I reject any arguments for abortion based on the “inconvenience” a child would cause its parents, or the world. The very same logic could be used to clear out the prisons, mental institutions, homeless shelters, retirement homes and AIDS hospices across the country. After all, why would we want to force people to continue an existence if they are unwanted? Isn’t it more humane to save them from a life of being deprived and unloved? And if you don’t let me “terminate” my Grandpa, then don’t be a hypocrite - You take care of him!
All these arguments sound horrific in the contexts I have mentioned, yet many, many people raise them seriously in the context of abortion. And, for good measure, this argument is usually advanced only a moment after the
“it’s only a clump of tissue” justification is tried. So this whole “spare the child (and society) the heartache” excuse actually undercusts the first, on top of everything else.
There are other arguments advanced for abortion - I don’t have the time and energy to go into them. But this type of justification should be seen for the grotesque and uncivilized rationale that it is.
This woman does not believe that all human life is sacred. She is advancing a consequentialist argument, in which only the consequences of the abortion are considered, not the morality of the act itself. In her opinion, the consequences of continuing an unwanted pregnancy are worse than the consequences of ending it. Therefore, abortion is justified. While she acknowledges the humanity of the unborn child, she does not believe that the child’s right to life is absolute or that it trumps the mother’s “right” to a problem-free life or her right not to suffer the consequences of her own behavior. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking has become very widespread in our society.