The pro-abortion left continually lays out accusations of ill-intent when arguing in favor of abortion on demand. One of the more common ones is, “You’re Pro-Birth, Not Pro-Life. If you were pro-life, you’d want children fed, clothed, educated, and housed.”
The intent of such a statement is clear. They’re saying that if pro-lifers cared about children in general, they wouldn’t oppose welfare programs for children outside the womb. And because they oppose such welfare programs, it’s hypocritical for them to oppose abortion on the basis of wanting a child to live.
It’s an attempt to paint pro-lifers as evil hypocrites that don’t actually want to stop the murder of a defenseless human being, but rather have some bizarre agenda to control what a women does with her body.
This argument is, of course, dense with irrational assumptions and misconceptions.
Most Pro-Lifers are Pro-Government Welfare
Tackling the easiest part first, most pro-lifers don’t fit this anti-welfare label being applied to them by pro-abortion activists. I can confidently say that even by the completely unreasonable standard of ‘you must be pro-welfare in order to be pro-life,’ most pro-lifers are solidly pro-life. Most of them believe the government should provide many of the current welfare programs.
In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find even a handful of pro-lifers who believe we should not have programs that specifically benefit women and children (like SNAP, WIC, etc). Many of them even go further than that. They believe that welfare is both necessary and reasonable at numerous times and situations in a person’s life. Welfare, for some, is actually thought to be a part of their Christian faith, and they will go out of their way to encourage the continued funding of it.
John Kasich, for instance, once claimed that advocating for government welfare might be rewarded in heaven. His assumption is wildly inaccurate in my opinion, but I’d bet a large chunk pro-life advocates agree. Especially those under the age of 35, who’ve been brought up on a culture that encourages the use of government welfare, rather than charity, to help those in need.
It’s More Pro-Life to End Welfare, Not to Grow It
Pro-lifers that are against government mandated welfare, like myself, simply don’t abide by the leftist notion that eliminating welfare would cause children to die in the streets. Nor do we wish that to happen. We oppose government welfare because we believe it’s not helpful in any significant way. Our opposition to it is based on our belief that it encourages a dependency on government and creates poverty and less access to quality goods & services.
Additionally, claiming the anti-welfare stance to be inconsistent with the pro-life stance is not only flawed because it misconstrues our intent, but also because we’re right.
It’s clear that government welfare is not even close to being the last hope for starving children in America. All one needs to do is look at the vast amount of money given to charities. There are numerous organizations that run mostly, and sometimes solely, off of voluntary donations. These organizations range from hospitals taking care of sick children (St. Jude Children’s Hospital), to the incredible number of food banks, to organizations that help low-income families buy clothes and furnish their homes (Salvation Army).
Americans are willing to help those in need. One can only imagine how much more help they would be willing to offer if they knew their money wasn’t being involuntarily taken to fund an inefficient and wasteful government welfare program. A program that is constantly abused, tossing around “benefits” as if they were bead necklaces being thrown out to patrons in the crowded streets of New Orleans on Mardi Gras.
Tax-Payer Funded Welfare is Immoral, Just Like Abortion
Laws are ultimately enforced with guns and violence. Sometimes it’s justified, sometimes not. Welfare is one of those times it is not. So, being anti-welfare is also more in line with the pro-life argument because they are both positions that advocate for moral, non-aggressive public policies.
In case you’re confused, let me break this down a little further.
Abortion is an involuntary execution of a living human being, without their consent, (yes, that’s a baby in their, not the woman’s body) for the “betterment” of a another party. Welfare is involuntarily taking from one person, without their consent, to give to another party, via the threat of the end of a barrel of a gun (yes, taxes are ultimately enforced with violence and welfare is theft). They’re both (as I see it) immoral, aggressive actions taken against a non-consenting and innocent party, done solely to “benefit” a completely different individual.
Opposing welfare on principle is not an indication that one is a hypocrite that doesn’t really care about children. It’s an indication that they are both very consistent and care about morality. Our anti-welfare stance is perfectly in line with the moral aspect of the pro-life argument. We don’t think it should be legal to either steal from someone or kill someone when they haven’t done anything to deserve such a punishment.
Clearly, just like most other pro-abortion arguments, this pro-abortion fallacy is noticeably weak. The “You’re pro-birth, not pro-life” accusation is a ridiculous and vile claim about a broad group of individuals with a wide range of opinions as for whether the welfare state should exist and, if so, to what extent it should exist.
It’s most evidently a tactic used solely as an attempt to shut down discussion, rather than encourage reasonable debate.
Because in the end, they don’t have sound arguments for killing 850,000 plus defenseless children every year, in the name of convenience. Claiming their opposition to be evil hypocrites, using absurd straw-men and ridiculous accusations of evil intent, is all they’ve got.