So I recently had a mostly civil debate with some people, most of whom were pro-abortion andone who claimed was pro-life but does not want to end abortion (logic bud, logic) and finally, after telling them to shove their ‘what about rape’ rubbish as they don’t care for these women, and after telling them that babies are human irregardless of their situation at birth or conception, their final argument boiled down to this: they don’t want children to suffer through poverty, an irrespnsible mother or through the flawed adoption business. One of them even told me that people aren’t going to adopt children they see as ‘flawed’, who have some disease or disability or have a diffirent race to the couple, the latter which I see as rubbish seeing as I’ve seen a ton of people adopt children of diffirent races.
So how do I refute this argument? If I had to state reasons why this argument is flawed, here they are: there are a ton of children suffering in this world. Some of them go on to lead better lives, some of them become delinquents and some of them instead fall into utter despair. This is pure generalizing BTW so not I’m only stating them as examples. Despite their suffering, we don’t wish these children were never born but instead want to help them. To say it’s better to be aborted than to live a miserable life is frankly insulting to people who lived miserable lives because they still have a future ahead of them. Despite their ordeal, they can still muster the strength to get up because God gives every one of us the strength to resist temptation and despair. I admit it’s not always easy especially with young children which is very hard for them but what if they got rescued? What type of logic is it to wish a child to never have been born instead of trying to save him or prevent him from undergoing horrible ordeals?
What do you guys think? I’m pro-life, 100% all the way. Even if humans are tortured and beaten, they still feel the pain and want to live. We should all just man up.