The abortion debate has heated up again as heartbeat bills are passing all over the country. Feminists and liberals express outrage over the provisions that allow no exceptions and threaten women’s “rights.”
There are two major arguments in this highly emotional debate. The first is the need for exceptions. The pro-abortion activists employ the most extreme (and therefore rare) examples of exceptions to justify abortion. They know that insisting upon exceptions breaks the integrity of the pro-life position. Any concession is the equivalent of admitting that the murder of one innocent baby can be tolerated.
Quality of Life Argument
The exception argument is joined by another that quickly follows: that of the quality of life. The pro-life advocate is asked who will care for the babies that will suddenly be the responsibility of overburdened mothers and social services. They are asked what kind of life can these unwanted children expect, born into poverty and adversity.
The same liberals that love to spend taxpayers’ money become distraught at the cost of supporting these hundreds of thousands of babies that suddenly appear. They point out that lawmakers would also need to legislate new programs that are unlikely to pass in polarized America. Hence, they claim abortion is truly the compassionate solution to the problem.
Both the exception and quality of life arguments are extensively used to paint the pro-life position as brutal, impractical and uncompassionate. These highly emotional issues are also used to divert attention away from the real issue of human life and the immortal soul of the baby.
A Simple Proposal
To answer these two objections, perhaps it is the case to make a simple proposal to help resolve the abortion debate in these areas.
The proposal would be to make use of a present massive government program to take care of these hundreds of thousands of babies in need of help.
This existing program has the advantage that it is specially designed to take care of extreme exceptions. No one is left behind that cannot, in some way, be accommodated.
Another advantage of this program is that there is no limit to the number of people that can be accepted and given care. The machinery already exists that will shower upon them healthcare benefits, subsidies and eventually educational opportunities.
No extra funds or new programs will be needed. There seem to be inexhaustible funds available, and temporary housing facilities in place. Should abuses occur, activists are willing to take up their cause. Should Congress fail to help, federal judges are quick to overrule and protect the rights of program participants.
The simple proposal is that given this program exists, it should be easy to fold the new babies into it and thus assure them a bright future at a minimal cost. In such a case, everyone would be happy since both exceptions and quality of life concerns are addressed magnificently. Moreover, liberals overwhelmingly and enthusiastically support this present program and should revel in expanding it as they usually do when expanding any government program.
Presenting the Program
However, one can always count on liberals and feminists to be inconsistent. There is no way they will accept this proposal since it does not fit into their agenda even though the arguments to include babies in the program are almost identical.
The program above is the federal government’s present handling of illegal immigrants. Americans are being asked to accept all undocumented migrants without exceptions, including possible criminal elements, for no other reason except that they showed up at the border.
Many migrants are victims of the worst quality of life issues. They live in poverty, fear and want, and the federal government is being asked to help them overcome these handicaps and share in American prosperity.
Liberals accept no limits to the number of illegal migrants who can cross the border. They assume that the government has unlimited funds to house, care for and land jobs for these legions of poor migrants. Should any illegal migrant child become fatally ill while in federal custody, the government can expect the ire of activists and media. They can count of federal judges overturning any reasonable limitations that might be imposed by those overwhelmed by the massive invasion on the ground.
The Liberal Inconsistency
Liberals are perfectly willing to burden the country so that they can extend every opportunity to illegal non-citizens, yet deny those same benefits to unborn U.S. citizens inside the womb. They illogically claim it is possible and compassionate to accommodate massive groups of people that suddenly appear on the border, but deem it impossible and inhumane to do the same for the unborn when they come into the world.
In their quest for maximum individual freedom, radical liberals attack restrictions, laws, morals, and customs that normally keep order in society. They especially dislike those morals and norms that regulate sexual instincts. They refuse to recognize any dominion of God and His moral law upon society.
That is why the government’s current immigration procedures will not solve the illegal migration problem. Liberals dislike the present restrictive policy which protects national sovereignty. Thus, overwhelming the system is one way to bring about a new policy that will break down these old restrictions that allowed for orderly immigration into the country.
In the same way, radical liberals would oppose an expanded immigration program that would include babies. They would oppose it since abortion is part of the program of the sexual revolution that they hold so dear. There can be no compassion for a tiny human being that restricts the freedom of another human being.
Thus, the simple proposal would inevitably be rejected. One can conclude that two liberal objections are not real objections but subterfuges that hide a brutal agenda that not even a tiny unborn baby with a beating heart can overcome.