May
3
Does Abortion Protect Unwanted Children from Abuse?
A couple weeks ago, I wrote a bit about the “Rapid Fire” series Greg Koukl was doing lately in STR’s “Solid Ground” newsletter. I then reproduced one of the vignettes (from Part 4) in which Koukl examined the atheist-materialist claim that “Consciousness is an illusion.”
I promised another vignette for you to cogitate on, so here we are. (Also from Part 4, as it turns out.) Koukl counters the argument made on an abortion-related topic by a college student in a “Letter to the Editor”. The student made some claims and recommendations that might seem reasonable at first glance but really turn out to be filled with bad logic, unwarranted assumptions, and a disturbingly confused sense of morality and the value of human life.
I’ll let Koukl explain…
— — —
This particular defense of abortion is probably the most twisted I’ve ever encountered. It surfaced years ago in the “Letter to the Editor” section of the Ohio State University Lantern as a response to an article by a pro-life Christian student.
The pro-abortion author, Shane Ahmed, spends the bulk of his article attempting to tie the horrors of abuse, molestation, and sexual slavery to the pro-life movement. Bewildered, he states, “I have never heard a pro-lifer speak on child-molestation.”
First, Ahmed’s entire approach is a red herring. I promise you, women do not choose abortion because they’re afraid they’re going to neglect, abuse, or molest their children.
Second, as far as I know, my neighbors have never spoken out against child molestation, either. Am I justified in assuming they may be a little soft on the issue? Or is it safer to presume that as civilized human beings, they abhor such behavior like the rest of us, even though they have not joined a public campaign against it?
Third, what Ahmed must actually show — and not simply insinuate — is that the children who might have been killed through abortion turn out to be the same children who parents molest, torment, or otherwise abuse. This correlation has never been demonstrated. Indeed, abuse has risen dramatically (as Ahmed vividly points out in his missive) precisely when abortion has been available to anyone for any reason.
The most serious problem in Ahmed’s approach, though, is the moral equation he offers as a solution: It’s justifiable to kill human babies who we suspect might have a miserable life.
Ahmed writes, “So what does all this have to do with me thinking it’s okay to kill babies? Because I am willing to make the hard choices…. I care more about.. .what they will experience than the need to simply bring them into this world.”
Apparently, Ahmed actually believes it is worse to abuse children — if that actually turns out to be their lot — than to kill them. He really thinks that molestation is more evil than murder. Indeed, he offers the second as an antidote for the first. He advocates killing children to save them from any possibility of physical abuse or sexual assault.
This, Ahmed argues, is the moral high road compared to the pro-life position. Really? Is this the best solution he can come up with? Kill children now to protect them from possible harm in the future? [Ed. Note: I wonder if Ahmed is in favor of killing children once it has been discovered that they experienced serious abuse of some kind. After all, to follow his reasoning, at least no one could abuse them anymore and they wouldn’t have to deal with the trauma of past abuse.]
I would like to offer an alternative to Ahmed and anyone else tempted by this bizarre justification for abortion.
If Ahmed really believes that “every single life should experience love, enjoy fullness, happiness, and meaning,” as he writes, he should dig into his pockets and spend some of his own hard-earned money to make that a reality, like millions of pro-lifers do.
If he really cares “more about children’s ‘lives’ than their mere existence,” then he might donate his time at a care center, like thousands of pro-lifers do.
If he really is “willing to make the hard choices,” then he should make the hard choice to actually do something for those children he says he cares about rather than arguing to save them by killing them.
— — —
I completely agree with Koukl. Ahmed’s reasoning is indeed incredibly “twisted”, even if his “solution” — eliminate the child, eliminate the problem — might be considered simple and efficient in a utilitarian sense.
(Btw, just to clarify, the above “Ed. Note” is my own comment, just following the logic of Ahmed’s argument a step further.)
