There is that word again.
Are they choosing to end the life of a human? Yes. 100% yes they are choosing to end the life of a human being. The arguments in such cases are over it being compassionate for the afflicted, not that the family member isn't a human or that it is empowering for the ones who don't want to visit the hospital anymore because it is like boring and totally cramping their social life.
Sometimes the argument/reason for abortion is also over it being compassionate for the fetus rather than that its not human or whatever.
Ok, you make a good argument for abortion. Unwanted children contribute to everything you mentioned.
If you want to carve out exceptions for debilitating birth defects then I'm open to listening, but that doesn't describe 99%+ of abortions.
Or the safety of the mother, or not forcing a 10 year old incest rape victim to carry a baby to term against her will and possibly causing permanent damage to her body and definitely furthering the damage to her psyche.
The video I linked earlier addresses the Freakonomics claim, but the more disturbing thing about your argument is that it could be used exactly as you are using it to justify the genocide of Black Americans. I am very comfortable with my intellectually consistent position of believing the intentional killing of the unborn and a planned genocide of Black Americans are both morally abhorrent ideas.
You have a hilariously ignorant view of the complex interactions that occur between an embryo/fetus and the person carrying them. If one takes a hammer to another's hand, the pain will emanate from the nerve cells and brain cells of that other, the inflammation response will come from the other's immune system, etc.; nevertheless, we blame the pain, inflammation, etc. on the wielder of the hammer.
It's always about punishing the woman for choosing to have sex, which is why rape and incest exceptions exist.
It's the super power I wanted most when I was 14!
Over the first two decades of the 21st century, the marriage rate has continued to decline, yet the crime rate and divorce rate have also declined (according to Colttaine's hypothesis, both should have risen), while the suicide rate has increased (according to the hypothesis, should have lowered with lower divorce rates). Time has undone many of the correlations Colttaine relied on.
That is quite a view of children you've got there. I don't view having a family as "punishment".
Crime rates in the seven years since his video are up, not down, and the divorce statistics are only falling because the marriage rate has collapsed. The percentage of people who can sustain a successful marriage has fallen every year since the birth control pill hit the market. Not a single one of those statistics cited are better than they were when our society was altered by that product.
If you didn't want a family then you probably would. Many men view a woman getting pregnant as a punishment. I have heard the phrase that getting a woman pregnant "is the definition of a life sentence"
Nor do I, but when you're forced to have children you don't want, it is a punishment.
Missing/dodging the point that they have behaved in ways counter to the hypothesis over the 2010s.
Except that is hasn't. The hypothesis was centered on changes to society from the introduction of birth control, and at no point in the 2010's did those metrics drop to pre-1960 levels. As use became more widespread, the metrics all moved in one direction and by the 2010's there was market saturation so the levels plateaued which is exactly what you'd expect to see if the hypothesis were correct. It isn't the only variable but the data makes it easy to argue that it is the single strongest component. Looking at the data it is very difficult to make the case that it has been a net positive to society which is why most choose to pretend the data doesn't exist.
So what are the reasons abortion is okay by your standards? Birth defects? Rape? Incest?
Birth control has been around since at least the 15th century.
Except, not all levels plateaued. Some moved up, some moved down, and supposedly related measures moved in ways that defied the hypothesized relationships.
That should have raised your skeptical radar right there. You have all kinds of complex social changes, and you are attributing them to a single cause? That's not how the world works. There are always multiple forces at play. I could make a similar argument regarding LSD use (with the recent uptick in use preceding the recent uptick in crime), or average length of skirts/shorts on women.
Looking at the data, it is difficult to conclude anything, unless you want to conclude a specific thing.
In theory I don’t have a problem with abortions for birth defects, incest, or rape, but in practice the rape exception concerns me a bit because women lie. Our justice system is incredibly gynocentric. The family court system is notoriously biased against men, but even in the criminal courts men receive 63% longer sentences than women do for committing the same crime.
