# How has legal abortion harmed society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359 "2009-06-01T14:52:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/81 "2009-06-02T11:26:45Z")
> [@Amara\_1](#): > > Ectopic pregnancy is pretty well known. In ectopic pregnancy the embryo has no chance of developing into a fetus. Therefore, it has no chance of reaching viability. > [@Amara\_1](#): > > Diabetes can be one. A lady I know has type I diabetes but she really, really wanted a baby. And so did her husband. Against the advice of her doctors, she got pregnant and eventually suffered organ damage and went into a coma. Her family made her husband consent to an abortion so that she could live. She recovered and he eventually left her because she could not have children. If the fetus was viable and the parents both wanted it to live, why on earth would they have aborted it instead of delivering it live? > [@Amara\_1](#): > > Congenital heart defect is another case. I had some problems with my first pregnancy that led both the obgyn and a cardiologist to think that I had a previously undiagnosed congenital heart defect (especially because of my family medical history). I was told that it was rare but it does happen and, because of my symptoms, that I would have to abort very quickly and have emergency heart surgery if the tests had come back positive. They were so concerned that they were trying to set up counseling right away for me. Again, this sounds like your issues were discovered early in the pregnancy. I’m having trouble imagining that you would have agreed to abort the baby if it could have been born alive. In case my previous two posts have not made it clear, I support a woman’s right to choose abortion for medical or any other reason in the early stages of pregnancy when the vast majority of abortions occur. I understand that any number of medical conditions could lead a woman to choose abortion in the later stages of pregnancy. What I’m looking for is a situation where baby could be delivered alive but doing so would greatly increase the risk to the mother’s life, compared to purposely aborting. For example, say a woman is a hemofiliac (I think that’s the right term) in her ninth month. The doctor has determined that an emergency C-section is necessary for the baby’s survival, but the operation is too risky for the mother. In this situation, the doctor would ATTEMPT to deliver the baby vaginally even if there was little chance of success. This would not be abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/82 "2009-06-02T13:13:28Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > [QUOTE=Amara\_] > Diabetes can be one. A lady I know has type I diabetes but she really, really wanted a baby. And so did her husband. Against the advice of her doctors, she got pregnant and eventually suffered organ damage and went into a coma. Her family made her husband consent to an abortion so that she could live. She recovered and he eventually left her because she could not have children. If the fetus was viable and the parents both wanted it to live, why on earth would they have aborted it instead of delivering it live? [/QUOTE] Like it says in the quote, “so that she could live”. Not everyone regards a woman as nothing more than an expendable womb. ---
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/83 "2009-06-02T13:31:47Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I doubt that **palindromeemordnilap** is a doctor or (s)he would know that 5 women out of every 10,000 get eclampsia and that about 2% of them die of it during or shortly after the birth of their children. > > Hell **palindromeemordnilap** , come to think of it, I would hope that even non-doctors would know that women die in child birth sometimes. Do you think all of these fatalities were complete flukes? That the attending physicians had no idea that the mother’s life was in danger before the labor? Are you willing to legislate around this without knowing all the facts, just because you have never heard about a case? Who are you to second guess the experts in this regard? There’s nothing here that explains why delivery is more dangerous than abortion in these situations. In fact, the medical literature on eclampsia recommends delivery even if the fetus is immature. If you are an ob-gyn and have recommended abortion as the only safe course to women with symptoms of eclampsia, you should have your license revoked for giving advice leading to the unnecessary death of a baby. