image

I disagree.

If you have the right to life, fighting for that right does not become wrong just because you might not agree on what comes next.

If I save you from being shot, I am not wrong for saving you, even if I have no plan to assist you with the rest of your life.

I agree that it is desirable as a rule to try and help people as many steps forward as possible, but the "whataboutisms" here miss a few things:

While it is clearly wrong to abort, the justification for certain programs isn't based on that. They have to be assessed on their own merits.

Let us pretend that I had a plan to simply hand every person in the US a million dollars. A million dollars isn't what it used to be, but if wisely managed should be enough to allow you to be housed, eat food and maintain a reasonable fixed income, even if you couldn't work.

However that would be about 300 trillion dollars.

You then have to ask some questions:

Where does the government get 300 trillion dollars?

How much money does it take to pay to administer the disbursement of a million dollars to 300 million people?

Does the very amount of money handed out cause rampant inflation which reduces the value of the million dollars below the value it originally is set at?

And I am sure there are many other questions.

Now, don't get me wrong, my example is absurd, but it is absurd to make a point:

Giving someone a million dollars would definitely be positive for someone, but there are foreseen and unforeseen problems with any program, even ones that are not quite as ludicrous as the one I am proposing.

And you can't ignore those issues. If your sole criteria for implementing a program is that, "its better than abortion" then that's a pretty low bar.

I am not saying that I don't support programs to assist people, but I think the argument that, "you're not pro-life unless you support X or Y program" is bogus.

If you want those programs, then justify them on their own merits. Don't allow them to be unjustifiably linked to a position that stands alone.