Pro-Choicers Hate the “What if I Hadn’t Been Born” Question. Here’s Why.
26th October 2011
The pro-choice movement relies on a carefully crafted image to make its position seem responsible and caring: that women should be allowed to abort their unplanned pregnancies because unwanted children grow up poor, neglected, abused or some combination thereof. It can’t allow for the possibility that some “unwanted” children actually grow up in loving homes and become responsible, even successful, adults; or that couples who take responsibility for unplanned children can be as good of parents as couples who wait until they’re ready to have a family.
October 26th, 2011 at 10:09
I don’t hate the question. I laugh at it.
It rests on false premises: i.e., that a significant number of abortions, if carried to term instead, would actually result in healthy, productive, happy children who would then grow into healthy, happy, productive and successful adults.
‘It can’t allow for the possibility that some “unwanted” children actually grow up…and become responsible, even successful, adults…’
Some children grow up to be presidents and astronauts, too, but how many, really? Do the math. I’ll wait.
Possible? Yes. Likely? Not really.
‘…or that couples who take responsibility for unplanned children can be as good of parents as couples who wait until they’re ready to have a family.’
The emphasis here is on “couples”. Most abortions are performed on single females.
Were there a man in the picture who would be willing to help support and care for mother and child, they probably would have the baby.
Also, never have I heard anyone in the right to life movement say that couples with unwanted children are, ipso facto, bad parents. I’ve known some parents of “accidental” babies who were and are very, very good parents, and I’ve also known a lot of terrible parents who wanted and planned for every one of their children.
The quality of parenting is not at issue, hence the inclusion is irrelevant.