Will Ending Abortion Bring Nothing But Pain?
Will ending abortion bring nothing but pain?
Nah.
I saw this picture on the internet a few days ago. Seriously, since this Roe v. Wade opinion was leaked, things have gotten ridiculous. Well, more ridiculous.
It says:
“Ending abortion will bring nothing but pain. Not only for women, but for children. Children will be born to parents who can’t afford them, parents who aren’t ready, or they will live their lives in foster care. More poor kids, more abused kids, more traumatized kids.”
Just to make sure I understand the premise correctly, you’re saying we need to kill unborn babies in order to spare them from the discomfort of potentially experiencing hardship in life?
So this is like a “benevolent humanitarian” thing? Preborn babies need to have their young lives snuffed out in order to keep them from having possible pain, inconveniences, or poverty; it’s better to not exist than to encounter misfortune.
Got it. That’s a rather bleak outlook on life.
I also have a couple of questions about the poor kids and foster kids…
1) Wouldn’t these babies be put up for adoption and not foster care? Foster care is generally meant to be temporary and to hopefully reunite children with their biological families. If the kids are surrendered by the parents who couldn’t afford them or “weren’t ready” or whatever, then wouldn’t it be more like an adoption thing than standard fostering?
2) This second question is directed at everyone who endorses the original statement about this not-so-benevolent humanitarian work. What are you implying about the already-born kids who are poor, abused, traumatized, or in some sort of foster care?
You’ve made your position abundantly clear that out of compassion for the preborn baby, their life should be ended in the womb to prevent them from potentially experiencing poverty, abuse, trauma, the foster system, or unprepared parents.
If we extrapolate this to its logical conclusion, doesn’t this also kind of imply that you believe poor, abused, traumatized, and fostered already-born kids have lives that are less valuable compared to the kids with healthy, affluent, and intact family homes?
That seems rather disparaging.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that all lives are inherently valuable and worthwhile, regardless of socioeconomic status, location, stage of development, or whatever other arbitrary value some random person on the internet has assigned in order to promote the genocide of a particular group of people.
If you’re interested in expanding your worldview a little, I would recommend you read the book Chosen for Greatness by Paul Batura. It’s a book of adoption stories about kids whose parents loved them enough to not end their life in the womb but to give them up for adoption. And then, regardless of how impoverished, traumatized, abused, fostered, or initially unwanted, those kids changed the world, in large part because they were, well, alive and born. Kids like Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas, Babe Ruth, Nelson Mandela, Gerald Ford, and Nancy Reagan, among others.
Questions, comments, concerns, opinions? Comment below or shoot an email to Adam@LetsDigress.com. And please, be kind and grammatically decent.