What about Poverty?
Well-meaning but misguided pro choice advocates will often quote poverty as a response to financial hardship. So, is abortion an acceptable response to poverty?
Trotting out the Toddler
We all know intuitively that there are appropriate solutions to crisis situations, and there are inappropriate solutions to crisis situations. And, whether pro life or pro choice, we actually agree on this. Let me show you:
Q: What if the woman is in poverty?
A: Let’s say a woman went through with her pregnancy, but, when the child is about two years old, they come down on really hard times. She loses her job and subsequently, they lose their home. What would you suggest?
Q: (At this point, they will probably list things like resource centres, shelters, churches, subsidized housing, and the like.)
A: Would killing her toddler ever be an acceptable suggestion?
Q: Absolutely not! (This response will probably come with horror at the very thought; that’s because we ALL inherently agree that death is not the solution to crisis!)
A: Exactly! We agree—Death is never an appropriate solution to suffering. There is ALWAYS a better option, and it’s our responsibility to help women and their children access these alternative options!
Yeah, but that’s different, because the two year old is an actual person…
And here we go again; they know that death isn’t a solution to suffering, but because they don’t recognize that the preborn child is a person too, they still think that abortion might be a merciful response. So, now, you would explain the philosophy of Human Rights 101.
(If you started with Human Rights 101, then they probably won’t argue that the two year old is a person but the preborn child is not—since you already established the humanity of the preborn child)
Can you explain why it’s different? Why is the preborn child not a person, but the two year old is?
The Other What-Aboutisms.
Of course, there’s a dozen other reasons people believe that abortion is necessary, so… keep reading!