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/84 "2009-06-02T13:56:18Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > There’s nothing here that explains why delivery is more dangerous than abortion in these situations. Abortion is always safer. > [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > In fact, the medical literature on eclampsia recommends delivery even if the fetus is immature. This, according to the person who didn’t even know what an ectopic pregnancy was ? I get the distinct impression your knowledge of “medical literature” is confined to what you see on anti-abortion websites. > [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > If you are an ob-gyn and have recommended abortion as the only safe course to women with symptoms of eclampsia, you should have your license revoked for giving advice leading to the unnecessary death of a baby. Even if it’s true, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/85 "2009-06-02T14:08:35Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > Really? In all these 25 years you have never heard of pre-eclampsia? > > This is actually not that uncommon. It’s one of those things where, the longer you can wait to deliver the baby, the better the chance that the baby will live. But the greater the chance that the mother will die, or have a stroke. > > I believe in most of the cases the baby is delivered (because in the third trimester, and most of the second trimester, abortion and delivery are pretty much the same thing), but without massive intervention the baby has no chance, and even with medical intervention a low birth weight baby doesn’t have a great chance. The fact is that delivering the baby is not a lot better than killing the baby, but it’s a lot less expensive. Pre-eclampsia is exceedingly difficult to diagnose because the symptoms mimic more common problems associated with pregnancy, such as heartburn. Pre-eclampsia must be considered a possibility when these symptoms appear after the 20th week. I doubt that many women change their minds about having a baby due to these symptoms but if some do, I would argue that they have right to end the pregnancy. This online source and others indicate that preeclampsia can be managed until the 37th week when delivery is recommended. Apparently the prognosis for a healthy fetus is quite good. [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/000898.htm](http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/000898.htm) As you note, abortion and delivery are pretty much the same thing in the later stages of pregnancy. So if a woman chooses to end her pregnancy due to pre-eclampsia symptoms at a point when delivery is an option, then delivery is a preferable choice to abortion (because the baby may live rather than automatically being killed). Most women would probably wait to see if symptoms consistent with pre-eclampsia develop into actual eclampsia, in which case delivery is virtually always an option and abortion should not be considered. You make an interesting argument that the cost of delivery versus the cost of abortion should be a factor in the decision. I respectfully disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/86 "2009-06-02T14:08:58Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > The guys over at [Freakonomics](http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/) make a plausible case that the legalization of abortion has been good for society in that it has caused a [decrease in the crime rate](http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf). A very interesting article. I personally don’t think that abortion has harmed society. In fact, there is another argument to be made that abortion reduces the demands on social services and frees up resources that would be better applied elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/87 "2009-06-02T15:02:51Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Meh. If you make no distinction between a first trimester embryo (which has not developed organs, including the nervous system) and a sick or homeless adult (or child for that matter), we are not going to be able to have a conversation. For the record, I am pro-choice but I find late term abortion repugnant and would be willing to limit it severely (health of the mother, fetus non-viability). I do find this whole “every sperm is sacred” crap stupid. Dr Butts, you misquote me. You are inventing ignorance and trying to pass it off as a quote by Rhodes. You don’t know shit about my beliefs regarding first trimester embryos. I have not discussed this issue on this forum, and when I have discussed it elsewhere I have not made the absurd claims that you imply. I also find the sacred sperm crap to be stupid. For the record, my thoughts are exactly in line with Cecil’s, as well as several other people posting on this debate. A first trimester embryo obviously has potential to become a person. It also has a unique human genome. But it has no thoughts, no feelings, no emotions. I see a HUGE “distinction” between an embryo and an adult. I use contraceptives, and I can see huge benefits to society from early abortions. I do not, however, make a distinction between a newborn baby and a soon-to-be-born fetus. Both have developed organs, thoughts, emotions, and a right to equal protection. Even though both are basically parasites relying on their mother 100%. The OP, as you will recall, was whether legal abortion has harmed society. I agreed that it has actually benefitted society. I also implied that lots of actions may benefit society but still be immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/88 "2009-06-02T15:36:14Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Cows? Sheep? Bacteria? Cancerous growths? Appendixes? > > The trick to argument by analogy is that you have to first draw a parallel. Unless you can sell that a fetus is a “person”, analogies based on that assumption don’t fly. > And personally, I’m all in favor of allowing a woman to elect to kill any person who is stuck in their womb and cannot be removed without dying. Even if they _are_ homeless or sick. What do you think? Excellent. I am in favor of killing cows, sheep, bacteria, cancerous growths, and appendixes. Obvious benefit to society. Whether a fetus is a “person” has probably been discussed extensively in other threads. I’m of the opinion that if it looks like a person, acts like a person, and thinks like a person, then IMHO it’s probably not a sheep or an appendix. But I see how you may get confused. My question remains: would society benefit from legalizing the execution of homeless people? They are a burden on us. They can be dangerous. And if it benefits society, does that make it moral? ---
