider the lack of universal healthcare as at least one reason to have an abortion though.

 

[Scott]

Then ,school tuition can cripple a family forever.

So you think we should be putting out hits on teenagers?

This thread is about why women have abortions. Surely you're aware that abortions can only be had prior to a human being born. Teenagers are well past that point in time.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Have you ever actually spoken with someone who's had an abortion?

A guy that used to work with me's wife had an abortion without telling him. He divorced her. Immediately. He was mad.

 

[Scott]

Having a child can make it impossible for a mother to further her education.

Do you think then that women in such situations should abstain from getting pregnant?

Are you really thinking these questions through? Put another way, do you really think any reasonable person would say "Why no, I think this woman shouldn't abtain from getting pregnant"? I doubt there's a person alive who hasn't made a serious mistake in their lives. Having an abortion is almost always about trying to correct an error that already occurred, the error being someone who didn't want to get pregnant getting pregnant anyway.

 

[Scott]

Having a child can make it impossible for a mother to further her education. That inhibits the future of mother and child.

Doesn't killing the child severely inhibit the future of the child?

As I've mentioned with gfm, the word child is such an ambiguous word. It can mean a fetus, a baby, a teen or even an elderly citizen- we are all the children of our parents. The critical point here is this: is it better for a female to have an abortion when she's not able to properly care for a child and perhaps at a later date, get pregnant again when she -is- ready, or go through with the pregnancy and condemn both her and the child she has to low prospects of having a good life?

 

[Scott]

Have you ever actually spoken with someone who's had an abortion?

A guy that used to work with me's wife had an abortion without telling him. He divorced her. Immediately. He was mad.

I think that was probably fair, for everyone involved. Here's why- I think the wife had a right to have an abortion. I think the husband had a right to get mad at her for having one and also had a right to get divorced for the same reason. What I'd like to know is if they'd ever discussion abortion -prior- to her getting one. I definitely think it's a subject that should be discussed prior to getting married.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I think that was probably fair, for everyone involved. Here's why- I think the wife had a right to have an abortion. I think the husband had a right to get mad at her for having one and also had a right to get divorced for the same reason. What I'd like to know is if they'd ever discussion abortion -prior- to her getting one. I definitely think it's a subject that should be discussed prior to getting married.

I forgot a salient point: She did not tell him she was pregnant or that she aborted their child. He found out afterward and she did not consult him at all.

 

[Scott]

I think that was probably fair, for everyone involved. Here's why- I think the wife had a right to have an abortion. I think the husband had a right to get mad at her for having one and also had a right to get divorced for the same reason. What I'd like to know is if they'd ever discussion abortion -prior- to her getting one. I definitely think it's a subject that should be discussed prior to getting married.

I forgot a salient point: She did not tell him she was pregnant or that she aborted their child. He found out afterward and she did not consult him at all.

I think we could probably agree that they should have had a talk about abortion before they got married. It might have saved both of them a lot of trouble.

 

[Matt Dillon]

I think we could probably agree that they should have had a talk about abortion before they got married. It might have saved both of them a lot of trouble.

Oh, I think she knew he was against it and did it anyway.
She has to live with her choices.

 

[Scott]

Oh, I think she knew he was against it and did it anyway.

Alright, but the fact that you say you think suggests you're not completely sure. Perhaps more importantly, did -he- ever try to find out her views on the subject? My family tends to think I talk too much about my views, but if I do, it's because I've seen first hand what happens when people talk too little about them.

She has to live with her choices.

As do we all.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Alright, but the fact that you say you think suggests you're not completely sure. Perhaps more importantly, did -he- ever try to find out her views on the subject? My family tends to think I talk too much about my views, but if I do, it's because I've seen first hand what happens when people talk too little about them.



As do we all.

She aborted his child without even telling him. That's an egregious violation of trust in a relationship.

 

[IBDaMann]

I think the wife had a right to [kill her husband's child] .

FTFY. You certainly belong in the Party of Death.

I think the husband had a right to get mad at her for having [killed his child] and also had a right to get divorced for the same reason.

FTFY. Don't you think this is rather obvious? I want to meet the person who does not become disturbed when his child is killed.

What I'd like to know is if they'd ever discussion [killing their own children] -prior- to her [doing so].

FTFY. That would be a weird discussion to have.

I definitely think it's a subject that should be discussed prior to getting married.

I'm perfectly happy with never having discussed killing our children with my wife.

 

[IBDaMann]

As do we all.

Well, we might all have to live with our decisions, but your supremacy position holds that women should get to live without being held accountable for their decisions and actions.

 

[IBDaMann]

As I've mentioned with gfm, the word child is such an ambiguous word.

You are mistaken. There is zero ambiguity. "Child" is a relationship. If I refer to your mother, there is no ambiguity.

It can mean a fetus, a baby, a teen or even an elderly citizen- we are all the children of our parents.

Irrelevant. Your child is an element in the set of your children, whenever you get around to accepting math.

The critical point here is this: is it better for a female to [kill her child] when [it would be inconvenient for her] to care for a child

FTFY. I disagree. Many children around the world are allowed to remain alive and are raised in poverty or adversity, and it makes for strong people. I reject your idea that they should all have been killed.