Responding to…”Pro-lifers: are you willing to adopt all the babies?”
Authors Note: I wrote this today and sent it to the Fresno Bee as a letter to the editor, in response to someone else’s letter that appeared yesterday. Much of this is not original material. I’ve borrowed from two of my colleagues who have worded amazing responses to this general argument. Those colleagues are Scott Klusendorf and Steve Wagner. I added some of my own words and compiled everything together into what is hopefully an effective response. I hope this gives you a few ideas for what you can say the next time you hear this pro-abortion-choice argument.
——————-
In response to Jackie DeFreitas 5/20 letter challenging pro-lifers to adopt unwanted babies, she misses the point. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that pro-lifers are not already adopting unwanted children. How would this in any way justify the act of dismembering a defenseless child?
While I do think that pro-lifers have a duty to help those facing an unplanned pregnancy (both mother and baby), it is not true that abortion is justified whenever that obligation is left unmet. At best, you’d prove that some pro-lifers are inconsistent. That’s all.
How bizarre would it be for me to argue, “Unless you are willing to marry my wife, you have no right to oppose me beating her.” Or, “Unless you employ ex-slaves in your business, you have no right to oppose slavery.” (Indeed, this was the very argument slave owners made a century ago.)
Here’s my challenge to Jackie: if pro-lifers like me ARE willing to adopt them, (and many are willing to adopt physically or mentally handicapped babies as well,) will you agree that abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal?
Josh Brahm
Director of Education & P.R., Fresno Right to Life
Host, Life Report: Pro-Life Talk. Real World Answers.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Great response!!!
Very good and I hope to be as articulate the next time it comes up.
I would take in *any* unwanted child in a heartbeat. I’d also take in their mother, as well.
i think both,but in specialy the slavery example is so true…and i hope generations after us will look back and say:”how people can be so limited and think that abortion is ok if it’s legal?”
Great set of responses. But the problem is that as soon as pro-lifers step up to the plate on the adoption thing, the pro-aborts get busy fighting against adoption. They support (and maybe staff) anti-adoption groups on the internet, and campaign against it as hard as they can. This is designed to cut away one more choice for women in crisis pregnancies, so they can be more easily coerced into an unwanted abortion. More money for the baby killing centers.
Try walking into a planned parenthood center when pregnant, to talk about all your options, and tell them you want to put your baby up for adoption. See how supportive they are of that idea. I can guarantee you they won’t like it. It won’t get them the money that abortion will.
As far as I’m concerned this only applies to Pro-Lifers who oppose abortion in rape cases. In rape the mother isn’t morally responsible for the life she is carrying, and like in Judith Thompson’s “Violinist” analogy, we aren’t duty bound in general to give up our bodily autonomy to strangers or even family for that matter.
So by forcing her to have the baby even though she isn’t morally responsible, would be like us being forced to either donate a organ to save a life.
Regarding adoption, Pro-Life often argues against the argument that viability and the bodily independence is relevant, partly due to the point that neither the born or unborn, are truly independent organisms. Since the only real difference is that one is cared for internally and the other externally.
Therefore if we are saying there is a sort of equivalence in care, that an innocent life is of utmost value, and we are asking a rape victim to give up her bodily autonomy to save a life she isn’t responsible for, it isn’t unreasonable to ask Pro-Lifers to adopt or foster for at least 9months and do the same. If we refuse we are then saying we can force a rape victim to give up her bodily autonomy but don’t ask me to do the same.
What Josh hasn’t done is correctly zeroed in on who is doing what to whom and what are the relevant rights in question. So there is no general equivalence in his counter.
BTW I’ll be speaking to him tomorrow so it will be interesting to hear his reply.
