Facebook pixel

The Conditional Case


One of the mantras of abortion advocates is "Every Child a Wanted Child". It sounds noble enough, until you realise what their solution to unwantedness is. If a child isn't wanted, they argue, then it shouldn't be born. The problem, of course, is that the child is already conceived, and the only way to keep said child from being born is to kill it. How do they justify such violence? Often by arguing that it is better for the child to be dead than for the child to be unwanted. 

This is a bogus argument. It doesn't work for the simple fact that no one makes such an argument about children after birth. Whoever heard the abortion providers Marie Stopes or British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) argue that it would be better to kill children waiting for adoption rather than let them suffer through an "unwanted" life? If someone's right to life truly were established or removed based simply on their "wantedness", that would be the death knell of homeless men and women around the nation. 

Something as subjective as "wantedness" can never be the basis for granting someone the right to life, and abortion advocates know this. They don't argue that mothers should be free to kill their "unwanted" children after birth because they know these children are living, human beings with full rights of person-hood. The only reason they argue that mothers should be free to kill their unwanted children before birth is because they're ignoring the scientific reality that these children, too, are living, human beings. The question is humanity, not wantedness. 

Finally, it must never be forgotten, that the very discussion of "wantedness" in the first place ignores a substantial reality. There are no "unwanted" children in the broadest sense. Even if the biological parents want nothing to do with their offspring, there are families all over the nation waiting desperately to adopt a baby, families who are willing to adopt babies with disabilities of any race or ethnicity. This oft-cited notion of "unwantedness" is misleading and is utterly insufficient to justify even a single abortion.


Abortion advocates often argue that it is acceptable for a woman to abort her pregnancy if she cannot afford to raise a child. While they are careful to use noble and compassionate language, they are essentially arguing that if a baby is going to be too expensive, the mother has a right to kill it. Such rationale falls apart on many levels, but we'll start with the most fundamental. Like so many abortion arguments, this one assumes something about the unborn embryo or fetus that it hasn't proved. It assumes, in fact, the very thing that it must prove before the argument can hold any water. 

Isn't it true, that there are born-children in the UK today who are growing up in poverty? Yes it is true, but has anyone ever heard someone argue that the mothers of these born-children should have the right to kill them, since they can't afford to raise them? No one makes such an absurd and heartless argument because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is sufficient rationale for killing another human being, particularly an innocent child. The only reason anyone uses this argument to try and justify abortion is because they are assuming that unborn children are not human persons. But until abortion advocates can demonstrate that children are not human beings before they're born, all such appeals to financial hardship have no foundation. Poverty is not the issue. The real issue is the humanity of the unborn child.  

Another reason this "poverty" argument falls apart is because most abortion advocates support abortion on demand. They want women to have the right to abort their children for any reason or no reason at all. Therefore appealing to the hard cases of financial instability is just a smoke-screen designed to mask what is an incredibly broad agenda. 

Finally, and most practically, it is simply not true to suggest that there are any women in UK who cannot afford to carry their pregnancy to term. Even in the more difficult situations there are large numbers of crisis pregnancy centres across the UK willing to counsel, support and provide for these women for no charge at all compared to the abortion providers who will kill your unborn child for a fee.  Any woman who is pregnant, no matter what her financial situation, can receive the resources she needs to carry her baby to term.


As shocking a reality as this is, abortion advocates would have you believe that putting a child to death is an acceptable solution to that child's physical or mental disability. In much the same way that they argue for aborting children who might grow up in poverty, abortion advocates also argue for the right to abort children who might grow up with a disability...as if disease or disability somehow strips a person of their right to live and relegates them to a life of misery. Such a suggestion is barbaric and inhumane and has no place in a just society. There are children of all ages, and adults too, who are alive today and are living through all manner of disease and disability CHECK OUT NICK VUJICIC. Do these physical limitations make them less than human? Is killing everyone who is sick really an acceptable way to treat sickness? 

The only reason anyone can suggest for children before birth what they would never suggest after birth is that they are assuming something about that child which they have not proven. Anyone who argues that abortion is a necessary safeguard against a life of suffering and disability is assuming that the unborn child is not yet a living human being. But this is exactly the point that they must prove before they can even begin to make such claims. Disability isn't the issue, it's humanity. We do not kill people for their disabilities, full stop. Therefore, unless we're not human beings before we're born, our disabilities should no more disqualify us from life before birth than they do after birth. 

Furthermore, this pressure to abort disabled babies is built largely on conjecture, on the mere "likelihood" that a child has some kind of disability. Often, the tests prove wrong, and more often still, these children, if allowed to live, end up with lives of joy and happiness that far exceeds those of their "more healthy" peers. Suffering and hardship are not bad things. They are means to a greater end, a crucial part of the human journey. Anyone who tries to eliminate suffering by killing the "sufferers" is establishing a very, very, very, very dangerous trend! It is not for us to decide who has a life worth living and who doesn't, and we certainly wouldn't want someone else making that decision for us! 

In the end, this whole question of disability is a mere disguise to divert attention from abortion's true agenda. The fact is, abortion advocates support killing babies whether they have disabilities or not. They're not arguing that abortion should be limited to fetuses with severe handicaps. They're arguing that the mother, alone, should have the right to kill her baby for any reason under the sun, and that is the most shocking reality of all.

Adapted by kind permission from Abort73.com