Whenever I read or hear arguments that juxtapose anti-life attitudes with popular concerns, I investigate the facts. This is advisable for all those truly interested in understanding how the good ol' U.S. of A. maintains one of world’s highest abortion rates.
For example, at the height of the inauguration frenzy last past month, pro-aborts came out of the woodwork with a variety of explanations as to why the economic downturn was supposedly driving more expectant mothers to abort their children. It was argued that a family threatened with a job loss or a suddenly evaporating 401K was a family that could ill afford to have another mouth to feed.
The State of Minnesota’s annual abortion report for 2007 indicates that nearly 40 percent of those seeking abortion did so because of economic concerns, at least according to Planned Parenthood: "'Certainly, women's concerns about being able to support their families are important,' said Sarah Stoesz, executive director of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. The cost of birth control may be another concern in a tightening economy, she said, and could lead to unplanned pregnancies.”
Yet, in December, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer pointed out,
Cynthia Dudek, an insurance agent based in Michigan, has written an article arguing that the health risks of abortion, hormonal contraceptive use and in vitro fertilization adversely impact the U.S. economy. Her article comes at a time when U.S. health care costs have soared from $75 billion in 1970 to $1.973 trillion in 2005 and the U.S. economy is reeling under the weight of a recession…
When health insurers include individuals within their risk pool who have a greater than average need for health insurance – i.e., people known as "high risk policyholders," then they create a problem called "adverse selection." Adverse selection increases the cost of insurance and results in a reduction of benefits.
When a person (or an institution, like Planned Parenthood) does not bear the consequences of his actions or even profits from the problems that he caused, then he creates a problem in insurance and the economy called a "moral hazard."
It is noteworthy that the arguments justifying abortion while we have a flagging economy receive mainstream media attention, while examples of how aborting a child can be a drag on the economy never seem to make it past little-known web sites or speeches to audiences representing the converted.
There is also the little-discussed, but vastly popular idea that children with questionable health pose a financial risk or could negatively affect their parents' quality of life. This idea also suggests that these burdens can be eliminated prior to birth. Some might argue that this sort of genetic genocide should be permitted, particularly when a test can be done prior to implanting an embryonic human, but others voice concern that this practice is indeed a form of eugenics. These include the well-known abortion proponent William Saletan, who has written extensively in defense of a woman's “right” to abortion.
But on the subject of eugenics, he publicly opposes preimplantation genetic diagnosis, even though he gets his scientific facts confused due to the culture of death’s twisted logic. In his commentary on why testing for the breast cancer gene in the United Kingdom brings into question the morality of such tests, particularly because nine of 11 human embryos were discarded for having the gene, he opines,
In sum, at least six human embryos were made and then thrown away because they failed a test. We now call such tests "preconception." This is the next step in our gradual devaluation of embryos. First, we said IVF embryos weren't pregnancies. That's technically correct: Pregnancy begins when the embryo implants in the womb. Then we called early embryos "pre-embryos" so we could dismantle them to get stem cells. That was technically incorrect, but we did it because it made us feel better.
Now we're adjusting the word conception. Henceforth, testing of IVF embryos to decide which will live or die is preconception. Don't fret about the six eggs we fertilized, rejected, and flushed in selecting this baby. They were never really conceived. In fact, they weren't embryos. According to Serhal, each was just "an affected cluster of cells."
While Saletan should have recognized that each of these preborn embryonic children is indeed a pregnancy because he or she does exist and does have parents, his commentary indicates an interesting twist in his thinking. If Saletan continues to be disturbed about the eugenics which, frankly, is practiced in most IVF labs these days on both sides of the pond, he may eventually realize that abortion is murder. He is certainly thinking along the right lines, and all he needs to do is use his intellectual ability to think things through clearly.
Finally, there's this dimwitted idea, being exported to America from the United Kingdom, that parents would be doing the world a great favor, in the concerted global effort to become "greener," if they would stop having babies. Oh yes, a good environmentalist, it seems, should not think in terms of a large family, or so says environmentalist Jonathon Porritt. The United Kingdom's Times news web site tells us,
"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," Porritt said. "I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don't really hear anyone say the 'p' word."
In case you were wondering about it, the "p" word is "population." And as we all know, environmentalists do not like to be associated with population controllers, eugenicists, abortionists or any other group they view as taking credibility away from their worthy cause! At least that used to be the case, but to my mind, the climate is changing. As the Chicago Tribune reported, in reference to Porritt's comments,
Family planning as a means to reduce climate change has been little talked about in international climate forums, largely because it is so politically sensitive. China's leaders, however, regularly argue that their country should get emission reduction credits because of their one-child policy, and many environmentalists—and even a growing number of religious and ethics scholars—say the biblical command to "be fruitful and multiply" needs to be balanced against Scripture calling for stewardship of the Earth.
The point is that there are many and various ways to package the messages constantly being massaged, updated and marketed by the architects of the culture of death. And whether it is the economy or the environment or eugenic practices that are being emphasized as a "good" in the war against the innocent preborn child, there is one thing that all these arguments have in common: They are evil!
Yes, another “e” word that really needs to become the most popular "e" word in our pro-life vocabulary! Don't you agree?