**Author:** ![Pazu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pazu/32/15522_2.png) [@Pazu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pazu)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/89 "2009-06-02T15:52:08Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > Most women would probably wait to see if symptoms consistent with pre-eclampsia develop into actual eclampsia, in which case delivery is virtually always an option and abortion should not be considered. Absolutely not! :eek: Leaving aside everything else, I don’t know if you believe yourself a physician, but no ob-gyn in their right mind would, if given the choice, “wait to see if symptoms consistent with pre-eclampsia develop into actual eclampsia”. Pre-eclampsia requires treatment so that it doesn’t progress to eclampsia, and patients who do not respond to therapy (progressing from mild to severe pre-eclampsia even under treatment) generally require delivery regardless of gestational age. The same holds true for the 25% or so of women who go straight from mild pre-eclampsia to full-blown eclampsia. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/90 "2009-06-02T16:37:46Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > My question remains: would society benefit from legalizing the execution of homeless people? They are a burden on us. They can be dangerous. I don’t know… are they camping out in my body? If a homeless person (or any stranger) came into my house, wouldn’t I technically have the right to defend myself to the point of killing him or her, in many states? (not to hijack too much.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/91 "2009-06-02T16:41:16Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > Excellent. I am in favor of killing cows, sheep, bacteria, cancerous growths, and appendixes. Obvious benefit to society. > > Whether a fetus is a “person” has probably been discussed extensively in other threads. I’m of the opinion that if it looks like a person, acts like a person, and thinks like a person, then IMHO it’s probably not a sheep or an appendix. But I see how you may get confused. Well, a fetus at an early stage doesn’t think at all, so no problem with abortions then, eh? Carl Sagan suggested making the cut off when substantial brain activity has started, which is a reasonable compromise, at least. > [@](#): > > My question remains: would society benefit from legalizing the execution of homeless people? They are a burden on us. They can be dangerous. > > And if it benefits society, does that make it moral? That’s not the discussion. The reason to allow choice is that there is no way of getting closure on this issue, since it is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Given that, women should have the right to their bodies (including the right to not have an abortion, of course) unless there is significant harm to society. Given that no one has come up with any, abortion should be legal. That legal abortion actually has benefits is lagniappe. BTW, do you think that people with fatal illnesses should be allowed to terminate their own lives with dignity, or is this another place where the state knows better? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/92 "2009-06-02T16:46:09Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yep…early 60’s although that is just for the oral contraceptive. Other contraceptive methods have existed long before that albeit not as effective or simple. > > I doubt oral contraception was the issue here though. First I would presume it’d take time for oral contraception to become mainstream. Second, I think the dip was precipitated more by the baby boom bubble. From 1945 - 1960(ish) we had the post-war spike in births (the baby boom). Once those families were settled with all the kids they wanted there was a predictable dip. By 1960 the parents who generated the baby bubble were done. Their kids were, at most, 15 or so and not likely to have kids for another 10 years or so. Add in women’s lib which was picking up steam and more young women attending college than in the past and there is your dip. Eventually those people wanted kids too so the slide flattened out. I posted an article a ways back regarding the inventor of the oral contraceptive being very upset about the results, being that birth rates started to plummet after that. I think it would really matter to check out in nations across the board. As it is with demographics the best you can do is draw a strong corrolation, as there are always multiple factors involved in anything. But if we looked at demographic data on multiple nations, like in the US and Europe we might be able to see. Did European Nations have the same 40s Baby Boom that we did? A friend of mine who works at the state department is very into this kind of stuff, and he tries to get people to study it, he says that in the departments he knows, people are simply not that interested in these demographic issues because they see it as tomorrow’s problem. So the result is that this work just largely isn’t being done on a wide scale to see what the factors that have lead to widespread demographic collapse are. