A Modest Abortion Proposal
By Rebekah Maxwell
“We weren’t planning for children.”
“We have too many mouths to feed already.”
“This planet is overcrowded anyway.”
“Kids cost money. We can’t afford this.”
“It’s not really a child, if it’s unwanted.”
“Why sentence a child to a life of poverty?”
“They would only suffer… it’s compassionate to spare them a life of physical and mental abuse.”
Oh, ye of the bleeding hearts. After many a strident argument from the amoral high ground, you’ve finally convinced me. You are right.
No child should be forced to live in abject poverty, without proper food and water.
No child should have to endure a life of pain and misery because they were inconvenient or unwanted; every child should be a wanted child…otherwise, it’s really no child at all.
And we must acknowledge the realities of overpopulation: if poor people of little means, skill, and education, continue to reproduce at the current rate, well, there’s just not enough resources to go around. We have to think of the collective good.
This is the wisdom that academic and societal leaders have been imparting for decades. And now is finally the time to heed their counsel.
Obviously, we should be aborting all those unwanted children crossing the border.
Somewhere between 24th and 42nd trimester, most of them.
They shouldn’t be forced to live a life of poverty and pain; that’s just cruel. They’re unwanted…highly inconvenient for their parents and for the populace. Just too many mouths to feed. And it’s unlikely they’ll ever make something of themselves.
Frankly, this country is overpopulated anyway, so it’s a humanitarian effort to remove the earth’s human burden. In fact, we could probably arrange for Planned Parenthood’s medical professionals to be bused down to the border to conduct the procedure (should be cost-effective, since we’re paying for them anyway).
No fuss, no funerals–just one mass abortion…all problems solved. That would be the compassionate thing to do, right?
Is there any possible reason why not?
Perhaps, because they’re human.
Real people, with faces, names, souls. Perhaps because they are each made in God’s image, just like your own children.
Accordingly, they deserve to be treated with respect. And they certainly don’t deserve to be slaughtered because they’re “inconvenient,” “a burden,” or “unwanted.” No human does.
Their humanity is not dependent on their looks, their location, or their economic status. They are human here and now, as they were from their very beginning. Just as we all are.
So why do we recognize the children of strangers as precious and deserving (even when the world calls them “unwanted”) when we use the same excuses to dispose of our own little children every single day?
Let’s clarify for liberal (or satirically-challenged) friends. There are two distinct questions regarding the children caught in this border crisis: 1) one of being, and 2) one of belonging.
The question of being is settled. They are, as we are, human beings.
The question of belonging is still in debate: where do these children belong? Who has the responsibility to care for them?
And the second question cannot be answered without the first, as much as your heart may bleed for these particular children in need. By denying some children their humanity, you rob these children of their dignity.
In short, you lose the argument about why and whether these children have the right to live here, the moment you win the premise that these children do not have a right to live at all.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.