It is argued that the government should fund abortions for poor women.
"Not to do so is discrimination. The rich can still get abortions while the poor are denied them."
Again, it is said, "Abortion is cheaper than welfare. Poor women who want abortions should be encouraged to get them, and supported financially, to ease the welfare burden. Supporting a child on welfare is expensive over many years."
It is clear that government should not fund abortions. Funding abortion means paying for the killing of a small, defenseless child, a child who is singled out for death because he is in the way, and sometimes because it costs too much to support him.
Abortion funding is a triple evil. First, there is the moral evil of abortion itself, as the murder of a small child.
Second, there is the additional evil that the government gives this killing its blessing by allowing it under the law.
Third, the government even participates in the crime by paying for it.
In reply to the objection that refusal to fund abortions for poor women is a form of discrimination: it is true that there should be no discrimination. But this must be achieved in precisely the opposite direction: neither the rich nor the poor should be allowed, or encouraged, to kill their preborn babies. If poor women are not able to destroy their preborn infants, that is good. Rich women should be in the same position. The law must protect all preborn babies, of rich and poor mothers alike.
"Abortion is cheaper than welfare." Indeed it is. So is killing the handicapped, the aged who are unable to take care of themselves. Killing is always cheaper than caring. The Nazis realized this, and put it into practice in their program of mass extermination of handicapped children, the aged, and others who were "useless eaters." Let us not follow that path.
It is argued that the government should fund abortions for poor women.