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/93 "2009-06-02T17:01:41Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > For example, say a woman is a hemofiliac (I think that’s the right term) in her ninth month. The doctor has determined that an emergency C-section is necessary for the baby’s survival, but the operation is too risky for the mother. In this situation, the doctor would ATTEMPT to deliver the baby vaginally even if there was little chance of success. This would not be abortion. _bangs head against keyboard_ Are you talking about [hemophilia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemophiliac)? The “royal disease”? First, hemophilia affects men – a women can only be a hemophiliac if her father was a hemophiliac who conceived with a hemophiliac carrier. (The chances of which, are fairly rare – and the few recorded cases – single digits – usually died when they started to menstruate). Women are carriers, who pass the gene on to their offspring – but only their sons can actually be affected. Their daughters have the potential to pass the gene on as well, but they will not be infected. MEN who are infected will not pass it on to their sons, but ALL of their daughters will be carriers. So, if you’re going to give us medical scenarios, at least come up with something that’s actually, I dunno, _possible_? But okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you had a hemophiliac woman, the chances of her surviving even a ROUTINE pregnancy would be slim to none. In fact, I suspect her doctor would reccomend she adopt, rather than risk pregnancy. _sigh_ :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: (And thus, this proves my point as to how it has harmed society – by endless debates like this one!!!) ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/94 "2009-06-02T17:25:29Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > I don’t know… are they camping out in my body? > > If a homeless person (or any stranger) came into my house, wouldn’t I technically have the right to defend myself to the point of killing him or her, in many states? > > (not to hijack too much.) Yep, I’d say home invaders can also be killed for the benefit of society. And that IMO it’s moral. I’d also suggest that maybe a fetus is not a home invader, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. Except in cases of rape, the mother accidently invited the fetus into the womb. If I bring someone into my home and then find him to be extremely disagreeable, I may have a legal right to kill him, but I doubt that it’s a moral imperative. But you’re also correct that we’re getting a little off-topic. I apologize to anyone who feels I’ve contributed to hijacking this thread. I’m really not trying to raise the debate as to whether a sperm is a person, an egg is a person, an embryo is a person, a fetus is a person, a newborn baby is a person, or a home invader is a person. There are other threads for that discusssion, and if we were to discuss it in length there I think most of my critics would find that I agree with them. The OP is “How has legal abortion harmed society?” Which naturally raises the questions “Has legal abortion harmed society?” and “Has legal abortion benefitted society.” Is it too far off-topic to ask “If legal abortion benefits society, then does that necessarily make it moral?” ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/95 "2009-06-02T17:32:05Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > Yep, I’d say home invaders can also be killed for the benefit of society. And that IMO it’s moral. > > I’d also suggest that maybe a fetus is not a home invader, if that’s what you’re trying to imply. Except in cases of rape, the mother accidently invited the fetus into the womb. What is the couple was using birth control? Then the woman is definitely NOT inviting a fetus into her womb, accidentally or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/96 "2009-06-02T17:44:03Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > With all the brouhaha over Dr. Tiller’s death and the subject in general, other than totally dividing the country (and making abortion illegal again is not going to solve that problem, nosiree) how has it harmed society? There are unalterable spiritual laws, one such law is you reap what you sow, sometimes called karma, and there are many other forms of this widely accepted belief. As such aborting a person is basically throwing them out of the human family. There is simply no record of them ever existing, no name, no SS#, no certificate of death, no tombstone, and most mothers of aborted children refuse to acknowledge that they had that