“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die, for you to live as you wish,” Blessed Mother Teresa famously said.
How do you respond to abortion advocates who say poverty would be reduced or eliminated if only abortion remains accessible?
The argument goes women living below the poverty line will only perpetuate her destitution by birthing her unborn children. Thus, they say, abortion is the solution to her plight.
Assuming we are talking about what to do with the children already conceived by people in poverty, the issue becomes what to do with them in those circumstances.
Well, of the over 3,000 babies killed each day in America by abortion, only a small portion would live in poverty.
Most all children starving to death are in third world countries, not America. (More on the third world later.)
If abortion were the solution to poverty, then what about those unborn that would have eventually lived above the poverty line? How do we prevent from killing those preborn children? How do we determine which preborn children were destined for poverty and which ones had the possibility of wealth or fame?
WHY STOP AT THE UNBORN?
If the goal is to reduce hunger, why are we singling out the preborn as the fall victims?
Why not kill adults, since they consume more food than children?
After all, how is it fair to kill a preborn child who might lead an impoverished life, but allow those who already live an impoverished life to stay alive? If murder of the preborn is justified, in the name of reducing hunger, then what’s to stop murder of the already-born?
We would have to introduce a threshold at which the elderly, disabled, or retarded would need to be euthanized. After all, if they are not producing for society, then they are leeching the system. Should the rule be an age limit? Say, after 60 years, you must die? Or maybe if you stop being paid for work, then you must “be put down?”
This all gets into eugenics and deciding whose lives are worth living and whose are expendable. Morally corrupt realms.
WHERE’S THE PROOF ABORTION SOLVES POVERTY?
If the mantra that abortion reduces poverty is true, where has this been proven out?
If murdering babies solves hunger problems, and mobilizes people to move up socioeconomically, can someone show me where this has ever occurred?
Ever since abortion was legalized, poverty has remained. In third world countries, where Western abortion advocates convinced them to implement abortion, the poverty has continued.
WHO GETS TO DEFINE HAPPINESS?
It is not necessarily true that those who live in poverty are depressed and angry. It is not a guarantee that moving above the poverty line brings happiness and fulfillment. Just look to Hollywood to decide if fame and fortune result in lasting joy.
In reality, people in third world countries can be, and often are, happy. Killing children leads to sadness and misery—not to happiness and prosperity.
BIG BABY BUSINESS
Just ask Pampers, Huggies, or Fisher Price if the baby business pays.
People spend money on their newborn and infant children. Diapers, formula, swings, car seats, etc. are items parents spend money on to raise babies.
Spending money generates income and boosts the economy. These are signs of a healthy economy.
Besides, with an influx in children comes more taxpayers, workers, and ingenuity.
When children are the enemy and a drain on the economy, it won’t matter how much food is available, if no one remains to get to enjoy it all.
I would like to hear from you, the bright readers of this blog.
Anything you would add to this article?
Please share below!