Radical abortion advocates continue to hammer away
at the argument that ending abortion will cause all manner of social problems for our
There is something wrong with this picture. Thirty
years ago they were clamoring that legalizing abortion would solve all our social
problems. But today, after more than 20 years of legal abortion, and over 30 million
children killed, every single social problem we faced when we began this grizzly business
is considerably worse. We have more teenage pregnancies, more hunger, more welfare, more
divorces, more women and children living in poverty, more child abuse, more spousal abuse,
more deadbeat dads, more gangs, more drugs, more sexually transmitted diseases, more high
school drop-outs, more homelessness, and a generally more fractured and violent society.
So where's the payoff? The only answer from the
abortion industry is that stopping abortion will make these problems worse. In short,
they're asking us to ignore the fact that these problems got worse when abortion was made
legal, and blindly accept that they'll get worse if abortion is made illegal.
It is utterly preposterous. Perhaps it's time we
acknowledged that killing people is a bad way to solve social problems. It's morally
indefensible, and it apparently doesn't work. Moreover, it's the ultimate act of
selfishness. After all, no one ever volunteers to die to solve a social problem, they only
insist that others do.
Abortion enthusiasts have asked, "How can right-to-lifers get so wrapped up in
ending abortion when we can't even feed the children who are already starving?"
Excuse me? The children who are starving aren't American children. They are in
Third-World nations whose repressive regimes deliberately starve their own people. What
kind of sense does it make to try to correct this situation through abortion in the United
States? It's like these abortion fanatics are saying, "Children are starving in
Ethiopia, so let's have more abortions in America!"
Abortions in America won't give Third-World children a bite to eat. Abortions in
America won't overthrow a totalitarian regime. Abortions in America won't allow free
enterprise in other countries, won't improve farming techniques, won't build roads, won't
improve the food distribution system. No matter how many abortions there are in America,
it won't make a single thing any better for even one starving Third-World child. The fact
is, not one child anywhere in the world starves because of unborn children. They starve
because corrupt political systems deny them access to food.
Aesop had a fable about a lamb meeting a wolf at a stream. The wolf came up with half a
dozen feeble reasons why he should kill the lamb, none of which were valid. Finally he
declared that the lamb's father must have done something that would justify his eating the
lamb. The moral of the story?
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
Abortion proponents argue, "How can right-to-lifers get so wrapped up in ending
abortion when we can't even feed the children who are already starving?"
Funny thing about abortion advocates--no matter what the problem, they're sure abortion
will solve it.
For the sake of argument, I'll make the absurd assumption that somehow abortion could
reduce poverty. What kind of solution would that be? How rational is it to eliminate
hunger by killing babies that aren't eating yet? It's bad enough that pro-abortion
extremists propose that we use violence to solve problems. But they aren't even suggesting
that we kill the people with the problem--they're suggesting we kill people who have
nothing to do with it.
These abortion fanatics may say it is sad but necessary to kill some innocent people to
achieve their ends. But I agree with Gandhi, who said, "I object to violence, because
when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, but the evil it does is
And if chopping up live babies isn't violence, what is it?
Some abortion proponents have claimed that we need abortion because of "scarce
What is very interesting is that when these people advocate killing children because of
scarce resources, they always propose that we kill the children who use the least
Think about it. They claim that starving Third-World mothers "need" abortion,
although one privileged American baby could potentially use up enough resources in a
lifetime to support an African village for years.
If the real issue were scarce resources, wouldn't they be demanding abortions for the
rich? But of course, they don't, because they are the rich. They want to kill the children
of the poor, who use very few resources, to allow more resources for themselves. They want
to take away sustenance from the poor to give luxuries to the rich.
Is there a bit of class warfare going on here? Is this a classic example of the utter
selfishness of abortion?
Abortion enthusiasts argue, "How can right-to-lifers get so wrapped up in ending
abortion when we can't even feed the children who are already starving?"
Let me turn that around. How can abortion enthusiasts get so wrapped up in helping
promote abortions when there are so many children starving in the world?
While children starve, abortion supporters spend millions on full-page ads in Time,
Newsweek, and the New York Times whining that in some states, women have to
cool their heels for 24 hours before an abortion.
While children starve, pro-abortion activists jet all over the country at tremendous
expense fighting efforts to make abortionists wash their hands between patients.
While children starve, abortion fanatics hold fund-raisers to bring chemical abortions
to America when we are already doing 1.5 million surgical abortions a year.
And the list goes on and on. The point is that while children starve, abortion
proponents spend their resources promoting abortion in America. They willingly let
children starve while they pursue their own political whims. Now, you tell me which side
has its priorities mixed up.
Abortion proponents have argued that we need abortion in the U.S. because there are so
many children who don't have decent food, clothing, housing, and medical care. And while I
agree that it is terrible that children live in poverty, I don't agree that the wealthiest
nation on Earth lacks the resources to care for them.
We have plenty of ability to spend: $1.2 billion a year goes to professional baseball
and football game tickets, $2.2 billion to licensed sporting goods, $8.9 billion to
recreational vehicles, and $10 billion to guns and ammunition. Another $50 billion is
spent on beer and $300 billion on legalized gambling. The list goes on and on, but just
these examples amount to over $370 billion spent on things that are entirely
discretionary. This money could go a long way toward providing the necessities of life for
Maybe it isn't a matter of whether we "need" abortion to care for our
children. Maybe the real issue is whether we think babies are more important than drinking
beer, watching football, driving Jeeps, shooting animals, and playing the lottery.
