By: Jericho Cook
Anyone who identifies as pro-life has been, or at some point will be, faced with an argument posed from a pro-choice advocate that goes something like this:
“Well, if you aren’t willing to pay for the mother’s medical expenses throughout her pregnancy, and then adopt her child once it’s born, then you have no right to tell her whether she should be able to have an abortion or not!”
To them, it sounds like an infallible argument. It throws the pro-life individual off guard, and makes them question whether they are truly committed to their cause. It falsely causes the pro-life individual to believe that they may be wrong to suggest that the woman should not have an abortion. After all, if the pro-life individual is unwilling to take on the burden of medical expenses and raising the child, then how can they in good conscience place that burden on the mother?
However, in reality, this argument only points out the severe flaws in the pro-choice individual’s stance, not in the pro-life individual’s.
When we break down this pro-choice argument, we are left with only two options: extortion or death.
See, when anyone makes this argument in favor of abortion, what they are doing is essentially holding a human life for ransom. If all of their demands are met, they will release the child with nary a scratch on its head. If not? Well, then that child will be “sleeping with the fishes.” This argument aids and abets the selfishness that has been rightfully attributed to the desire to terminate a pregnancy.
In the majority of cases, women who contemplate abortion, and subsequently receive one, do so with the intent of ridding themselves of any responsibility regarding the child. This argument only supports that notion. By extorting pro-life advocates to cover any and all medical expenses, given they agree to take the child into their homes of course, the mother’s are simply agreeing to carry the child to term only if they are ensured that they will not bear any responsibility regarding the child. It is best described by the words of a Southern analogy: “Same crap, different toilet.”
So, the next time you are presented with this argument, remind the person that it is difficult to sound morally superior when the only two choices they are presenting are extortion or death.