Eh. I'm going to have to disagree with you. I've used the Abort function myself on occasion, for a couple of reasons.
The first of which is misclicking. In Live Chess, the challenges in the challenge section go by quite fast. This sometimes leads to my simply missing the intended target and I find myself starting not the 10:5 game against a 1300 something player, but instead a 2:1 game against a 1600 something player. I suppose I could play it out, but I consider it a bigger waste of my time to play a game I don't want to play than spend a little extra time searching for a new game. And my opponent? Well, he'd probably get a better game playing a stronger player.
The other reason is that sometimes I find I need to go do something else, but I already clicked the game. I should resign? It seems perfectly reasonable that I should have an out within the first few moves if I realize that I cannot continue the game. You may argue this is unsportsmanlike. I consider it practical.
Now. I do understand that the Abort button is abused. People use it because they don't want to play as black, or they don't want to play a particular opening that they can discern within a couple moves. That gets irritating and I certainly don't appreciate it, but I believe that it is better than the alternative of not having the option entirely. A few moments to find a new game just isn't that bad.
So, no I don't think that removing that feature is a good idea.
Just my two cents. Disagree if you like.
-Leo
Aborting a game is: very annoying to the other player, wastes the other player's time, is bad sportsmanship, cheats the other player out of a win and points, and defeats the whole purpose of agreeing to play a game of chess in the first place. Resigning a game is the better way to go about it.
If you agree that the abort option should be eliminated, please add your comments to this thread. Hopefully chess.com will be listening!