Needing help answering a popular pro abortion argument

[DRDS]

Hey guys with the recent news of the planned parenthood and Susan G. Komen foundation mess it made me think of something I ment to ask you all.

It has to do with a popular "pro abortion" argument, and I think it out of all of them is the hardest one to answer but I do think there are good answers for it I just need some slight clearification on some of the details of the response.

The argument kind of taps into people's greedy sides and it goes something like this:

"Abortion helps weed out the troublesome,lazy, and poor among us. With the economic recession, high oil prices, and a limited amount of "stuff" (ie houses, building materials, land to own, land to grow food on, food itself, water , or just fill in the blank) there is less and less of stuff to go around. Which makes people afford less and live poorer quality lives. Therefore, abortion should be kept legal."

Now anyway, in finding a good response to this argument, I've noticed that many of the far left wing and even atheist types who use this argument love to have this view of economics called a "zero sum game".

And in so doing, I've heard many Christian apologists (for instance Jay Wesley Richards) give a response to this. I've heard bits and pieces but I don't know exactly how the detailed response goes. If anyone knows please let me know.

I've also noticed that unlike with the liberal atheist types who desire less and less people and more and more "stuff", based on what Christianity teaches and based on what I believe God's plan is. God form what I currently think, loves having a world full of people. God loves people. In fact the more people He can get into His kingdom the better.

But the only thing I wonder about is, in this life and in this world if hypothetically everyone on this planet was a Christian but yet we had five times as many people on the planet as we do know, could we all, still live happy, healthy and sustainable lives?

Because I've heard about all the horror stories like in China where people are almost literally stacked on top of each other with extremely limited living space, in bad living conditions and with little food to go around.

But if we had ten trillion people living like in the state of Texas and all were Christians living in unison to God's teachings could they make things work?
I'm curious to see what you all think. Anyways, thank you all for your time, God bless.

[jlay]

First. I don't know how popular this argument is in the pro-abortion movement. I would be much happier responding to an actual position or quote, as opposed to this hypothetical.

"Abortion helps weed out the troublesome,lazy, and poor among us. With the economic recession, high oil prices, and a limited amount of "stuff" (ie houses, building materials, land to own, land to grow food on, food itself, water , or just fill in the blank) there is less and less of stuff to go around. Which makes people afford less and live poorer quality lives. Therefore, abortion should be kept legal."

Abortion as a means of population control has to be one of the most twisted, selfish and terrifying agendas within the movement. I'm not sure it is a commonly held position among people who are pro-choice. If you have anything to reference it would sure be appreciated.

I mean we are getting right down to Hitler glorified. In making any argument against abortion, there are essentially tow basic starting points. Faith based and anythings else. In the case of faith we are dealing with the hearts of people, and abortion at its root is a heart problem. This can NOT be legistlated, or won in a court of law. This is spiritual warfare where people are held captive.

The 2nd approach is secular, and has to do with personhood. This has extremely strong potential and can certainly involve courts and legislation. One does not have to be religious to understand or advocate human rights. As advocates of human rights, we have a duty to work within the legal system to legislate protections for unborn humans. This isn't legislating morality anymore than passing laws for civil rights. If we are convinced that the unborn are persons, and we advocate human rights, then we are obligated to support and promote the cause through any and all channels.

Now, I'd say if you asked the majority of people if human life has value, they would overwhelmingly say, yes. This would include pro-choice and pro-life supporters (Obviously there are some exception.)

This argument you mention is flawed in a couple of ways. First, it obviously does not view the unborn as a person. (Amendment: Or less of a person than the mother)That is a problem with any pro-aborition argument.
The other, and equally concerning view, is that it does not hold to personhood as being inherent, but established based on societal conditions. An individual's potential offspring are valued based on their potential contribution to society. In others words, life value is established by contributing to offset the resources, space and air they would consume. In this model, the affluent, educated, wealthy, and able bodied have more value, and in turn more valuable off-spring. Side note: This is really convoluted, because the left wing is generally pro-abortion, yet is also the party that panders to the poor and redistribution of wealth. A party that seems to want to reduce everyone to the same level economically. It seems the poor are the ones whose unborn are most at-risk, and less valued. So, we are left to conclude that a person's value (personhood) is diminshed if they are poor, crippled, lazy, etc. Personhood becomes conditional. The problem is, asside from poverty, how do we know which persons will be troublesome, crippled or lazy?

So my question is why not just have post-maternal abortions? What is to stop us from exterminating people who don't seem to be worth the air they breath? I'll tell you what is stopping us. Personhood. Any one with a lick of sense understands that a person has value and inherent rights. Regardless if it is an infant, child or adult. So abortion becomes an issue about when those rights begin. Scientifically speaking, nearly everything favors pro-life. Once conception occurs you have a genetically unique human lifeform. From this point on it is only a debate about which stage of human life. Regardless, if you call it a zygote or embryo, it is a human zygote and a human embryo and a human fetus. And we have billions of case studies walking around that prove a human zygote will always produce a human.

So, regardless of the argument the response is the same. Personhood. Some may argue that a we shouldn't impose our laws on a women's body. But this is defeated easily under personhood. The unborn are defenseless and unable to speak for themselves. Who else deserves more legal protection under the law? Protecting human life has nothing to do with where that life is physically located. The spititual part of this battle is praying that eyes would be opened to see life in the womb as just as sacred as a new born infant, regardless of what 'stage' of development. Is a 10 year old more human than a newborn because it is in a different stage of development?

But the only thing I wonder about is, in this life and in this world if hypothetically everyone on this planet was a Christian but yet we had five times as many people on the planet as we do know, could we all, still live happy, healthy and sustainable lives?

If everyone on this planet were Christian it would be a moot point. The Kingdom would be ushered in, we'd be given new bodies which are incorruptible. The best thing we can do for abortion, hunger, poverty, etc. is preach the Gospel to all creation.
If people in America who call themselves Christians were faithful in giving 5% of their incomes to missions, we could essentially feed, cloth and educate the world's population with plenty to spare.

[DRDS]

Great points, I really like what you said about answering their objections with personhood. I guess that in and of itself would even answer this argument. I know it more than has for other pro abortion arguments.

[CallMeDave]

As to the arguement....it isnt up to US to decide whos (developing) human life gets snuffed out for economic reasons . 95% of ALL abortions performed are due to sexual hedonism gone further wrong and that amounts to 4000 per day approx. in the USA. With adoption as an option, there should be no abortion on demand as a birth control measure. If this continues, Abortion Mills are going to start offering drive-thru services on ones Lunch Hour. Its a great travesty in America and shows how sexual immorality for pleasure trumps human life ... even ones own developing offspring.