Should Inconvenient Babies Be Aborted?

In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization United States Supreme Court decision, abortion restrictions are now up to individual states to decide. Some states have essentially the same access to abortion as they did before Dobbs, and some states with “trigger laws” now have substantially more protections for unborn children.

Pro-abortion individuals have been vocal on social media, and a recent viral post details several cases where a woman might seek an abortion. Such cases detailed in sympathetic language are targeted at readers’ emotions, so it is important that Christians know how to respond in a way that affirms life.

This article will address several cases in the post that can be categorized under “inconvenient pregnancies.” In these cases, the woman is not being abused, her health is not in danger, and the baby is healthy. She just doesn’t want the baby for social or economic reasons.

“I’m Just Not Ready for a Baby”

One of the lines reads, “I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.”

First, let’s take the statement at face value—there are indeed women who are not equipped to be mothers. Many pregnancy centers offer free parenting classes for women who want to take them, and older women will even volunteer to mentor new mothers. Pregnancy centers also have a wealth of information about programs new mothers may qualify for that could help equip them to be good mothers to their children.

God, as our Creator, knows best

However, some women are in circumstances where they cannot or will not become equipped to be mothers. God, as our Creator, knows best, and his loving design is for sexual relationships to happen solely in the context of marriage, another loving design for our benefit and his glory. In an ideal world, men and women would refrain from extramarital sexual activity to honor God’s design. In the realities of the fallen world, they at least have the option of using the most reliable birth-control (perhaps better to be termed as pregnancy-prevention) methods to avoid becoming pregnant.1 If a couple uses any reliable method, the odds of an unwanted pregnancy are vanishingly low.

But Brittany is already pregnant—she already has a new life growing inside her. If Brittany cannot or will not become equipped to raise the child herself but doesn’t want to murder her baby, she has an obvious option—adoption. Adoption is a wonderful, life-affirming option, and it is no coincidence that adopting “unwanted” children has been a core practice of Christianity since its inception.

Brittany could partner with an adoption agency to choose a loving family for her child, likely one that had been wanting and praying for a baby for many years. She would be able to choose how much contact she wants to have with her baby. In addition, in some states, adoptive parents may be legally able to pay for medical expenses, and sometimes other living expenses, while she carries the baby. Adoption agencies are there to help with arranging for the mother’s needs, including emotional and financial—not just for the baby’s need of a home.

It is undeniably hard for a birth mother to give her child to an adoptive family—and we honor mothers who make this sacrificial choice for the babies they cannot raise themselves.

“I Can’t Afford Another Baby”

The next case we’ll address is, “I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.”

Immediately, we can see that the pro-abortion poster has again introduced a false dichotomy—either she has to bring a child into poverty or not choose to “bring it into the world.” But this, in reality, means killing the child, which some will admit. So, there is an assumption that it is better for a child to be dead than to be poor. If Melissa really felt incapable of raising her child, she could choose adoption, as was recommended for Brittany above. An adoptive family, many of which cannot have children themselves, would cherish the ability to raise a child, and she would not have the financial burden at all of another baby to bring up—the very thing she was concerned about.

Immediately, we can see that the pro-abortion poster has again introduced a false dichotomy.

Also, this case states that her husband walked out on her—but he still has a legal obligation to care for his children. All sides of the debate can agree that making men step up as fathers, regardless of their feelings toward the family they helped create, is the right thing to do, and there are legal protections for this. Easing her financial situation may make her feel differently about her ability to care for her new baby.

Further, Melissa could reach out to one of the many pregnancy care centers that exist to give women support in situations like hers. If her situation is that dire, she probably also qualifies for government food assistance programs. In short, society has already seen fit to provide lots of ways for people like Melissa to survive without her feeling she needs to resort to ending the life of her own unborn baby.

“I’m Too Young to Be a Mom”

Next we’ll answer, “I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose between being a teenage mom or just a teenager.”

Thankfully, teenage pregnancies are at a historic low—so there aren’t as many Lindsays out there as there used to be. Lindsay and her boyfriend tried to be “responsible,” but all methods sometimes fail, with the exception of abstaining from sexual activity. This is a case where following God’s plan for marriage and sexual activity would have spared the life of a child and everyone else a lot of heartache.

The choice is not between being a teenage mom or just a teenager—she is already a mother, and even if her baby dies, she will remain a mother.

During her sophomore year of high school, Lindsay would be 15 or 16 years old and likely living at home, and the case doesn’t state there are any strictly medical reasons she couldn’t deliver her baby. If her parents are supportive, they could help her raise her baby while she finishes school or help her through the adoption process.

The second part of the statement is false: the choice is not between being a teenage mom or just a teenager—she is already a mother. Even if her baby dies by her own choice, she will remain a mother. The decision is really whether she wants to become the murderer of her own baby.

Why Does It Matter?

Scientifially, it cannot be denied (though some will try) that the unborn child is a completely separate human developing inside the mother. Many abortions use drugs to kill the baby at a very early stage; most other abortions are in the first trimester, where the baby is still very small and undeveloped. Pro-abortion advocates believe it’s ridiculous to prioritize the value of a being who is undeveloped and cannot survive on his or her own.

However, as Christians, we believe that every person has value because human beings are created in the image of God. The image of God is what makes it wrong to kill a human—and we possess that image from fertilization (once the sperm unites with the egg—before implantation). Every one of us started out as a fertilized egg and went through a process of development in the womb. If you’re reading this article, your mother chose life!

The image of God is what makes it wrong to kill a human—and we possess that image from conception.

An evolutionary philosophy would state that we are just another animal, so if it is acceptable to kill a cow for food, or even to hunt game for sport, then it is just as acceptable in certain situations to end the life of human beings. Utilitarian ethicists like Peter Singer have even suggested that infants have less value than intelligent animals!

A biblical view of creation and mankind as created in the image of God is the only consistent basis for pro-life views.

Pro-life Is Pro-woman

Pro-lifers recognize that God’s design of the woman’s body to carry children creates a unique bond between a mother and her child and that attacking this design through abortion doesn’t honor or help women. Each of these cases highlights an instance where the baby is, at worst, an inconvenience to the mother. But for pro-abortionists, inconvenience is enough for them to advocate killing a baby and to accuse pro-lifers of being uncaring for suggesting something other than murder!

Pro-lifers stand with mothers like Brittany by walking with them through their pregnancies—providing them free counseling, parenting classes, connections with community resources, and if they want it, connecting them with adoption agencies. We stand with mothers like Melissa by helping them find pro bono legal counsel to pursue a deadbeat man for child support and by babysitting their kids for free while the mothers are working. And we stand with mothers like Lindsay by helping them graduate high school with an infant and by mentoring them through the difficult but infinitely rewarding path of motherhood or finding another loving home for their baby.

The beginning and end of the solutions many pro-choice advocates offer is to kill a baby. While it would be wrong to kill a baby regardless of whether additional support was available, pro-life Christians walk alongside mothers, both pre- and post-birth, to ensure they have the support they need.