Stacey Abrams was on MSNBC this morning and was asked about economic issues that are most important to the voters, like the price of gas and milk. This was in the context of people caring more about high inflation than the issue of abortion.
But instead of just answering on what she would do to help alleviate high inflation for Georgians, she instead got defensive about abortion and claimed that abortion itself will help alleviate these economic burdens.
Abrams couches this in the idea that having a child is very much an economic issue, suggesting that a woman shouldn’t be ‘forced’ to birth an unwanted child because that will increase her economic burdens and that’s why we should be having both conversations:
“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. And so it’s important for us to have both ‘and’ conversations.”
She’s right about children being very much an economic issue. The problem is that discussion should be had BEFORE a woman decides to have sex and thus gets pregnant. Once a woman gets pregnant it’s no longer just an economic issue. Having a child becomes a moral issue that supersedes all economic concerns, and not just for the individual woman but for the state, which bears the right of protecting its citizens.
Frankly, we’re talking about the murder of an unborn child, and in most cases for the sake of convenience. Whether it be economic convenience or simply unwanted, murdering the life of an innocent child is wholly unacceptable and there can be no legitimate justification for it outside of extreme are rare cases.
For Abrams to suggest such justification in the name of convenience just shows how unfit for office she truly is and I hope Georgians deal her campaign a decisive loss next month.