Right.  The answer for lacking the funds for housing is killing your child.  That’s definitely the way to raise money for rent.  Wouldn’t a more realistic answer for women be to seek out government services for housing while they get off their feet?  To go to a pregnancy center that gives you free baby supplies?  Or to live with family or friends?  Perhaps to stay at a women’s shelter for a time?  I’m not understanding why killing is the end-all answer here.

What about adoption?  Granted, it may be difficult for a woman to pay for a child for eighteen years if she doesn’t have help.  (Trust me, though, there are a very high number of strong women who have done just that.)  However, anyone can find enough help to pay for nine months of pregnancy.  Many adoptive couples will even pay for all the medical bills, maternity clothes, prenatal vitamins, and more.  Killing is certainly not the answer.  It never is, but especially not in a world where mothers can hand-pick their baby’s parents.  That is certainly a kinder option.  Why isn’t this obvious?

Perhaps Susan Schewel’s abortion fund can explain why it’s just abortions they fund.  Go to their website, and they give you the option of donating for someone else’s abortion.  Why don’t they raise funds for adoptions?  What about for women’s housing money, if that’s what women really need?

Why don’t groups who claim to care about women actually give women what they need instead of giving them an abortion?  How cruel is it to say, as Mrs. Schewel does—here, you need money for housing?  You can’t manage everything?  Let me help you kill your child.  Death always solves more problems.

Cruel.  Devastatingly cruel and absolutely wrong.  Death creates its own host of haunting problems.  Killing an innocent child is never the answer that struggling women need.

Right.  The answer for lacking the funds for housing is killing your child.  That’s definitely the way to raise money for rent.  Wouldn’t a more realistic answer for women be to seek out government services for housing while they get off their feet?  To go to a pregnancy center that gives you free baby supplies?  Or to live with family or friends?  Perhaps to stay at a women’s shelter for a time?  I’m not understanding why killing is the end-all answer here.

What about adoption?  Granted, it may be difficult for a woman to pay for a child for eighteen years if she doesn’t have help.  (Trust me, though, there are a very high number of strong women who have done just that.)  However, anyone can find enough help to pay for nine months of pregnancy.  Many adoptive couples will even pay for all the medical bills, maternity clothes, prenatal vitamins, and more.  Killing is certainly not the answer.  It never is, but especially not in a world where mothers can hand-pick their baby’s parents.  That is certainly a kinder option.  Why isn’t this obvious?

Perhaps Susan Schewel’s abortion fund can explain why it’s just abortions they fund.  Go to their website, and they give you the option of donating for someone else’s abortion.  Why don’t they raise funds for adoptions?  What about for women’s housing money, if that’s what women really need?

Why don’t groups who claim to care about women actually give women what they need instead of giving them an abortion?  How cruel is it to say, as Mrs. Schewel does—here, you need money for housing?  You can’t manage everything?  Let me help you kill your child.  Death always solves more problems.

Cruel.  Devastatingly cruel and absolutely wrong.  Death creates its own host of haunting problems.  Killing an innocent child is never the answer that struggling women need.