Liberal Myth #327: Pro-life people don’t care if children starve.
Corollary: Starving children would be better off not having been born.
Found this meme on a site called “Responsible Charity.” Attached was the following text:
“Every time a pro-lifer goes on about how we should respect the life of zygotes, I want to take them straight to the slums of Kolkata and place in their hands one of many unwanted children who spend their day begging to feed themselves, so they can take them back to their comfortable homes and put an end to their unreasonable and dangerous hypocrisy” – Hemley Gonzalez, Founder of Responsible Charity.
This is insulting to say the least. But more than anything, it shows the speaker’s ignorance. I know a lot of pro-life people . . . and I have never seen any evidence that pro-life folks as a group care less about about helping suffering children than pro-choice people do. In fact, I’ve known several pro-lifers who adopted children from foreign orphanages, enduring years of paperwork, background checks, and red tape, and spending thousands of dollars. In some cases, the child they ended up adopting had emotional or physical challenges, but in spite of that, they loved that child and treated it as their own. If anything, I would say that people who devote this kind of effort to caring for “unwanted” children are more likely to be pro-life than to be pro-choice.
I will concede that not every child in an orphanage will be adopted and not every hungry mouth will be fed. So what then? What would the pro-choice “solution” to that problem be? To offer the “unwanted” children of the world a quick and painless death? Why not give them the choice? “Here little Rajiv . . . take this pill. You’ll go to sleep and never wake up again. You’ll never feel any more pain or hunger.”
How many unwanted children do you think would take that offer?
An absurd scenario? Perhaps. But no less absurd than this claim that because someone opposes abortion, he must not care whether children starve.