The issue of abortion aside, I do wonder what prolifers would do or say if the abandonment and overpopulation of children in the US went to those levels.
Abortion doesn't magically stop becoming murder just because people become desperate.
Like, if you're going to be prolife don't up and say that you don't care about the baby post-birth or the mother or whoever when they're a fully functioning living person. Because if you're going to screech about fetuses, you at least should do it out of a sense of compassion and not because "well the law says murder is wrong so it's wrong btw I'm super smart and everyone's wrong and I don't care about them the mom's a whore and I don't care about the kid when it comes into the world PSH NOTHING PERSONEL KID".
If improving/dumping more money into our orphan welfare systems is what it takes to decrease abortion rates, then I'm all for it. It's much better than having tax money go towards killing those same children in the womb.
With that said, you're still dancing around the primary issue, which is that abortion
does involve the termination of human life. The entire point is that
if there's an agreement that this is the case, then we need to do something about children that will possibly be abandoned or abused instead of outright killed-- it is
then that you talk about welfare. My problem with the segue to child welfare is that those who aren't pro-life will try to have that argument
before that agreement,
as an argument for abortion. It's a rhetorical distraction, because whether or not those children will suffer (a question of life quality) is independent of whether killing them in the womb is murder (a question of particular existence). It's not
less important, mind you-- it
is, however, a
separate issue that its user will try to use as an argument against the simple pro-life position.
At best, it's a misguided sequence break. At worst, it's dishonest. I can't vouch for anyone else, but I'd either quickly agree that we should be paying for these children and supporting their mothers or tell the person making this argument to piss off. Probably both.
It's not like I wish to federally ban abortion, in the first place (it could
help, but it doesn't solve enough), but I do want it to be far more stigmatized than it is now (which would discourage its incidence), and I want a more proper handling of sexual topics in our society (which would discourage the behavior that leads to people getting pregnant and possibly having abortions). People who say "well, people are going to have sex regardless" in response have koala brains and don't understand mitigation and withdrawal of support. People
are going to have sex, anyways, but we shouldn't be normalizing the irresponsible nature inherent to many of those occurrences. We shouldn't have a culture where you're shamed for not having had sex, or not wanting to have sex, or not wanting to have sex outside of marriage. We shouldn't be encouraging an intersexual culture devoid of love, nor should we encourage one brimming with lust as best exemplified in sex that amounts to mutual masturbation. We should be paying more attention to the fact that our children are being very much prematurely exposed to levels of sexuality that they haven't the means of understanding without it warping their minds gravely.
So, are we just going to ignore my question about men not getting abortions if they could also get pregnant?
Yeah, probably. A world where men can also get pregnant is a world that's too alien to hypothesize about meaningfully.
![LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]](http://uploads.kiwifarms.st/data/avatars/l/61/61177.jpg?1699571951){kind=avatar}