child. Look around in society at the people who are thrown away, homeless, jailed, phyc patients confined at hospitals. I’ve talked to some of these people, most of them got involved in things like drugs/sex/other to releave the pain that they are just not treated like a person and thrown out of human society. There really is nothing ‘wrong’ with these people, ‘normal’ people are not somehow better then them, they are not ‘defective’, they just are not recognized as part of the human family. This I believe has been revealed to me is a direct result of abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/97 "2009-06-02T17:49:00Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > What is the couple was using birth control? Then the woman is definitely NOT inviting a fetus into her womb, accidentally or otherwise. Well, we can argue over whether failed birth control is an accident or a malicious act by a hostile sperm. But that results in an _embryo_. Allowing that embryo to develop into a fetus is definitely an invitation. If your birth control fails, accident or not, you’ve got plenty of time to stop a fetus from developing if you are so inclined. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/98 "2009-06-02T18:09:18Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > Dr Butts, you misquote me. You are inventing ignorance and trying to pass it off as a quote by Rhodes. > > You don’t know shit about my beliefs regarding first trimester embryos. I have not discussed this issue on this forum, and when I have discussed it elsewhere I have not made the absurd claims that you imply. I also find the sacred sperm crap to be stupid. > > For the record, my thoughts are exactly in line with Cecil’s, as well as several other people posting on this debate. A first trimester embryo obviously has potential to become a person. It also has a unique human genome. But it has no thoughts, no feelings, no emotions. I see a HUGE “distinction” between an embryo and an adult. I use contraceptives, and I can see huge benefits to society from early abortions. > > I do not, however, make a distinction between a newborn baby and a soon-to-be-born fetus. Both have developed organs, thoughts, emotions, and a right to equal protection. Even though both are basically parasites relying on their mother 100%. > > The OP, as you will recall, was whether legal abortion has harmed society. I agreed that it has actually benefitted society. I also implied that lots of actions may benefit society but still be immoral. Thank you for the clarification. Please accept my apology for ascribing belief to you that you do not hold. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/99 "2009-06-02T18:21:45Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > There are unalterable spiritual laws, one such law is you reap what you sow, sometimes called karma, and there are many other forms of this widely accepted belief. As such aborting a person is basically throwing them out of the human family. There is simply no record of them ever existing, no name, no SS#, no certificate of death, no tombstone, and most mothers of aborted children refuse to acknowledge that they had that child. > > Look around in society at the people who are thrown away, homeless, jailed, phyc patients confined at hospitals. I’ve talked to some of these people, most of them got involved in things like drugs/sex/other to releave the pain that they are just not treated like a person and thrown out of human society. There really is nothing ‘wrong’ with these people, ‘normal’ people are not somehow better then them, they are not ‘defective’, they just are not recognized as part of the human family. > > This I believe has been revealed to me is a direct result of abortion. You also believed it was better for a [nine-year-old rape victim to risk a most-likely fatal pregnancy than abort](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10947814&postcount=106). ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359/100 "2009-06-02T20:02:27Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > There are unalterable spiritual laws, one such law is you reap what you sow, sometimes called karma, and there are many other forms of this widely accepted belief. As such aborting a person is basically throwing them out of the human family. There is simply no record of them ever existing, no name, no SS#, no certificate of death, no tombstone, and most mothers of aborted children refuse to acknowledge that they had that child. > > Look around in society at the people who are thrown away, homeless, jailed, phyc patients confined at hospitals. I’ve talked to some of these people, most of them got involved in things like drugs/sex/other to releave the pain that they are just not treated like a person and thrown out of human society. There really is nothing ‘wrong’ with these people, ‘normal’ people are not somehow better then them, they are not ‘defective’, they just are not recognized as part of the human family. > > This I believe has been revealed to me is a direct result of abortion. I don’t get it. Are you talking about neglected children or children put into the foster system? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-has-legal-abortion-harmed-society/498359.md?page=6)