Is poverty a valid reason to get an abortion? This is one of the excuses thrown out there
in discussing the morality of abortion. The
argument is always shrouded in the claim of being the moral thing to do. If we think this through to its conclusion we
can discover the viability of this claim.
First, the stages of development of a human being have no points along the way where it was not human. That is scientifically irrefutable. Having that understanding, now let’s investigate the claim. If I may morally take human life in its early stages to keep them out of poverty, then I can also morally take life at any stage to keep them out of poverty. For instance, why not have a threshold where when a person goes below it and into poverty, we just kill them. We could eradicate poverty altogether. Of course this is absurd and shows the fallacy in the original argument.
First, the stages of development of a human being have no points along the way where it was not human. That is scientifically irrefutable. Having that understanding, now let’s investigate the claim. If I may morally take human life in its early stages to keep them out of poverty, then I can also morally take life at any stage to keep them out of poverty. For instance, why not have a threshold where when a person goes below it and into poverty, we just kill them. We could eradicate poverty altogether. Of course this is absurd and shows the fallacy in the original argument.
Second, is poverty so torturous that it should be used as a
reason to take human life to avoid it?
Well why not go ask people who are in poverty now. Let’s see how many we can find who would
agree to their termination to relieve them of this suffering. Again, this is absurd and also shows the
absurdity of the original argument.
What makes the argument so irrational is that an adult is choosing for a child whether they would be worthy of life. Adults do not have that choice after birth so why should they have that choice before birth? Either way it violates the choice of another human being which invalidates the premise. God has a lot to say about poverty and how to avoid it. Hint, it starts with keeping His commandments, one of which is, “Thou shalt not murder.” But then again He also says:
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
What makes the argument so irrational is that an adult is choosing for a child whether they would be worthy of life. Adults do not have that choice after birth so why should they have that choice before birth? Either way it violates the choice of another human being which invalidates the premise. God has a lot to say about poverty and how to avoid it. Hint, it starts with keeping His commandments, one of which is, “Thou shalt not murder.” But then again He also says:
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
Don’t shoot the messenger!
