Another argument that has come out in the wake of the potential of an abortion reversal is this one: "if it were really about the unborn, everything would be free." Prenatal care would be free; birthing would be free; diapers would be free; formula would be free. Everything that is needed to raise this child into adulthood would be completely and totally free if our concern was really about the baby.
The rationale is that the pregnant woman didn't ask for this baby, but now, society is demanding it of her, so society ought to be the one to pick up the tab. For everything. Forever.
The implication is that if we don't pay for all of the child's needs, then what we are really interested in is punishing the woman for having sex.
This argument arises out of the world's decision, a few generations ago, that sex ought to be free. Remember that whole "Free Love" thing from somewhere around the 60s? This is the essence of it. "It's my body, and I ought to be able to enjoy it and do whatever I want with it without repercussions."
This is the era when cohabitation started to rise. When sex before marriage went way up. When sex without even considering marriage was put on the table. This is the era when men and women decided that sex doesn't have to mean what God says it means - that two persons are cleaved together - but that it can just be fun. And that it shouldn't have to get messy.
In fact, it is this ethic of love that "necessitated" abortion in the first place. Women were tired of bearing the consequences of their supposed-to-be-free love and were looking for a way out. Remember, the push for the legalization of abortion was never because there were a bunch of unviable pregnancies being forced to be carried to term. It wasn't because ectopic pregnancies were rupturing all across the countries and killing mothers. No matter what the abortion advocates are trying to spew about how "necessary" abortion is medically sometimes, the abortion movement arose out of one concern: free love. Women simply could not fathom that they might be saddled for a lifetime with a burden of one night of "free" sex.
Abortion gave the world what it wanted and made sex "free," even though anyone with intimate knowledge of the actual impact of abortion knows that even abortion isn't free; it has devastating effects on the woman for the rest of her life.
And now, we've wrapped this whole thing in layers of mock social concern - parents aren't prepared to raise children; they don't have enough money; the child will live in poverty and never have the things that it needs; the parents work too much, or not enough, and can't give the child a good life. And on and on and on we go. But don't be fooled because what's really happening here continues to boil down to the same thing: men and women want "free" love, so they don't even think about the costs of it.
They aren't even considering, when they lay down together, whether they're ready for it. They just want fun. They aren't thinking about the timing or the finances or the resources or the commitment; they're thinking about how much they're going to "enjoy" these next few minutes.
They've been told that sex is free by a generation that demanded that it had to be, and the possible end to free-for-all abortion smacks right in the face of that. It threatens to take away all the "fun." It threatens to remind them of what they've been trying to shield themselves from all along, that sex is not free. That it never has been. Whether conception occurs or not, whether there's a baby coming out of it or not. Sex is simply not free.
Which leads us close to another argument that the world is trying to throw at us. Namely, what about the men? (See you tomorrow.)