Friday, July 25, 2008

Does the Pro-Choice "Argument from Money" hold water?

Well, I'm back from my volunteering at Summer Camp, so I figured I'd start out simple and do an entry about a Pro-Choice argument that I hear a lot. Here goes:

The rawest form of this argument from the Pro-Choice side is,

"A young, single mother will be unable to financially take care of both the child and herself, therefore it's ultimately better for her to abort than to have the child and cause both to suffer."

I find this argument to be bunk, because even if someone is young on welfare/social assistance, they can still raise a child. It just requires more money management and a reduction of lifestyle expectations. For instance, you need a form of entertainment but don't "need" the latest and greatest computer/TV/Gaming console. You need clothing to keep warm, etc, but you don't "need" brand new clothes. You need nourishment, but you don't "need" brand-name foods. You need a way to get around, but you don't "need" a car to get from point A to point B.

Aside from that, even if I am completely mistaken in my above paragraph, the conclusion that abortion is the best option does not follow. There's nothing there to rule out adoption as an alternate option.

Chalk this one up under Canard...