I don’t know where you land on the spectrum of life before birth. Perhaps you agree that life begins at conception, or maybe you think it starts at some point that could never have been arrived at without conception. It’s your logic, not mine. But that’s not the argument I’m here to debate.
- Wherever you are in that process I think we can agree that new humans are children.
- And that the only way to make them is to give birth to them.
- And that the entire purpose of abortion is to prevent birth.
So how can Abortion be “for the children” when it ends childhood permanently?
Be NARAL.
“The research here is clear. Restricting abortion access doesn’t just harm women. It harms their children as well.” https://t.co/X6xPBCCMZ8
— Reproductive Freedom for All (@reproforall) October 30, 2018
This is about the children who were not aborted. What about them?
Well, they weren’t aborted. There’s that.
And then there’s the sketchy argument in the LA Times story that NARAL links to in their tweet. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air does the heavy lifting on the ‘report’ that motivating the reporting. He’s not impressed.
The only reason this silly claim gets taken at face value here is that it advances The Abortion Narrative. It’s a set-up, not a “study” — it’s a dressed-up set of talking points made to impress people who never look under the hood.
Ed pulls apart the numbers to arrive at his conclusion but I’d like to look at this a different way but using the same themes. If additional children are a strain on impoverished women; and impoverished women are a strain on local/national government; and ensuring access to abortion is a means to relieve that strain; why isn’t there a progressive program that aborts the burdens created by the government that if relieved might allow people to lift themselves out of poverty? For the children!
Republicans advanced tax reform. This left billions in investment capital in the hands of job creators instead of politicians and government bureaucrats. This lead to record employment numbers for demographic groups across the spectrum. Wages are up. Consumer confidence is up. People are getting jobs or raises and spending that money, which creates more jobs (job skills) and helps lift even more people out of poverty.
Fewer people in poverty means fewer unplanned pregnancies. It is also an economic circumstance favorable to carrying those pregnancies to term which leads to children and yes, fewer abortions. Fewer taxpayer-funded abortions.
The reality, if you can handle more of those, is that poverty is a business model for the abortion industry. The majority of its customer base is low-income at or below poverty.
If we really wanted to do something “for the children” it would look a lot more like what Republicans have been doing than what Democrats have done. (Most of the people living in Poverty in America live in large cities under the yoke of Democrat policy and Democrat rule).
This might be a good time to point out that very few Republicans get campaign contributions from NARAL or the Abortion industry and a majority of Democrats do.
Just sayin’. You know, for the children.
| Hot Air