Simon, I have to respectfully disagree with you. To be honest, there was a time when I felt the same way that you did. I felt this way out of compassion for the mother. What a terrible thing to have to go through! To be sinned against in a terrible way, and then be forced to carry the fruit of that sin, and deliver the fruit of that sin! I still do have great compassion for anyone that finds themselves in that terrible situation. However, my heart has been changed in the matter, regarding abortion. I remember listening to a “Focus on the Family” program, which featured a mother who was raped and became pregnant because of it, before Roe v. Wade. She delivered her baby, and chose to raise him as a single mother. At the time of the radio program, her son was now an adult. I remember her crying as she explained how much she loved him, and what a blessing he was to her and the world. He was born out of a terrible crime against her, and a sinful act, but he had become one of her greatest blessings. If Roe v. Wade had been in effect, she would have aborted him, without question. She shuddered to think now, of that possibility. My reasoning for changing my mind goes far beyond the example of this happy ending. I do not determine the morality of abortion, based on whether or not there can be a happy ending. However, this story touched me, and I began to realize what may be lost, when innocent babies are aborted.
That particular mother chose to take it a step further, and not only deliver her baby, but raise him as well. I think that is absolutely amazing, and I would not expect every mother in that situation to make the same choice. However, the truth is, any baby conceived, regardless of the circumstances, deserves the chance to LIVE.
Here is a summary of an interview, shown on the Live Action website. The interviewer went up to two young ladies at an outdoor concert, and asked them some questions. “Do you believe in abortion?” Both of them said no. He then asked the girls, “What about in the case of rape or incest?” They then said, yes, in those cases they feel it is okay. He then asked them this question: “Do you believe in giving an innocent person the death penalty?” Both answered “no, of course not.” He then explained, very lovingly, that this is exactly what happens when a baby conceived out of rape or incest is aborted. You could see the light bulbs turn on in their heads, and they suddenly “got it”. They both agreed that abortion was never okay, regardless of the circumstances of the conception.
I really believe it is this simple.
Blessings, and thank you for letting me share my thoughts…
I have taken in three; for the last rwelve years they are the light of our life!
how many have you taken in?
The use of the phrase ‘bodily autonomy’ really gets my dander up! That is a euphemism for ‘killing a child because I’m too impatient to wait a few months.’ Maybe the new pro-choice slogan can be:
“If I can’t be in total control, tiny heads are going to roll!”
Oops, I hit submit too soon.
The countering question to pro-choice people might be: Are you willing to pay for any and all counseling, psychiatric care, anti-depressents, fertility treatments, surgery to repair scarring, divorce costs, etc. etc. for post abortive women?? Because unless you are willing to personally take responsibility for the emotional and physical effects of the proceedure then you cannot call yourself pro-choice.
Sarah that’s just it how ones feels about is should be neither here nor there for both Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. What is relevant is consistent moral rules followed consistently. In this instance where we have a conflict of interests between two moral beings, where right to life, bodily autonomy and moral responsibility are involved–all highly valued in society- so one should apply the same reasoning in general as in other non pregnancy based cases.
If the rape victim goes to term that is great but it is still a supererogatory act, just as if you give up bodily autonomy via donating an organ for a child with a terminal illness. Again the underlying point is it is fantastic for anyone to sacrifice a highly valued right to save another life, but it is hypocritical to expect others to do it when you aren’t prepared to do it your-self.
Pro aborters are people that know it is wrong but they get a kick out of murdering un born humans because they just want to kill people and have power over life but woe to those who shed innocent blood they face the wrath of their creator Jesus Christ
My response is simple:
Yes. Every single one. If I cannot adopt them I will find someone who can.
There is nothing I would not give up if it would save a child’s life.
I would love to adopt, even though I already have to biological children (so far).
Let’s go ahead and set up a system where abortion is legal only if no one will adopt the fetus in question. People can register to be willing to adopt the children.
I guarantee you none will die, especially if they aren’t requiring some sort of lengthy, intrusive process to register, and things are done honestly. Why? Because if no one else would adopt that child, I would. And because there have got to be thousands more like me out there.
“Consistent moral rules followed consistently” I couldn’t agree more. My stance is that abortion should never be legal. I would say that is pretty consistent.
