in Commentaries

How does one square pro-life and anti-welfare?

Abortion is not an answer to poverty.

This is part 6 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


6. How do conservatives square a pro-life abortion policy with persistent attacks against the welfare state?

I have a hard time squaring the idea that these two things are related in conversation. Apparently, liberals feel that it’s justifiable to kill a human being that may be born into a welfare system. Is being dead better than being poor? Is that what you think about poor people? They would have been better off had they been aborted by their mother? Seriously, has no person ever escaped the welfare system? This isn’t a caste society. The two are unrelated, and it sickens me to hear this argument.

Killing an unborn, defenseless human being is wrong; regardless of the reason. The only permissible time is when the mother’s life, not her mind, is in danger, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

The welfare system is wrong and abortion are wrong. Using one wrong to justify another wrong is evil.

New SCIENCE on when life begins: Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins | Public Discourse

Leave a Reply