Abortion Is Not Avoiding Pregnancy

When people talk about why some mothers abort their preborn children, the main reasons given are rape and incest, the most-horrific cases. In reality, those are only about 1% of abortions. They are used as a smokescreen to prevent a real discussion of the justifications for abortion. Rather, the main reason is convenience: the pregnancy will result in a financial burden, or interfere with the mother's career. Or worse still, the abortion is justified because the baby tests as having a defect or the wrong sex.

All of these real reasons boil down to convenience. A baby will crimp the lifestyle of one or both parents (you do remember that a pregnancy requires two parents, don't you?). While these supposedly-important considerations didn't prevent the act that created the pregnancy, they do supposedly justify avoiding the consequences of that act. Why do they get ignored in the lesser situation, but are paramount in the greater? If that were the real consideration, wouldn't a dollar for a condom be a priority expenditure, rather than waiting for the expenditure of a medical procedure that can cost as much as three-thousand dollars (barring complications)?

Let me put this in basic English: If an unplanned child will negatively affect a person's life, then there are far cheaper and safer methods of avoiding that circumstance!