I’m not understanding your last point. We are determining right from wrong. It’s not relative, based on whether or not everyone else in the entire country would be willing to carry a baby conceived out of rape, to full term. (Which, I would do that, by the way, but that has nothing to do with the moral aspect of abortion.) Some people DO choose to murder, steal, rape, etc… Should we make those actions legal, to avoid living in a “hypocritical country”? Perhaps I just really misunderstood your point, but I’m not sure where you are going with that.
Abortion is either okay, or it is not. The act of abortion is the act of murdering an innocent human being. “Life” trumps “bodily autonomy” every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Period. Again, I have compassion for the poor woman who finds herself in that situation. However, allowing her to have an abortion, is morally unacceptable, in my opinion. However, what does MY opinion matter, when compared to the opinion of God, our Creator.
I will close with this paragraph, that I found from a pro-life website: “The final outcome of the battle for life has already been decided by the Resurrection of Christ. We are not just working for victory; we are working from victory. We joyfully take a victory that has already been won, and proclaim, celebrate, and serve it until He comes again to bring it to its fullness. “There shall be no more death” (Revelation 21:4). “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20).”
In response to Pastor Speer, I respectfully disagree with your take on why women have abortions, or why people are pro-choice. I don’t think the vast majority of them “get a kick out of murdering people.” I think these women often feel like abortion is the only way out for them. I believe it is important for us to accurately understand the other side so that we can better dialogue with them. There’s more I could say about this, but I’ll stop for now.
I can see both sides. It’s not fair to the baby, but if you believe in god, you believe it will be born to another mother. But it is fair to the woman. It’s HER body and it’s HER uterus. There are always exceptions. I can understand a 16 year old accidentally getting pregnant and getting one abortion, but people shouldn’t be allowed to get like 12 of them because they’re not smart enough to use protection.
Sarah no you are missing the point. No doubt I’ll be taking this up with Josh when I talk with him and he can try to convey what I’m talking about.
Thanks for responding to my piece, Simon. Sorry we missed our conversation last week, but I’m looking forward to talking to you in the future. In the meantime, let’s dialogue a little about your counter-argument, so the others can understand both of our views a little better.
I have a few clarification questions for you. I think I understand where you’re coming from, but I want to make sure I do before offering my own counter-argument, so as not to accidently commit a strawman.
Do you believe abortion is justified in rape cases?
Do you think Judith Thompson’s “Violinist analogy” is a sound one, or do you think there are areas where the analogy fails to describe a pregnant woman’s situation?
If you do think her analogy is sound, why is it that you believe abortion isn’t morally justified for non-rape cases? Thompson’s analogy is certainly more powerful when talking about rape cases, but Thompson believed abortion was morally justifiable in general, not just in rape cases.
Lastly, you wrote that I failed to correctly zero in on who is doing what to whom and what are the relevant rights in question. Enlighten us on who is doing what to whom, and what are the relevant rights in question.
Thanks, Simon!
Kate, you think if one believes in God it’s ok to abort because the baby will be born to another mother?! OK, let’s run with that premise: We know that a 20 week fetus feels pain. We strongly suspect that a 13 week old fetus feels pain because it will (as observed on ultrasound) try to swim away from the abortionist’s tools. Now, do you believe it is ok to put this person through pain, not once, not twice, but through as many abortions it must go through in order to be born at full term?! Do you think God has this big waiting rooom full of ‘potential’ babies and they eagerly jump at the chance to be torn apart by their mothers’ hired killers? Seriously?
It occurs to me that the larger problem with the argument that “abortion is okay because the baby will be born to another mother,” is that the argument proves too much. Why would it be wrong to kill a newborn? After all, it’ll just be born to another mother, right? If not, why is the fetus different than the newborn?
There is nothing in Scripture that can even be taken out of context to back up this thinking. It strikes me as more wishful thinking / an attempt to get pro-life Christians to not care so much about ending abortion.
But maybe I’m wrong…
and maybe I’m not.