This is the argument from leftists, most of whom are either pro-choice or they hold their pro-life position really low on their list of political priorities.
The old canard is simple; if you’re really pro-life, you’ll give us the stuff we want in order to talk us out of killing our kids. Holding a metaphoric gun to their wombs, they make the argument like hostage-takers demanding a ransom.
“Give us our welfare or the baby gets it,” they say as they pull back the hammer. “We mean it.”
Their argument is not much more sophisticated than that. Essentially, their attempt at logical reasoning purports that life goes from the womb (at some arbitrary point of development) to the tomb, and those of us trying to pass laws against baby-murder are insincere or inconsistent if we don’t simultaneously adopt the rest of the wealth-redistribution platform of the Democratic Party.
THE PRO-LIFE ARGUMENT ASSERTED
Pro-lifers are quick to nod their head in agreement, as though this were a hostage negotiation. However, I implore evangelical pro-lifers to grasp that maintaining the moral high ground does not require passing out welfare entitlements. In fact, it defeats our argument altogether.
The chief supposition regarding abortion must be scientific. Scientifically, the so-called “fetus” is a living human being (in the same way that humans at other stages of development like that of infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, etc. are living human beings). Medically and scientifically, this fact is indisputable.
The chief argument against abortion must be moral. Based on the factual supposition above, we must argue that it is morally wrong to take innocent human lives. By the way, we call the taking of innocent human lives, “murder.” While we recognize that only theists have a logical basis for moral absolutes, even the pagan can rationalize that murder is wrong from the conscience that God gave them.
The scientific supposition against abortion must be wed to the moral argument to propose that (A) an unborn baby is a living human being and (B) killing innocent human beings is wrong.
If we deny the scientific supposition that unborn babies are living human beings, we should be mocked as those who deny biology, scoff at science, disregard modern medicine, and are blind to objective facts. Denying the living humanity of the fetus is more absurd than flat-earthism, only more dangerous.
If we hold to the scientific supposition that unborn babies are indeed living human beings but not the moral argument that killing them is wrong, we are homicidal sociopaths. It’s like arguing that Jews, blacks, or women are humans, but it’s okay to mistreat them because you have more power. It’s a morally repugnant notion.
If we can settle both the scientific supposition and moral argument in regard to abortion, then the “what-about-isms” don’t matter.
- What if the person was conceived through rape and incest?
- What if nobody wants the baby?
- What if the baby has a disformity or disability?
When in view of the scientific supposition and moral argument above, you can see that these what-about-isms are irrelevant, and asking them just makes you look like a Nazi trying to rid the world of ‘undesirables.’
Faced with the reality that this scientific supposition and moral argument are two universally incontrovertible realities, leftists then attempt to bribe those on the winning side of history.
“If you’re really pro-life, give us free stuff.”
BEING PRO-LIFE DOES NOT REQUIRE BEING PRO-WELFARE
Listen, lady. Just because you didn’t murder your child doesn’t mean we are required to treat you like an entitled princess. Nobody gets a reward for not killing someone.
With the exception of the ‘what-about-isms’ like rape and incest, raising your child – including feeding them, giving them medical attention, and educating them – is your responsibility. Welcome to planet Earth. You’re a sentient human being. Your job, like every member of every species on this planet, is to reproduce and then assist your offspring to the point they reach maturity and independence, at which point they can reproduce and repeat the process.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. That’s the history of human civilization.
Didn’t kill your kid? Well, pin a rose on your nose. Now go get a job. Or, even better, the man you chose to impregnate you should get a job, so you don’t have to. Perhaps you didn’t intend to get pregnant, but a lack of planning on your part doesn’t make the rest of the society responsible for your fornication habits.
It is not contradictory to say (A) It is immoral to kill your child and (B) it is immoral to expect society to take care of your child.
The welfare statist argues, “If you don’t want women to kill their kids, give them entitlement programs.”
Our response should be, “No. Instead, we’ll just pass laws that charge you with murder, and other laws charging you with child-neglect if you insist on being a derelict human being.”
Simply put, there is no reason why society is morally obligated to take care of your children just because you chose not to murder them.
While our church runs a food bank that feeds more hungry people than any other agency in our county, while our church supports a foster/adoption group and a crisis pregnancy center, and while we do care for the poor and impoverished, it’s not because we somehow owe it to the impoverished. Charity is mercy, not an entitlement.
There is, of course, another option which might be preferable for some. That option is for women who are unprepared for mature motherhood to gift their children to nuclear families who would do a fine job of loving the child. It is an absolute myth that there too many babies and not enough adoptive families. While there is some truth to this when it comes to foster children (who are older and typically have more trauma-related physical, mental, social, or emotional issues), it is not true for infants. The line of awaiting parents is much longer than the line of babies needing a good home.
WHAT ABOUT THE WHAT-ABOUT-ISMS?
While every woman (and man) who chose to do the thing that causes baby-making have assumed the financial responsibilities of raising the child made by the baby-making activity, there are a small number of legitimate what-about-isms that are out there. These include those who have conceived a child by rape and incest. In such an event – and only in such an event – is society somehow morally obligated to provide for that child’s basic needs because only in that specific case of What-About-isms did the mother not willfully do that which causes motherhood.
I might add that there is no shortage of families who would love to embrace and love the children who are conceived by rape and incest, because they’re not homicidal maniacs who want to kill kids on account of the crimes of their father.
IN SUMMARY
It is a petulant and obnoxiously entitled generation who think that they deserve something for not murdering someone. The only thing you are entitled to for not murdering someone is the right not to go to the gallows.
Christians everywhere should be exhorted to provide charity and mercy ministries to the unfortunate. Communities should band together to help the underprivileged. But no one should have their wealth confiscated from them coercively to transfer that wealth to those who made dumb decisions.
If you are considering murdering your unborn child, please contact Pulpit & Pen. We will put you into touch with an adoption agency in your area, and we will help you receive medical care for both you and your unborn child. If you choose to keep your child, rather than gift them through the adoption process, we will put you in touch with a loving faith community that can help you raise your child to the best of your ability and provide you the necessary tools and resources to become a responsible member of society and a good parent.
Contact us on our contact page
