Being anti-abortion, or ‘pro-life,’ is hypocritical

In the spirit of controversial news, let’s talk about abortion. Something that has always struck me as odd, not to mention hypocritical, is that so many people who consider themselves to be anti-abortion don’t seem to care much about the life of the child or mother after the baby is born.

Most affiliates of the anti-abortion club hinge their membership on the idea that abortion is murder. All accusations of murder aside, the legality of abortion should be a question of the quality of life the child and the mother are going to have after the birth of the child, not a question of murder.

Contrary to popular conservative belief, women get abortions when the only options they have left would leave the child with a slim chance of living a happy life, not because they lack morality.

Sometimes, women become pregnant when they don’t have the time, money or readiness to raise a child. Women in such a position are left with three options: Raise a child they do not want and often cannot support, give the child up for adoption or terminate the pregnancy. Without much thought, the first two options seem like logical alternatives to abortion. Unfortunately, the future they hold is bleak.

If a mother keeps a child she cannot financially care for, it’s likely the child will be raised in poverty. Looking at this from a statistical standpoint, children who grow up in poverty are much worse off than those who don’t. They’re 11.4-percent more likely to drop out of high school, 14.3-percent more likely to experience food insufficiency and 4.6-percent more likely to be involved in reported cases of child abuse and neglect, according to a 1997 Princeton University study on the effects poverty has on children.

Adoption, although sometimes a safe and viable option, inevitably creates a host of issues. Even if a mother gives her child up for adoption, she is forced to endure nine months of an undesired pregnancy. This means nine months of morning sickness, fatigue and general discomfort. A woman will have to take off work for the actual birth, and if she is still in school at the time of the pregnancy, it is likely she will not finish that year of school and will not graduate on time, if she graduates at all.

Unless a woman is lucky enough to find parents to adopt the baby right after its birth, the child will be put into the foster care system. Issues with the foster care system are plentiful, to say the least. While in the system, children often face abuse and neglect, and only so many actually get adopted.

I am aware that in rare cases women are able to successfully raise an unwanted child and live a happy, prosperous life with them. I am just as aware that in infrequent cases, adoption goes smoothly and a child is left with a loving and supportive family. However, in the much more common cases, abortion can be a far more logical option and should not be off the table for any woman in America.

Many women cannot bear the thought of bringing a child into this world only for it to live a life of poverty, misery and struggle. Anti-abortion advocates are downright misguided if they believe forcing a child to live a life like this is morally preferable to terminating a pregnancy. I beg anyone claiming to be anti-abortion to explore the very definition of their appellation. By asserting yourself as anti-abortion, you claim to recognize the importance of a life. In this same sense, I urge you to recognize the importance of the quality of life you are forcing upon this unborn fetus.

Abigail Miller is a UF journalism sophomore. Her column appears on Fridays.