Bonnie Erbe, writing at U.S. News & World Report, thinks abortion is a good response to the recession:
The recession is driving American demand for contraception. And for abortions. The media have been rife this past week with stories about the rising number of couples and single mothers doing the math and deciding this is no time to bring a child into the world—not when the economy is depressed, jobs are scarce, and family incomes are dropping.
The media have also been rife with stories portraying this trend as something of a tragedy. Let me propose a counter view: It is not.
Nothing like good, old-fashioned utilitarianism to help make life-and-death decisions.
The Associated Press ran a story on March 25 that read as follows:
The pregnant woman showed up at the medical centre in flip-flops and in tears, after walking there to save bus fare.
Her boyfriend had lost his job, she told her doctor in Oakland, Calif., and now—fearing harder times for her family—she wanted to abort what would have been her fourth child.
“This was a desired pregnancy—she’d been getting prenatal care—but they re-evaluated expenses and decided not to continue,” said Dr. Pratima Gupta. “When I was doing the options counseling, she interrupted me halfway through, crying, and said, ‘Dr. Gupta, I just walked here for an hour. I’m sure of my decision.'”
Yes, it’s sad that this unwed, pregnant mother of three had no money for bus fare. It’s terrible that her boyfriend lost his job. It is heart-wrenching that she fell to tears in the doctor’s office. But in the long run, can we not agree that an unwed couple’s decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy? It’s actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well.
What I see here is a couple that deliberately decided to have a child, and then decided to make that child pay the price for their unfortunate economic circumstances. It would have been possible, using the resources of the government and/or charity, for this woman to have brought her pregnancy to term without any cost at all. That child could then have been given up for adoption, and given the opportunity for life that its parents intended. There are a lot of folks, from Catholic Social Services to crisis pregnancy centers, that would have been thrilled to help. Instead, it has been sacrificed on the altar of economic expediency–this child’s parents “re-evaluated expenses” and decided the child should die. And intellectual enablers such as Bonnie Erbe think that a “fact-based, rational decision.”
How long do you suppose it will be before the Bonnie Erbes of the world will be applauding parents who decide that supporting three children is too expensive, and that one of them needs to die to enable them to make ends meet? Not long, I suspect:
The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to contribute to society. It also lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources (food stamps, TANF) to raise their children.
So if the dollars dictate, the inconvenient (unborn children, old people, sick people, depressed people, disabled people, etc.) with just have to die. Society (read: those who have) is the winner. The dead will be the losers, but they’re not really of any consequence are they. Useless eaters, all.
(Via Albert Mohler and Stand Firm.)
The Reformed Pastor 
May 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Malthus has been infected with H1Z1, and is walking among us in the guise of progressive elites. Honest, I read it on the internet at the BBC site. Must be true.
The couple who did this- very sad and tragic, they’ll live with this guilt for the rest of their lives, unless/until their consciences are cleaned by the blood of the one who willingly died for us. The regret will never go away. Lord have mercy.
The high priestess of Moloch who applauds such action- one can only hope for an awakening of conscience. Lord have mercy.
May 7, 2009 at 10:39 pm
The heart of this country is turning to stone.
May 8, 2009 at 12:07 am
It’s only one more small step to the adoption of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”!
May 8, 2009 at 10:12 am
One very real possibility of where this is headed is to declare as unfit anyone who believes in having ‘too many children’. The belief itself will be ruled out of bounds and would be indicative of irresponsibility or even mental illness – the kind of thing that gets people declared as unfit parents. Folks like Erbe are not just out to control the actual population count, they also want to control the population’s belief system as it relates to the intersection of life, liberty, and limits. They won’t advocate for some formal ‘one child’ policy. What they want to do is change belief systems so as to make such ‘policies’ irrelevant because the worldview behind them is already mainstream, understood, and voluntary accepted as a good thing. Erbe’s ideas will always enjoy a base of support, because she can effectively cloak them within larger issues of overpopulation, stressed social services, poverty, and limited resources that are legitimate issues of concern among the larger populace. Our response is that the expendability of life is irrevocably tied to the loss of imago Dei theology and the fundamental dignity that comes with it.
May 12, 2009 at 10:04 am
[…] BONNIE ERBE, writing at U.S. News & World Report, thinks abortion is a good response to the recession […]