‘I’d Have More’: Children Are More than a Cost, Parents Correct Abrams
“Let’s be clear. Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas. It’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs,” Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams told “Morning Joe” viewers on Wednesday. The question: “What could you do as governor to alleviate the concerns of Georgia voters about those livability — daily, hourly — issues that they’re confronted with?” Her answer: more abortion, obviously. Oh, if only Christians were so creative and persistent in sharing the gospel!
Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was appalled. “It’s just, it’s disgusting. These Democrats act like we don’t want children. I love children. We all do,” exclaimed Scott Wednesday on “Washington Watch.” Host Tony Perkins agreed, “I have five. I wish I had more. If I’d have started earlier, I would.”
Scott recalled a moment from the debate in his 2010 race for governor of Florida, “they asked my opponent and me, ‘do we have any regrets?’ My opponent said she had no regrets. And I said, ‘if I had known that I would be able to afford more kids, I’d have more kids.’ I love kids. Who doesn’t want to bring great babies in this world and have an opportunity to help raise them? I mean, we all do. I love my children, my grandchildren. Yeah, I just I don’t get this idea that the people — I don’t know people that want to get rid of children. I mean, how many people want to adopt right now?”
Before she was saved, my mom didn’t want to have children. She believed this world was too evil a place to justify bringing children into it. Others fear that having children can be a barrier to people climbing out of poverty; Abrams herself said, “this is very much a question of whether they’re going to end up in poverty in the next five years.” Still others view children as a hassle; they want to focus all their time, energy, and money on themselves. As real and powerful as these considerations are, none of them outweighs the joy, satisfaction, and fulfillment of raising children. And certainly none can justify the premeditated killing of an innocent baby in cold blood.
Everything changed for my mom when she came to know Jesus. Now, my parents have six children and one grandchild, who is pictured above. The financial sacrifices, it turns out, were investments, and they are now paying dividends. The up-front labor of caring for infants was quickly repaid by kids who could help around the house. Lord willing, one day we siblings will return the favor and care for our parents in their old age.
But the greatest benefits of parenthood cannot be measured with the tools of social science. The pleasure of spending precious moments with one’s children is indescribable, incomparable, and invaluable. When my parents came to visit their first grandchild, the most commonly repeated word was “tickled.” Such has been the nearly universal experience of parents throughout human history — even the parents whom it surprised. Career-obsessed Westerners, who are too busy even to know their own children, are an extreme aberration from the historical norm.
God designed bringing children into the world and raising them to be full of rich rewards. “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. … Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!” (Psalm 127:3,5). This shouldn’t surprise us. After all, God is the eternally happy (or blessed) one, and he relates to us as a Father to his children. In addition to pointing us to him, the joys of parenthood also reflect God’s infinite wisdom in that the greatest joys are found in the activities most necessary to sustaining the human race into future generations. God likes children because they are made in his image.
Consider, by contrast, Abrams’ philosophy, which can only be described as weird. Inflation is a problem for you because you have kids, she suggests. First, she implies that children are expensive and parasitic, consuming disposable income to no effect. It’s not quite the same as saying that humans are a plague on the planet, but the two notions are perfectly compatible.
Second, and related, she implies that poor people shouldn’t have kids. If having more money solves your inflation problem, then her advice to not have kids only applies to those who don’t already have more than enough money. That’s the same classist (often verging on racist) sentiment on which Planned Parenthood was built. Meanwhile, large, happy families in impoverished regions of, say, Nigeria don’t understand what the fuss is all about.
Third, she implies that people exist for the government’s benefit, not the other way around. Did you notice that? She was asked what she as governor would do to mitigate the impacts of inflation. Instead, she told people how to modify their lives so that the effects of her preferred policies wouldn’t bother them so much. It’s your fault for wanting kids, she tells people. Who doesn’t? asked Senator Scott.
Fourth, she implies that she doesn’t have a good answer to inflation. Abortion was her only answer. Keep in mind that many families in Georgia are concerned about inflation, who already have children. Does she expect them to go back in time and abort those children? Or — perish the hideous thought — does she propose extending “abortions” until one, three, or perhaps seven years after birth? Even on its own terms, abortion is no answer to inflation, a (hopefully) short-term phenomenon. Yet even proposing abortion as a solution it is ridiculous. Inflation erodes the value of every dollar in anyone’s possession. Singles, childless newlyweds, and large families are all concerned about inflation. Killing your children doesn’t restore the value of your money.
Abrams’ comment would expose the extremism of pro-abortion Democrats if it weren’t totally exposed already. As Senator Scott said, “Democrats voted to bring abortion up to the moment of birth.” Some less successful politicians, like Abrams, are sticking to those guns even after their position was overrun. But most “are running away from that,” said Scott. “When Joe Biden talks about his abortion plan, he doesn’t say, oh, yeah, ‘I want it up until the moment of birth, and you don’t have to keep a baby alive, and, every American, you’re going to start paying for everybody else’s abortion.’” Abrams will say it.
Kill your baby to save a buck, counseled Abrams, whereas Senator Scott insisted, “I’d have more kids,” if I could. Whom do you think most Americans agree with?
Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.