“But they might be poor!”

There are lots of bad pro-abortion arguments, but one of the worst is that the unborn might end up poor.  Here are a few things wrong with that.

1. Even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, that uses the wrong definition of poor.  There are very, very few truly poor people in this country.  Most of the poor (who, as Roxanne notes, are only poor because someone has to be on the left side of the Bell curve) live better than even royalty did 200 years ago.  Some people are so “poor” that they can’t afford to work because they’d be taking a pay cut from their benefits.

That definition of poor would mean that 90% of the world should have been aborted.  Ask anyone using that argument how many Third World countries they have visited.

2. Even if they really would be poor their entire lives and even if that would be justification to kill an innocent but unwanted human being, note the word “might.”  It is the sadly pessimistic but false view of Liberals that once your family is poor that you always stay that way.  But people often move between economic classes.  Hey, just graduate high school and don’t have sex out of wedlock and you are very unlikely to be poor, even by the U.S. definition.

Killing them because something “might” happen sounds like Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons (“Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”)

3. As with nearly all pro-abortion arguments, it ignores the right to life of the unborn.

4. Using that logic we could do poor people a favor by killing them outside the womb, too.  After all, the size, location, level of development and degree of dependency have no bearing on the value of a human being.  The world just rationalizes it so they can kill unwanted human beings.

Sadly, many of those using this argument claim the name of Christ.  A woman in a Bible study once used that as her justification to be “pro-choice,” even though she had been in church her entire life.  The notion that the author of life (Acts 3:15) would be pro-abortion is ridiculous.

If you want to help poor people, that’s great.  But killing them is a dubious way of going about it.

6 thoughts on ““But they might be poor!”

  1. This nonsensical defense also discounts that poor people still might want to be alive. Sure they might not live in American luxury, but they still have a quality of life they deem worthy. I mean, if it were so bad being poor, Why aren’t there mass suicides in poor urban neighborhoods?

    But think of the insult this is. The person offering this objection is basically saying “Eeww, I’ve seen the environment this baby might be living in, and it’d be better to kill it than let it live there.” …where all those other people live! They are not realizing what an elitist insult they are throwing by saying someone would be better off dead than being poor… or what they consider poor.

  2. To take matters to an absurd extreme, wouldn’t it be a better solution under that argument to find all the people who are actually living in poverty and kill them? At least that way, you would know that you are killing the people who are “suffering” in the manner you are trying to prevent. It’s true that a given fetus might turn into a child living in unacceptable conditions, but then he or she might not – he or she could just as easily be adopted by a well-to-do family and have a great life. Abortion just seems so hit-or-miss for the purpose that these people are trying to accomplish.

  3. Thomas Sowell continually points out that the majority of people who are in the bottom quintile of income earners are not there in the next decade, and a reasonable portion of them are in the top quintile of income earners.

    I will also point out that abortion does not make a poor baby a wealthy baby; it makes a dead baby.

    My final semi-sarcastic line: shotgun marriages are really good at eliminating poverty. In fact, the absence of those are why those in poverty, who used to be divided up roughly equally between men and women, are now overwhelmingly female (and never-wed mothers). As Ann Coulter says, if you want to eliminate most social ills – poverty, drug abuse, suicide, teen pregnancy, crime, imprisonment, dropping out of high school – eliminate unwed parenting and bring back shotgun marriages and adoption.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s