You know their rhetoric by now. Abortion backers think they have rationale for their Culture of Death at the intersection of poverty and abortion.
They point out how many starving children in the world we have already. Then they claim that permits unborn children to be aborted.
They ask, with so many children around the world not being provided sufficient nutrition already, how can we add more children?
Shouldn’t we leave abortion accessible, so that children who would otherwise live in poverty be spared that lifestyle? Isn’t society better off allowing poor people to kill their own preborn children?
How do you respond?
Here are my six responses to this argument from the so-called pro-choice crowd regarding poverty and abortion.
1. How does killing any or even all of the unborn children in our country feed children in another country?
I fail to see how killing preborn children in America solves world hunger, which is most prevalent in third world countries.
By and large, children starve due to corrupt governments in third world countries. Killing a baby here does not fix a dictatorship abroad.
Children also go hungry due to food distribution problems in poor countries. Dismembering a baby here has no effect on how many helpings of beans and rice a child on another continent receives.
Children also live in poverty as a result of natural disasters wiping out their families, homes, and resources. Butchering a preborn baby here does not ward off hurricanes and tsunamis around the world.
How does killing over 3,500 babies in America each day, as happens now, solve anything?
2. Just how many babies are being saved from starvation?
The percentage of aborted babies who would have otherwise lived below the poverty line is small. Why kill so many, if the target is so small?
Besides, anyone who has ever prayed outside an abortion mill will attest. The patrons going in often show up riding in Cadillacs, Lexuses, and even sports cars. Not everyone going inside lives a needy lifestyle… at least not economically.
3. If the goal is to end hunger, why limit the bloodshed only to the unborn?
Are abortion backers honestly trying to end hunger? If so, shouldn’t they be proposing legislation to kill off those who consume the most food (i.e., adults)?
Unborn babies did not create the disproportionate allocation of resources in our culture. They are not to blame for anyone’s hunger. But adults on the other hand, are responsible.
If ending hunger is the objective, why not impose an age at which everyone much be euthanized? Say 40 years is all you get. On your 40th birthday, you will be forced to die, as you have used up your imaginary quota of food.
Of course, the age imposition would be ridiculously unjust. Likewise, forcing unborn children to be killed, in the name of ending poverty, remains undeserved as well.
4. Ever notice poverty fearing folks never volunteer their own lives?
In another effort to ask for consistency, let me point this out. These people claim we ought to sacrifice human lives to solve hunger or any other problem. Yet, they never volunteer their own lives.
Funny how that works, huh?
5. Even if killing children did solve hunger problems, how could it ever be morally permissible?
Even if abortion did end all world hunger that would not mean abortions should be allowed.
Evil cannot be done so that good can come from it. Since abortion is evil, it cannot be done. Murder solves nothing. Ever.
Of course, rather than be the ticket out of poverty, the poor who have abortions are not better off. Instead, they remain in poverty with dead children.
6. A dead baby is better than a poor baby?
Notice the abortion backers appeal to the Natural Law? They presuppose everyone can agree no one should wish another to live in poverty. They assume they have common ground with you there.
As they should, and as they do.
But then you can ask them to be more consistent. If it is wrong for a child to go hungry, then how is it better for that child to instead be dead?
I invite you to add any of your responses to this garden variety argument from the Culture of Death on poverty and abortion.
And if you are a so-called pro-choice person, how would you respond to these counter arguments?
Please respond civilly below?