In the February/March 2021 issue of Free Inquiry, S. T. Joshi wrote, “It is surprising—and dismaying—how little attention antiabortionists pay to the actual person carrying the fetus they are so determined to preserve.” There is another actual person even more forgotten. In the years of bitter argument over abortion, from ancient times to the present, one issue has virtually never been raised in all the learned (and unlearned) theological and philosophical debate: What about the unwanted babies? Is it moral to force a baby into the world who is not wanted by its mother? What are the consequences to the baby, the family, the community, and society?

Forty-five percent of pregnancies in the United States are “unintended.” Of these, 27 percent are unwanted at the time (mistimed), and the remaining 18 percent are unwanted at any time. How many are unloved? The child psychology research literature is robust and crystal clear.¹ Statistically, the fate of children raised unloved is a disaster—for the babies and everyone else. The grim statistics puncture comforting, wishful thinking that adoption will lead to a good outcome or that God will provide.

Fortunately, not every unwanted baby is unloved. A majority become loved and never know they were unwanted. But even if unwanted babies are loved, let us be clear: statistics show that in poor families the financial burden of an unwanted additional baby can wreak havoc on the entire family and result in malnutrition, inadequate clothing and shelter, the family’s dissolution, and even homelessness. A whopping 72 percent of abortion seekers are poor single adult mothers. Forty percent of them fall below the poverty line, and the remaining women are not far above, barely able to support their existing children and desperately trying to avoid an additional child who might sink the family.

A large minority of unwanted babies do remain unloved. The numbers are much larger than most people realize.  Raised by uncaring adults, abused, and shifted from pillar to post, enormous suffering and harm is done to these children, often lifelong. In turn, these babies become youth and adults who in turn do immense harm to their families, communities, and societies. They are greatly overrepresented in every adverse social dimension: neglect, abuse, violence, addiction, delinquency, school failure, social inadequacy, poor employability, and juvenile and adult crime. In the words of Karl Menninger, what’s done to children, they will do to society. 

The results are tragic and so needless. The United States has far more unwanted babies than comparable developed countries. Implementing effective policy could drastically reduce the number of babies born unwanted, likely by at least two-thirds or more, resulting in an enormous reduction in human suffering and savings in the billions of dollars. 

It does not seem to occur to many that the collateral damage of every denied abortion is an unwanted baby, who did not have to exist any more than all the other untold prenatal human life that never becomes a baby. Therefore, I raise the question: Is such damage to these innocents from denied abortion morally acceptable? Does such damage raise or lower the moral character of America? Shouldn’t babies have the right to be born wanted? 

For 1,600 years, mainstream Christianity condoned slavery; it took another four hundred years for nearly all Christian faiths to condemn both it and the societies that allow it. For two thousand years, mainstream Christianity has condoned bringing unwanted babies into the world as punishment for their mother’s supposed licentiousness, the fate of the baby not given a second thought. “She played around, now she has to pay” remains the common mantra.

Babies as punishment for the sins of their mothers?! How moral is that? What kind of society believes that shows either love or justice to babies? Will it take another four hundred years for Christianity to condemn the practice and the societies who engage in it?

Presently, Americans sharply divide into pro-life and pro-choice camps. A major area of disagreement is on the point in pregnancy the embryo or fetus has an inherent right to life. This is solely a religious or personal belief, not an objective moral truth. That is why there has never been any consensus.

For two thousand years, a large minority of Christian believers and church leaders have held that prenatal human life is a human being at the “moment of conception.” For these devout believers and faiths, all abortion is murder. But this is solely an article of faith or personal moral conviction, not an objective moral truth.

At the same time, most Christian believers and church leaders have held that the fetus does not become a human being (or ensouled in the eyes of certain religions) until later in pregnancy, and some claim this does not occur until the first breath is taken. Because two-thirds of early prenatal life aborts naturally, these believers feel that early prenatal life cannot yet be considered a baby or even a tiny primitive human being with a right to life, because a loving god would not be such a profligate murderer of untold millions of helpless innocents.

Thus, for these equally devout believers and faiths, early prenatal human life is simply developing human cells with no more inherent right to life than any other human cells. For them, that right emerges only later. Therefore, for these believers, early abortion is an entirely moral means, first, for a woman to control when, if, and how many offspring she wishes and, second, to protect babies from being born unwanted. When effective sex education and contraception have failed, early abortion is the last defense to ensure that no unwanted pregnancy becomes an unwanted baby nine months later.

I advocate a position of Pro–Born Wanted. It entails respect for religious freedom and for the religious and personal beliefs of each side. Believers who think abortion is murder should be free to refrain from it themselves and to vigorously evangelize that others should also refrain. Believers who think early abortion is morally indispensable should be free to access it themselves and evangelize that others should also use it to avert unwanted babies. But neither group may violate religious freedom and use the State to legally impose their religious beliefs on those who strongly disagree.

In other words, contrary to most popular debate, the issue in abortion is not right to life or right to choice. That is a moral decision people must make for themselves as God or conscience guide them. The true legal issue of abortion is the right to religious freedom. Each side must be legally allowed free exercise of religion or personal conscience, no matter how sinful or morally offensive the other side believes it is.

Being Pro–Born Wanted therefore means advocating for legal, readily available, effective sex education; effective contraception; and early abortion—but only for those who find these things morally acceptable or necessary. These three practices are never to be legally imposed on anyone who finds them morally offensive. 

The fact that any of these practices are considered offensive and sinful by those who are morally opposed to them does not give anyone the right to violate religious freedom and legally deny such practices to those who morally approve of one or more of them. The law and the courts must vigorously protect everyone’s right to religious freedom, including the right to use or refuse early abortion.

These three practices, legally available to all but used only by those who morally approve of them, would substantially reduce the number of babies born unwanted. They would obviate the enormous suffering those unwanted babies would bear as well as the enormous suffering those unwanted babies would eventually cause their families, communities, and society.

Imagine if every baby were born wanted. Would that not profoundly raise both the well-being and moral character of America? The empirical evidence resoundingly says yes.

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abortion-denied-consequences-for-mother-and-child_b_6926988; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/ S0968-8080%2806%2927219-7; https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/12_impact_unintended_childbearing_future_sawhill.pdf; https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1995/11/consequences-children-their-birth-planning-status; The Best Intentions: Unintended Pregnancy and the Well-Being of Children and Families, Inst. of Medicine, The National Academies Press, 1995; https://doi.org/10.17226/4903; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_ Childhood_Experiences_Study; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0022347618312976; https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20150821.050064/ full/.