Its Cheaper to Kill Them

When those of us who are pro-life object to government funding of abortion, one response we hear from the pro-choice lobby is that it is better to pay $300 for a welfare mom's abortion than pay thousands to raise her kid.

Few arguments demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the pro-choice mind set better than this one.  Imagine that the two-year-old daughter of a family on welfare fell into an abandoned well.  Authorities calculate that since a funeral is cheaper than a rescue, and since this little girl might be on welfare for the rest of her life, the financially sound thing to do is just flood the well with water.  Once the child's dead body floats to the top, the coroner can scoop it up, have it buried, and the taxpayers will have saved a bundle. 

That is obviously a monstrous idea, but it is no more monstrous than telling poor women that if they will kill their children in order to save us money, we'll hire the killer. 

However, if America really wants to base social policy on the argument that it's cheaper to execute a child than support one, then let's get serious about it.  Let's start encouraging welfare moms to not only kill their unborn children, but their born children as well.  Remember, the guiding principle behind this particular pro-choice argument is not morality but saving money.  So if we are willing to ignore the biological fact that the unborn children of the poor are living human beings, why should we care that their born children are living human beings?

And by the way, have you ever noticed that the very people who say pro-lifers have no right to be involved in the abortion decision, are the same people who say pro-lifers should be forced to pay for them.

Comments (Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics