Amid various distortions and misrepresentations of people opposed to killing unborn babies, many pro-choice people reason it is better to kill the unborn than to allow them to face a life of poverty. One such person said: "Many, dislike abortion as I do, but view it as more merciful than sentencing infant and mother to a living hell."
 
First of all, pro-abortionists are not merely fighting for the right of poor mothers to have abortions. They want any woman to have the legal right to put any unborn child to death. Poverty and deformity is a smoke screen when the pro-abortionists also want wealthy mothers of healthy, easily adoptable unborn children to have the right to kill those children also.
 
If it really is more merciful to kill the unborn babies of poor mothers than to let them be born into disadvantaged circumstances, why wouldn't it also be merciful to kill the poor mothers who face the same poverty after having their abortions? If the lives of many aborted babies would have faced a "living hell," then the lives their mothers go back to is a "living hell." Thus, if abortion is a merciful rescue of the unborn baby from a disadvantaged life, why wouldn't it be equally merciful to kill the baby's mother and thereby rescue her from her "living hell" of poverty?
 
Also, apply this same reasoning (?) to poor newborn babies. "We dislike killing poor newborn babies, but we view it more merciful than leaving those children in the living hell of poverty." That is where we are slowly but surely heading. Albert Schweitzer said: "A man is ethical only when life, as such, is sacred to him." The Bible still teaches it is wrong for men to kill innocent human life.

​

Dennis Abernathy