Have you ever thought that maybe an abortion is necessary in at least SOME CASES because the baby has deformities (could be in pain for the rest of its life which is decades upon decades or it could die shortly after birth), or birth could kill the mother and/or the baby, or the mother just doesn't want a child because she can't afford to raise it properly/she isn't ready to become a mother from her own choice? This isn't an attack on your beliefs, I'm just generally curious of your opinion.
Hi. As someone who used to support abortion, I have absolutely considered those arguments - from both sides. Some of them bugged me for a long time after I became pro-life. There’s a reason for that: after the “rape and incest” question, the questions you asked are the most successful straw men used by the abortion movement, and they manage to confuse a lot of pro-life people with them - needlessly, I have discovered. Supporters of abortion love to make the lofty claim that abortion is a complex moral issue with no clear right and wrong. That’s nonsense. Abortion is the simplest of all of the issues being debated today. Either the unborn baby is alive or it isn’t, and therefore abortion is either murder or it’s nothing.
Since you haven’t attempted to tell me that abortion is nothing, then I’ll continue on the assumption that you and I on the same page when I treat abortion as being the termination of an unborn baby’s life. (If we weren’t agreed on that point, obviously there’d be no point in us delving into these questions at all. The idea of there being “difficult questions” about a woman removing a mere clump of cells from her body is, of course, absurd.)
So let’s look at each of your questions:
1) the baby has deformities (could be in pain for the rest of its life which is decades upon decades
Allow me to frame a different scenario for you on this one. Let’s say you have an accident tomorrow and are in a coma in the hospital. The doctors are certain you’re going to wake up from the coma, but they are also fairly sure that you’ll have some kind of deformity, or some painful condition that you will live with for the rest of your life. They believe that you wouldn’t be able to handle it; that no person could possibly want to live that way, so they decide that rather than allowing you to wake up, they will make the decision for you.
And so despite the fact that you’re certain to wake up from this coma; despite the fact that, were you given the choice, you would almost certainly choose to live on despite the pain or the deformity (as most people living with chronic illnesses or deformities do) - they decide it is kinder to euthanise you now. Because they believe they know better than you - perhaps they even believe it is truly their right to decide whether you should live or die - they take that choice to live from you.
Now tell me: when you put yourself in that position - completely helpless, completely dependent on the mercy of the people around you to not end your life prematurely, can you truly tell me that you would be fine with someone taking your life from you, without your consent?
2) or it could die shortly after birth)
There are certainly babies who die shortly after birth. And - although this is not my main point - there are also many, many babies who defy the doctor’s predictions and are either born perfectly healthy, or who survive despite their medical conditions. (A quick search online will pull up scores of such stories.) But I have to come back to the same point I made in (1) above: regardless of whether or not a baby is likely to survive long after birth, what gives anyone else the right to end that baby’s life? Don’t you think she would choose to live, for however long she had, if her mother gave her that choice?
3) or birth could kill the mother
One of the most successful lies perpetuated by the abortion movement is that pro-lifers value the life of the baby above that of the mother. We don’t. Both lives are equally valuable. But haven’t you noticed something bizarre in the “abortion is medically necessary” argument? Pro-abortionists say that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman’s life. But why is abortion necessary? If the goal is to save a mother’s life by removing the baby from her womb, then why do they care if the baby is removed alive or dead? Why do they insist that abortion is necessary? Why can’t the baby be delivered early, and everything possible done to save both lives?
Any theories? (It’s a genuine question and while I know the answer now, I will tell you that it took me years to figure it out. Perhaps you’ll be quicker on the uptake than I was.)
Anyway, to summarise, if a mother’s life is in danger then of course the baby should be delivered early. Delivered - not aborted.
4) and/or the baby
You aren’t really suggesting that killing the baby in the womb is a solution to the possibility that the baby might die during birth, are you?
5) or the mother just doesn’t want a child because she can’t afford to raise it properly/she isn’t ready to become a mother from her own choice?
OK. Let me give you a different scenario this time.
What if I have a two year old girl, and one day I decide that she has become too much of a burden. Maybe I’m having financial difficulties, or I simply decide I’ve changed my mind about wanting to have a child. Using the arguments you just outlined, should I be allowed to kill her? Or if not to outright kill her…let’s say, to just lock her out of the house on a cold night where she will die of exposure? Hey; she’s on my property, and she has no right to be there. Don’t I have every right to kick her off it? It’s too bad for her that my choice will result in her death, but the bottom line is that it’s my house and my life and my choice, and she has no right to be there for any longer than I decide I want her there.
Do you agree that it’s OK for a woman to kill her little girl in that scenario, or do you think it’s wrong? Also, I do expect your instinctive reaction to be that I’m being ridiculous; that what I outlined has nothing to do with the question you asked - but if that’s what you’re going to tell me, then please also tell me why. Why would it be wrong for a woman to kill a two year old that she doesn’t want anymore, but not wrong to kill a baby?
Anyway, I hope that addresses your questions. The people who send me these asks, by the way, generally disappear after I’ve sent a first response to them - just when the debate is getting started, from my point of view. But I am genuinely curious about your responses so please write again if you want to, or email me. Take care.