Abortion and Poverty

[AndreM73]

First off, I hope this is under the right category, so if a mod could move it if it’s not, that would be most appreciated.

I was on Facebook and somebody that I know was posting about how Governor Perry of Texas wanted to keep people poor through preventing abortion and so forth.

My question is this; how can I counter any argument that keeping a child is going to cause/contribute to poverty. I also want to know how to counter an argument that adoption is not always possible.

Thank you very much!
Pax Christi!

 

[Viki63]

It may be that having a child will interfere with a mother’s ability to complete school, pursue her career, etc. However, a determined person will succeed even with a child, and the child may be the motivation for her to improve her life. I speak from experience. as I raised two children as a single parent and put myself through nursing school at the same time. It can be done.

I sincerely doubt that the governor of Texas is trying to prevent abortion to keep people poor. He seems to think that abortion is a crime against the citizens of Texas, which it is. He said “I don’t think there is any issue that better fits the definition of ‘compelling state interest’ than preventing the suffering of our state’s unborn.”

Why is adoption not always possible? My understanding is that there are about 20 couples waiting to adopt for every infant available to adopt, and that includes children with disabilities. Older children are harder to find adoptive homes for, but that is not what you’re discussing.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I suppose one approach you could use is to concede that carrying a pregnancy to term and (if not giving the child up for adoption) raising the child may indeed contribute to a family’s or individual woman’s poverty, yet that still doesn’t justify abortion. Hypothetically, forcibly confiscating millions of dollars from the rich and distributing them to the poor would prevent poverty too. So, is that an ethical thing to do? Likewise with abortion.

This kind of an argument is essentially utilitarian: the ends justifies the means. However, abortion is an evil act in itself, and you cannot perform an evil act even for a good means.

 

[polytropos]

The claim that Governor Perry is trying to keep people poor through abortion is false. He opposes abortion because he sees it as murder.

One might point out that killing the poor is not generally taken to be a valid solution to poverty.

I would not argue that having a child won’t influence someone’s finances. Children are expensive. It just doesn’t justify killing them.

That said, the pro-life lobby should be advocating policies for low-income and single-parent families more than they are currently, but unfortunately the pro-life movement is largely tethered to the Republican Party and its fiscal politics.

 

[LaSainte]

IF abortion is murder (which we believe it is) then NOTHING can justify it. Not rape, not illness, certainly not poverty. Nothing. If abortion is NOT murder, then it needs no justification. I can morally go and get an abortion tomorrow because I think it might turn out to have brown eyes. This is one case where it is absolutely black and white. It is either murder or it is not. In one case, it is NEVER permissible, in the other case, it is ALWAYS permissible.

I will never understand the fence-sitters who say “Well, abortion is bad and it kills a child, BUT…” NO. It is almost easier to respect the completely baseless position that it is not a human until it takes its first breath and abortion is permissible up until that point. At least it is a consistent (albeit insane and completely against all scientific evidence) position. The other position is so hypocritical.

 

[marymary1975]

The claim that Governor Perry is trying to keep people poor through abortion is false. He opposes abortion because he sees it as murder.

One might point out that killing the poor is not generally taken to be a valid solution to poverty.

I would not argue that having a child won’t influence someone’s finances. Children are expensive. It just doesn’t justify killing them.

That said, the pro-life lobby should be advocating policies for low-income and single-parent families more than they are currently, but unfortunately the pro-life movement is largely tethered to the Republican Party and its fiscal politics.

This is so true! My MIL says the same thing, that as pro life we should be advocating policies for low income houses and provide help to pregnant woman with low resources. Too bad it is so ties as you said to the republican fiscal policies

 

[Newbie2]

The notion that preventing abortion keeps people in poverty is a red herring, and presupposes that the lack of financial resources is “worse” than a lack of life.

Common argument from the “Pro-choice” crowd in response to the call for more emphasis on adoption:

“If you are against abortion the you should adopt all the unwanted children”

Silly and juvenile.

If only the word “adoption” was more common in the abortion debate…