Abortion is undesirable

 This does not mean that an individual can't desire abortion or that it isn't necessary in some cases in the world as it is.

In an ideal world abortion is something that would be rendered unnecessary and obsolete.

Pregnancy would either be prevented at minimal expense or result in healthy birth.

1: Abortion is a waste of resources. 

2: Abortion could be making God angry.

3: Abortion not only costs money, but often leads to physical discomfort. 

The word ‘hedonism’ comes from the ancient Greek for ‘pleasure’. Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us. Ethical or evaluative hedonism claims that only pleasure has worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth. Jeremy Bentham asserted both psychological and ethical hedonism with the first two sentences of his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do”.

2. Ethical Hedonism
At its simplest, ethical hedonism is the claim that all and only pleasure has positive importance and all and only pain or displeasure has negative importance. This importance is to be understood non-instrumentally, that is, independently of the importance of anything that pleasure or displeasure might cause or prevent. From ethical hedonism, it follows that if our relationships, achievements, knowledge, character states, and so on, have any non-instrumental importance, this is just a matter of any pleasure or displeasure that is in their natures. Otherwise, they have only instrumental importance through the pleasure they cause or displeasure they diminish. At least from the simple forms of ethical hedonism, it also follows that pleasure is good whenever it is had, even in matters that are themselves worthless or worse. Some hedonists are willing to bite such bullets; others develop more complex forms of ethical hedonism that seek to soften the bullets or even to dissolve them.

Some things have both instrumental and non-instrumental importance, and in such cases their overall importance is a function of both. These two matters can also pull in opposite directions. Your pain of being once bitten has non-instrumental negative importance, for example, but it might also have instrumental positive importance through the further pain you avoid by its making you twice shy. Instrumental importance is a contingent matter and it varies widely from case to case. This is why the non-instrumental claims of pleasure and displeasure are the present focus.

Ethical hedonism can be universalist, me-and-my-near-and-dear egocentric, or egoistically focused just on one's own pleasure. It can also be a claim about value, morality, well-being, rationality, reasons or aesthetics. It can be a claim about grounds for action, belief, motivation or feeling; or a claim about ought, obligation, good and bad, or right and wrong. And these are not the only possibilities. The discussion below aims for both determinacy of formulation and generality across the different forms of ethical hedonism, albeit that these two aims are in some tension with one another. For economy of expression, discussion proceeds below in terms of hedonism about value. At its simplest, this is the thesis that anything has non-instrumental value if and only if it is an instance of pleasure, and has non-instrumental disvalue if and only if it is an instance of pain or displeasure.

ASYMMETRY OF PLEASURE AND PAIN

Benatar refers to this as his “Asymmetry of Pleasure and Pain.” He says: 

1. The presence of pain is bad
   
2. The presence of pleasure is good
   
3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone
   
4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
   

If humans were to exist (scenario A), the presence of pain (which is bad) and the presence of pleasure (which is good) cancel each other out. But, if humans were to never exist (scenario B), there would be no pain. And we say that no pain is good! There would also be an absence of pleasure. But we don’t tend to care about the absence of pleasure (like on Mars), so this isn’t bad; it’s just neutral. So we’re left with only a good! 

Baseless statement, if I say unprotected sex would be happening at rampant rates in an ideal world and it being slick and easy to abort as people love every bit of their life, being as irresponsible as they can get away with as robots do all the menial and repetitive tasks, then what?

False. It is a bigger waste of resources to have a neglected kid either ending up in foster care or abused/neglected and growing up troubled and toxic themselves when the parents knew they didn't want the kid.

So could you saying no to me giving you a good hard spanking. Agreed?

If you need an abortion after unprotected sex then you didn't desire the pregnancy

which means you didn't desire the thing that made you need the abortion

which means you didn't desire the abortion.

In an ideal world we would have total control of pregnancy and be able to stop it before an abortion becomes necessary. People would be able to turn it on and off at the flip of a switch.

some weird sadistic desire to kill offspring?