Monday, March 05, 2007


Some people believe that abortion is just a tool.

Not just a population control tool. They believe it is a solution for various social issues: child abuse, crime, low literacy, and so on.

Apart from the obvious fallacy of this argument (which is equivalent to propose the murder of all poor people to end poverty), it is interesting to think about why these issues are not all solved by abortion, even in countries like the US where abortion is openly legal and accepted. They may be attenuated (maybe by the simple matter of having less people available to commit these crimes) but by no measure they go away.

Not even filicide is solved by abortion!

Now, this woman, without any big bucks from the government or any help from “humanist” activists, is saving lives. 564 lives that were being literally thrown in trash cans.

What should we learn from this? That if we build more clinics these women will stop behaving this way? Are we saying that these babies are doomed and the only question is whether they die inside or outside their mother’s wombs?

Why do we have to invest billions in prisons and social programs to criminals and not invest the same in orphanages? Why do death row in mates have the benefit of years and years of bureaucracy and unborn babies are just killed on demand? Why not increase the death penalty to free up some space and resources to these unborn babies? What should be easier: to adopt a baby or to kill it?

Are my proposals a little too barbaric to you?

What kind of life are we really choosing to protect here as a society?