“What about a mother who can’t afford to raise a kid? It’s better for her to just get an abortion than for the child to be born into poverty!”
As we fight to create a culture of life, it is paramount that we can all articulate a compelling defense of life and refute pro-abortion arguments. In the spirit of changing hearts and minds, we will be providing pro-life apologetics addressing all of the most common pro-abortion claims you will face. Today we refute the claim that it is justified to abort a baby for financial reasons.
Economic justifications for abortion are among the most common arguments you will come across. The good news is, these arguments quickly collapse under scrutiny.
First, let’s address something of an elephant in the room. Assuming the mother is truly not capable of raising her child outside of extreme poverty, she is not legally required to raise her child. As we have all heard, adoption is an option. She can lovingly place the baby with a good adoptive home where she will be raised by a family in better financial standing. In addition, all 50 states have safe haven laws which allow a child to be left at designated safe locations like fire stations or hospitals and the mother will not face any prosecution.
To any mothers who are concerned about your ability to financially support your child, there is help available. Our friends at Her PLAN will get you in touch with the help you need to choose life.
Now that we have addressed the practical reality, let’s contend with the attempted moral justification.
At its core this argument appeals to a form of mercy killing. In its purest form, the pro-abortion supporter does not need to deny the humanity or personhood of the child to make this case, though often you will find that those you engage with will deploy something of a grab bag approach using various unrelated arguments simultaneously.
The claim that it is better for the baby to be aborted than to grow up poor is framed around the best interest of the baby, not the mother. All you must do to refute this argument is to highlight where this logic leads.
In order for logic to be sound, it has to be applicable across the board in analogous (directly comparable) situations. Special pleading is a logical fallacy.
The logic that would permit an unborn baby to be killed “for their own good” to avoid negative economic circumstances can not stop with the unborn! This line of reasoning would necessarily justify the murder of toddlers born into poverty, homeless adults with a grim economic future, and millions of people in underdeveloped nations. By making this argument the pro-abortion advocate subtly makes the case that poor people would be better off dead and should be killed for their own good.
If the pro-abortion advocate deploying this argument does not agree with “mercy killing” toddlers born into poverty, they must abandon this “justification.” If not, they will need to highlight a morally significant difference between the two scenarios which proves they are not comparable.
Spoiler alert, there is no morally significant difference to be found.
We should all agree that no one wants a child to grow up in poverty. However, the answer to the threat of childhood poverty is not to preemptively murder children. The right to life applies to all people, including poor people.
The same principle used here to refute this justification applies to a similar argument surrounding so-called “unwanted” children.
This article is the first in a coming series of pro-life apologetics resources. In the near future we will have dedicated refutations for all of the most common pro-abortion arguments. If you would like us to address a specific argument, please email submissions to info@lifeissues.org.
Defending life,
Victor Nieves
President, Life Issues Institute
Leave a Reply