It’s not about the babies.
This catchphrase seems to be the latest slogan that supposedly eviscerates all pro-life arguments, which apparently is necessary in light of the “leak” that indicates that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade. Apparently, it is a “gotcha” that proves that pro-lifers are nothing more than political zombies or gullible religious nuts.
According to a social media post I saw, there are undisputable reasons that “it it’s not about the babies.”
“If it was about babies, we’d have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn’t be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was. If it was about babies, we’d have months and months of parental leave, for everyone.”
She went on to list several other things that should also be free, including diapers, formula, childcare, preschool, IVF, and adoption.
Really? I didn’t have to spend a lot of time thinking about this before I came up with three reasons that this kind of thinking is ridiculous.
1. Free stuff and abortion are unrelated
There is simply no logic to this argument. Why could we only ban killing an innocent human being if we are willing to offer them free stuff? This has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments against abortion. Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent person. Our argument does not become stronger just because we offer to take care of that person after birth.
For clarity, let’s move the conversation a few years out. Let’s say, for example, that a mother wants to kill her 5-year-old child. Who would approve of such a thing? Using the “it’s not about the babies” logic, we can only stop her from doing it if we offer the child free schooling, healthcare, adoption, etc. What we offer has no bearing whatsoever on the argument against killing the child.
Of course, you may respond with “But that’s not the same! You’re talking about a child, not a fetus.”
Okay. What’s the difference between the “fetus” and the five-year-old child? Nothing except time and location. Rather than the child being a few months older than conception and inside the womb, she is 5 years older and outside the womb. What happened in those five years that suddenly made it wrong to kill the child?
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Viability. After all, a child in the womb is not able to take care of itself!
Of course not. But neither is a 6-month-old or a 2-year-old. Even a 5-year-old, if left alone, would likely die. So, does that mean we can kill off all our toddlers when they bring unnecessary hardships to our lives? What about the 10-year-old that would only eat junk food if you let him and never get nourishment? He doesn’t have the maturity to make wise decisions. Can we kill him, too? Apparently, the only way we can morally prohibit people from killing their children is if we provide everything free for them so the parents don’t have to.
Which brings us to my next argument against this logic.
2. Pregnancy establishes responsibility
When a couple becomes pregnant, they (yes, both of them) take on a responsibility. They now have the task of caring for a child. By the time most people reach puberty, they have at least a general understanding of what causes children. To take part in sex, then, is to accept that responsibility. If attempts at contraception fail, the fact remains—the parents are still responsible. Just because the child is an “accident” changes nothing.
When we prohibit abortion, we are holding parents to their responsibilities. Once the child is conceived, they are obligated to care for that child, even if it results in giving the child up for adoption. I don’t have to provide all the needs for your child to earn the right to tell you that you can’t kill him. That’s your responsibility.
Of course, the argument always goes back to rape. But how many abortions do you think come about from rape? Certainly not all of them. Even if all aborted babies were conceived in rape, we still have the issue I brought up earlier. Why is it ok to kill a rape-conceived baby weeks or months after conception, but not years after conception? The only things that have changed are the passage of time and location.
3. Free options are available
If a parent does not have the means to take care of a child, there are safe haven laws in every state. Here in Indiana, you can give up your child within the first 30 days of its life. All you have to do is hand the baby to a law enforcement officer or emergency medical provider or an on-duty staff member at a hospital or fire station. You can even all 911 and they will come get the baby. Many locations even have safe haven boxes where a parent can anonymously surrender an unwanted child.
So, this argument that “it’s not about the babies” is utterly fallacious and nothing more than an attempt to confuse people about the real issue—selfishness that leads to an utter disregard for life.
You can watch my video on this below.
Also, check out my playlist on abortion here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcUxE-Dfb1To1RdZ24dIe5QCuCXMzONwl
