Adopt or (they) Die
Debunking a common attack on pro-life views.
October, 2022
It's been an interesting few months in United States politics. In June, the Supreme Court overturned the long-debated Roe vs. Wade decision, which broadly prevented states from restricting abortions. That decision had been criticized since its announcement in 1973. Even those sympathetic to abortion noted that Roe was justified on extremely weak constitutional grounds, and that it created an entirely novel sequence of abortion rights. In other words, it was an overreach which many people expected to be overruled, eventually.
The recent case, Dobbs v. Jackson, returned the question of abortion laws to the individual states. It dismissed Roe v. Wade and the later, related case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Predictably, this was framed as a vicious attack on women's rights, regressive fascism, judicial activism, and similar things. Without a shred of irony, a nation with rapidly vanishing boundaries regarding sexuality, relatively easy access to contraception, and clearly defined legal rights to the same, suggested that restraints on abortion meant women no longer had "choice."
As always, the pro-abortion movement has attempted to cast the argument into shadows instead of dealing with the most obvious aspect, first. Either killing innocent children is wrong, or it is not. Either all people deserve human rights, or they do not. Either life is a human right, or it is not. That's the summarized foundation of the pro-life stance. Absolutely everything else is irrelevant until those concepts are addressed. Even the most well-meaning advocate of abortion must explain why the premeditated killing of an innocent person is an acceptable resolution to any situation.
Yet arguments ignoring core human rights persist. A common example, found in various flavors and versions, is that one cannot oppose abortion unless they personally adopt every "unwanted" child. This suggestion usually comes in up in response to questions about basic human rights and morality. Rather than deal with those, the question seeks to attack the morals of others.
This tactic attempts to point out hypocrisy in an incredibly hypocritical way. If someone believes killing children is acceptable, they have no grounds to criticize others for failing to adopt. If someone believes it's immoral to neglect children, they have no grounds to argue it's moral to kill children.
Should a response seem worthwhile, one can always point out that the "you must adopt" claim makes no sense. If abortion is morally wrong, it's not excused by other, unrelated actions. Worse, it suggests the pro-abortion arguer doesn't feel obligated to care for children—since they are pro-choice. It implies that if someone else doesn't kill the child, they have no obligation to help the child. If they are prevented from killing the child, they still have no obligation to help, but other people do. Note the transfer of responsibility: the argument, itself, implies that people have moral obligations to care for children, yet the one making the claim is advocating for the right to kill those same people, outright. And, of course, they themselves aren't adopting every child in the world.
Decent people don't accept the argument that old people should be put to sleep, like animals, once someone thinks they're inconvenient. Nor do we suggest that if other people won't take on our obligations, we are morally freed from them. We don't let people say, "if you stop me from poisoning Grandma, you're morally obligated to take over her care…and if you don't, you can't say I'm wrong for killing her." Would the same persons scoff at someone who opposes animal abuse, telling them they must adopt every single stray dog and cat? Or that if they don't, they can never complain about people who starve their pets? It's asinine to say, "if you're not going to adopt this dog, you have no right to criticize me for drowning it."
Making these "you must adopt them all" arguments is an admission of guilt. In logic, there's a fallacy called tu quoque, which basically means, "but you, too!" It's a way of trying to distract from one's own error by suggesting an error in someone else. A pro-choice person who makes this "you must adopt them all" claim is admitting they're really looking for an excuse to be irresponsible. Taking their own statement seriously means they believe other people are morally obligated to ensure a child's life never inconveniences them. They simply refuse to take responsibility for lives which are created. That's blunt, and harsh, but it's also fair, given that the subtext of the "you must adopt" claim is, "if you're not adopting this person, I'm morally allowed to kill them."
Another point to make, once those ideas are established, is that it might well be immoral for someone to not care for children in need. Scripture says we're obligated to care for widows and orphans (James 1:27) and to actively do good (James 4:17). But that's a separate issue. First, and foremost is whether abortion itself is wrong. Whether or not some other person makes no difference. So, another quick way to respond is to say, "maybe someone should, but how does that change whether you should kill the child in the first place?" Or, one might say, "are you agreeing that abortion is immoral? If so, we can discuss whether anyone is obligated to adopt; if not, why bring it up?"
That leads into the question of whether the person themselves plans to adopt or foster any children. After all, if it's immoral not to, aren't they obligated? Or are they suggesting it's not their problem—that the child should suffer a lesser life because other people made certain choices? Or will they try to say their actions are irrelevant to the morality of what other people do? What are they sacrificing for the sake of others? Pro-life people give tremendously to aid women in crisis, including money, supplies, and other support. Does the pro-choice critic do the same, or do they argue that the woman's "choice" to have child frees them from that moral duty?
Hopefully, the cornerstone of a good response is clear. Either abortion is morally evil, or its not, and what other people do after the fact changes nothing. Even if some people are sinning by not adopting, that would not at all change whether it's evil to murder innocent persons. "Then you have to adopt" is an irrational, even cowardly way of dodging the moral questions about this issue.
-- Editor