Abortion advocates have argued that abortion is better for a child than being born into
Yes, it is a shame that some children lack basic necessities like decent housing,
clothing, food, and medical care. But that doesn't doom them to a miserable life. Abraham
Lincoln, Beethoven, George Washington Carver, and other great achievers were born into
poverty. Many unsung heroes and heroines who raise responsible children, pay their taxes,
and hold our communities together are born into poverty. The compassionate response to
poverty is to help people climb out of it, not kill them off.
Poverty makes a child's life difficult. Abortion makes it impossible.
Abortion advocates try to advance their agenda with the old, tired line about
This whole argument started with an essay published by Thomas Malthus in 1798. Malthus
argued that population grows faster than food production, and that unless we took
draconian measures to halt population growth, famine and disaster would result.
Of course, all of his predictions turned out to be completely wrong. But the faithful
never question their apostle. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger jumped on the
Malthusian bandwagon and brought doomsaying to America.
Here, it was picked up by the U.S. government and gradually ripened under the
influences of people like Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich is the perfect successor to Malthus: to
date none of his predictions has been proven even remotely accurate, but still the
faithful follow unquestioningly wherever he leads them. Despite the fact that American
food production has been outstripping population growth for decades, the worshippers of
Malthus nevertheless promote abortion for the sake of population control.
Now, here we are, having millions of abortions to solve a problem that exists only in
the minds of practitioners of a materialistic religion founded by a charlatan almost 200
Are we nuts or what? If having abortions to solve a problem that doesn't exist isn't
crazy, what is?
Some congressmen are opposed to the proposed abortion legislation because they say
"it will impose an unequal burden on poor women."
I find it interesting that poor women are never the ones agitating for greater
"access to abortion." As a group, they have never complained that they wanted
abortions, asking instead for decent housing, better schools, and a chance to rise out of
poverty. Naturally, pro-choice lawmakers offer them abortions. (Isn't it curious that it
always seems to be rich, white elitists and liberal busybodies who are so worried about
poor women having "access to abortions"?)
Ironically, this may be one of those rare cases in which the poor might welcome an
unequal burden. It's certainly no secret that when there is social inequality, the poor
inevitably get the worst of it. But with abortion, the opposite is true. After all, when
abortion is illegal the children of the poor are safer than the children of the rich
because their mothers can't afford abortions.
Of course, that's probably unfair to the wealthy, but we'll let them worry about that.
One speaker at yesterday's pro-abortion rally claimed that abortion is necessary for
poor women who can't afford another child.
If abortion is such a good idea in these cases, I wonder if this means he is willing to
require abortions for women who cannot afford another child? I also wonder if this means
he is willing to prohibit abortions for women who can afford another child? Of course, the
answer is absolutely not. He was just exploiting the poor as a way to justify
abortion-on-demand for anyone who simply doesn't want to be pregnant. He only brought up
poor women to make himself seem "caring" and "compassionate." It
doesn't strike me as particularly compassionate to suggest that the children of the poor
are less entitled to life than the children of the non-poor. And it is especially
loathsome for some slick politician to exploit them for his own disgraceful political
agenda. The poor don't need his cut-rate abortions. They need his respect.
An abortionist defended her business in her guest
editorial yesterday by saying, "It's better to be aborted than to face a life of
poverty, deformity, or unwantedness." She spoke of how the children she aborted might
otherwise grow up to be, at best, losers.
That sounds familiar. Serial murderer Henry Lee
Lucas said, "I killed people I didn't think was worth living anyhow."
Could it be that all serial killers think alike?
This year's annual pro-abortion rally featured the
usual cries about how we need abortion in order to prevent child abuse, homelessness,
poverty, family break-up, and just about every other social ill.
Funny thing is, all those things that they say
abortion will solve have only gotten worse and worse after abortion was legalized.
You know, one of the definitions of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Year after year they do
one and a half million abortions, and things get worse. So they do another million and a
half abortions, and things get worse. So they do more abortions. Things get worse. And so
on, for over 20 years. They've done over 35 million abortions, and have more problems than
You would think that sooner or later they would
catch on. It's like hitting yourself over the head again and again and wondering why you
have a headache.
Obviously legalized abortion is a failed experiment.
Let's try something new, okay?
To hear the abortion supporters at yesterday's
rally, abortion is the single greatest boon to humanity since the discovery of the wheel.
It prevents divorce, child abuse, maternal mortality, neonatal death, overpopulation,
famine, deforestation, alcoholism, poverty, global warming, incontinence, crime,
pollution, and social isolation. It helps women find mates, finish school, get promoted at
work, be lucky in love, build a dream house, take that vacation in Aruba, find a cure for
the common cold.
I haven't heard any claims that abortion prevents
hair loss or helps you catch fish, but there are probably people out there somewhere doing
studies right now to prove that it does. If your roof leaks, your car won't start, your
kid gets bad grades, and your favorite football team is having a lousy season, somewhere
you can find an abortion enthusiast who can explain to you how abortion can fix it.
Every snake-oil salesman claims that his product
will solve all your problems. These snake-oil salesman claim that abortion won't just
solve your own personal problems, it will solve all the world's problems as well. Feeling
bad about those rapes in Bosnia? Have an abortion! Afraid the Russians will get a manned
ship to Mars before we do? Abortion will fix that, too!
We need to be wise consumers and start insisting
that these people substantiate their absurd claims. While they're at it, maybe they can
explain why every social problem that they claim will get worse if we make abortion
illegal, has gotten worse since abortion was legalized. And that's not some half-baked
theory, it's a fact.