In a Recession, Abortions Are Not a Bad Choice

Reader Comments
Back to blog

cool this dose souport my side of debeat

yomama of OH 8:53AM November 15, 2012

they were not making a decision whether or not to to add a fourth child, they had, indeed, already done so. They were making a decision whether or not to take the life of their fourth child.....as we all pretend this was not a developing human being -- if she was already getting pre-natal care, we can assume at very least 6-8 weeks along, a developing babe, already with a beating heart, and measurable brain waves. They did not kill any of their other children because the boyfriend lost his job, and they only take the life of this one, because we as a society deny the humanity of this child in the interest of having less people dependent of food stamps. Some people abort because their birth control failed, and they see abortion as back up birth control, she actually planned this pregnancy. We all as a society need to regain our humanity, so we do not see dismembering a fetus (Latin, meaning, "young one") and sucking him or her forcibly from the womb as an answer to job loss.

Sarai of OR 10:40PM October 11, 2012

So many anti-abortions nuts that are flaming the author and are hypocrites to boot.
If any of these people don't want an abortion, then don't have one, and please have a responsible sex life. Practice what you preach.
So many tout adoption as the cure-all yet how many of these actually adopt? What about all the kids that are minorities or special needs kids (like children born addicted i.e); these don't kids don't get adopted as much as "the cute white healthy babies" and languish in foster care until 18 when the government turns them out. How about making it easier for those who want to adopt such kids but can't because the adopters MUST be part of a heterosexual couple? Hmmm, how anti-abortionists support gay adoption or single adoption? I bet not a lot.
These anti-abortionists need to put there money where their mouth is. Do they support HIGHER PERMANENT taxes and MORE government social involved programs to actually help these women and girls to be able to keep their children? Again, I bet not a lot. Do their churches care anything about these women ONCE the child is born? Or do they refer that female back to the "government assistance?" The churches have enough money for political contributions and not enough to help a woman out for a few years after the child is born so she can get on her feet and support that kid without fear of poverty? I bet not a lot churches actually care enough to really do that, but they could if they really wanted to.
How about going after the men that father these kids? Ostracizing those who refuse to have a responsible sex life? How many are willing to do that for real? Again, not a lot.
A consistent commitment to helping these women out might actually DECREASE abortions and supporting birth control ( too many anti-abortionists don't support birth control pill usage, sterilizations, etc.) What we have today isn't enough because it isn't infallible and better, honest promotion of responsible birth control use could actually decrease abortions.

Realist101 of CA 11:36AM January 22, 2012

The author is right. Having children that you can't support is unconscionable. Fruitcakes who somehow want to tie this in to Obama notwithstanding...
Peeved, who states he can't see how not having kids you can't support helps society, clearly didn't read the rest of the article.
And Phyllis Hammonds of NC needs to work on her reading comprehension skills.
--Samiam--

Sam888 of CA 9:27PM April 01, 2011

Its quite ironic that the Obama campaign and supporters kept proclaiming this message of "hope." This article - and I'm sure the author is an Obama supporter - is the epitome of despair and nihilism. Contraception and abortion are basically society committing a slow and protracted suicide.
Where there is new life, there is hope. And taking innocent life is a sign of despair.
I, for one, will decline Obama's and this woman's false "hope" for people and our society.

pearls of IL 2:49PM November 18, 2010

And I don't see how it's a "good thing" and how it actually "helps society,". It's high time society helps it's damned self and killing a baby is not helping it.

In The South Peeved of GA 2:09AM August 03, 2010

It is murder,no matter how one views it.The economy is not the fetus fault.The man and woman knowing they couldn.t afford anymore children could have gone to get free medical help,everyone else does or try to prevent getting pregnant to begin with.She could have put the baby up for adoption.God trusted them with the life of this baby.God would have helped with the needs.God gives life and He should be the only one to decide to take it away.Life is a gift and everyone should be able to experience life.

Phyllis Hammonds of NC 10:42PM June 28, 2010

Let's sacrifice the lives of the inconvenient for the good of society.
Isn't it interesting how Erbe turned how the woman "re-evaluated expenses" and turned it into "trouble feeding themselves"?
At the end of the day, Bonnie Erbe is a Nazi.

JP Prichard of CA 3:10PM June 16, 2010

I was pregnant about 3 months ago. Today I should be about 26 pregnant
weeks but I am not pregnant. This is not something I chose and it broke my heart that I lost my baby. I do not understand how a woman can kill their child. It is not something I would ever do no matter how poor I become. I believe all life has value,

emily of MN 7:27PM November 30, 2009

Bonnie Erbie's blatant disregard for human life is appalling. There are so many (free) support services for people who may be in the position of the family in this article that abortion is completely unnecessary. This author has used a simple economic model to justify taking a human life!Incredible! Have you told your family that when you become a burden on them someday that they can kill you too?

Ryan Cresswell of VA 1:53AM September 25, 2009