Some days, the news looks a lot more like satire, and that’s exactly how a recent interview seemed with Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia, when she actually suggested that abortion is a cure for inflation — and no, you’re not mistakenly reading the Babylon Bee. Abram’s interview clip is currently going viral on social media, and it’s easy to see why; even her fellow abortion supporters have got to be cringing with this one. Here’s what happened:
During an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Abrams was asked how she planned to address inflation and the economy in general if she became governor. Her answer to this question was simple and frighteningly inhumane. The interview exchange was as follows:
MSCNBC contributor Mike Barnicle asked, “While abortion is an issue, it nowhere near reaches the level of interest of voters in terms of the cost of gas, food, bread, milk… what could you do as governor to alleviate the concerns of Georgia voters about those livability, daily, hourly issues that they’re confronted with?”
Abrams responded, “Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas. It’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs. For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can’t divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child.”
She continued, “Women, half the population, especially those of childbearing age, they understand that having a child is absolutely an economic issue.”
Is that really what we’re calling children now? So much for the idea that children are a blessing— instead, they’re apparently just “economic issues.” (With such a low view of children, it may be best that Abrams is not a mother herself.)
This line of pro-abortion reason is not new (although it is equally appalling in every instance.) Students for Life of America (SFLA) recently reported on a Yahoo! Finance author seemingly suggesting that abortion helps to fix the diaper crisis — after all, less babies born means less bottoms to be diapered right?
While the logic there does hold up, the lack of humanity doesn’t.
To follow both the Yahoo! author and Abrams’ line of reasoning, who else should we eliminate to make economic problems “go away?” If there is a candy shortage this Halloween, would it be ethical to just kill a few trick-or-treaters so that there’s more candy for everyone left? That sure sounds like another version of the Hunger Games — yet this is exactly what they are suggesting.
Students for Life of America (SFLA) President Kristan Hawkins tweeted on this issue recently, saying, “There may well be a diaper supply crisis. But the economy (like the environment) exists for the wellbeing and support of human beings. Once you’ve arrived at a place where your solution to fix the economy is to kill the humans straining it, you’ve lost the plot completely.”
Let’s think bigger and better next time, Abrams. There are a number of ideas that can help to ease our current economical strain, but killing babies in the womb? Not a solution; just another problem that needs to be fixed. And don’t worry — the Pro-Life Generation is already on top of that one!
Share this post