I think most regulars here are familiar with how to respond to the common Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born canard put forth by pro-legalized abortionists. I’ve typically used a two part approach, as follows:
1. You don’t have to take ownership of a situation to be able to protest a moral evil.
2. Even so, pro-lifers do plenty to help women and children and need.
But a recent Stand to Reason Podcast brought up another good point that I hadn’t thought of. Here’s an additional response to use:
3. Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well. Either that, or give up espousing their pro-choice views. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.
Think about it. It may seem subtle at first, but it is a completely consistent argument. Pro-lifers don’t think it should be an option to kill the unborn, so pro-choicers use the false logic that we can’t complain about abortion if we won’t adopt all the kids and raise them to adulthood. But if the woman decides to choose life, then the pro-choicer would have the same moral obligation to raise the kids.
Here’s how I played this out in this comment thread:
Pro-legalized abortion commenter: Hard decisions belong between a pregnant woman and her caregivers, not “holier than thou” intruders, unless they personally are willing to raise, including medical care, education, and life care, all those fertilized eggs.
My response: Another canard.
Answer me this: Let’s say the government decides to solve the problem of homelessness by killing homeless people. Can you protest this without being willing to house them yourself?
You can also substitute other examples (Can you call the police if your neighbor is abusing his wife and children without having to marry her and adopt the kids?).
It is a simple question designed to point out the primary error of your argument: You don’t have to take ownership of a situation just because you protest a moral evil.
And even though I don’t have to raise those human beings (the ones you like to call fertilized eggs) just because I protest the evil of abortion, I actually do a lot with my own time and money via CareNet Pregnancy Center.
And by the way, unless you are truly pro-abortion, then you are obligated to help as well. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same caregiving obligation falls on you.
So that argument self-destructs in at least three ways.
Finally, consider if the child was outside the womb. Do the women and her caregivers get to decide if the toddler lives or dies? Of course not. So the only question is whether the unborn is a human being. Since it is a scientific fact that she is, then people shouldn’t get to decide whether to kill her. And Christians especially shouldn’t support anyone’s right to kill her.
Other commenter: BTW, half of fertilized eggs don’t implant in the uterus, so is it illegal for a woman to have mensus?
My response: Are you seriously claiming that you don’t see the difference between the following?
1. Human being dies of natural causes.
2. Human being is crushed and dismembered by another human being.
I think most people can see the difference, whether 1 and 2 occur inside or outside the womb.
I’ve heard all the pro-legalized abortion sound bites many times and will be glad to debunk more for you. I hope that you are intellectually honest and reconsider your position on this crucial issue.