Let me say first that I think abortion an admirable practice with many benefits. It preserves the free choice of all people and saves women the pain and emotional trauma of having a part of their own body forcibly removed. Most importantly, abortion limits overpopulation. Imagine—if all the aborted fetuses had instead been allowed to grow into human beings, what would be the state of the world? If their number had been added to the population, then homelessness, starvation, and unemployment would be rampant, and cities filthy and crowded.  The practice of abortion has done well in keeping this danger at bay, but I maintain it could still do more. For all the good it has done, abortion is not as effective as it could be, because it is, at its core, wasteful. As I am sure you are acutely aware, starvation due to overpopulation is still a dire problem in the world. Abortion can only do so much to keep the population in check, and so far it can do nothing to alleviate the problems which have already been caused by overpopulation. 

Rather than discarding and wasting the aborted fetus as if it were of no value, it would be better to preserve it and donate it as food for the starving.

This lack of efficacy, however, could be solved by a single change in the abortion process. Rather than discarding and wasting the aborted fetus as if it were of no value, it would be better to preserve it and donate it as food for the starving. A food source as vast as this would quickly end world hunger and be enough to sustain a population even in times of famine. Now, I know some would be tempted to recoil at the seeming grossness of this proposal. But let them be consoled by the fact that the fetus is not a human being and need not be treated as such. Just as it is not murder to end its life, so it would not be cannibalism to consume it. I have it on good authority that the tender young flesh, properly prepared, would actually be quite tasty. 

Just as it is not murder to end its life, so it would not be cannibalism to consume it.
I have it on good authority that the tender young flesh, properly prepared, would actually be quite tasty.

In addition to ending world hunger, the proposed solution has the potential to reduce unemployment. More doctors would be required to perform abortions, as there would surely be an influx of women eager to put to good use the unnecessary burden on their bodies. There would then need to be butchers, to dress and preserve the carcasses, as well as chefs to prepare the meat for consumption. A good deal of it would be boiled and canned, so as to be an easily storable and transportable substance. But the excess could be served as a delicacy in fine restaurants, seared, sauteed, roasted whole, or perhaps served raw as a tartare.  

Furthermore, aborted fetuses would be an ethical source of protein. The murder of animals is not required, and the process is completely humane and cruelty-free. Vegans and vegetarians can eat it in good conscience, and I am hopeful that meat eaters will transition from animal products in favor of this ethical meat substitute. A modern nation ought to be more civilized than to rely on the slaughter of innocent animals to sustain itself; this new food source will enable us to become a conscientious, eco-friendly society.

I am confident that my proposal, being a reasonable and effective solution to the problem of overpopulation, will be accepted enthusiastically. It only remains to discuss a few practical details. To maximize the output and efficiency of the process, it would certainly be foolish to abort the fetus at a few weeks old. Instead, they should be fattened up and allowed to grow to maturity. And if the fetus is already being carried to term, I even suggest that it should be delivered; there is not so much biological difference between a fetus inside and outside the womb, while the difference in quantity of edible meat is quite significant. In addition, the slaughtering process would be easier and more suitable after delivery. The use of chemicals for abortion would certainly taint the meat, but once delivered, traditional butchery methods could be employed in a sanitary environment.

Some of the more extremist critics might raise the objection that once the fetus is delivered, would it not be more humane simply to let it grow? But think of the sort of world it would grow up in: a world with too many people, too many mouths, and not enough food, jobs, or homes. It is far better that the poor fetus should be kindly euthanized than that it should live a hard and painful life. It is really a kindness we do for them, and how happy they must be that we use them to improve the lives of so many others! In nearly every case, postnatal abortion is a better alternative to potential life; what I suggest is not a necessary evil but a positive good.

In nearly every case, postnatal abortion is a better alternative to potential life; what I suggest is not a necessary evil but a positive good.

Unfortunately, there are still detractors, who say it is unlawful and tyrannical to force women to birth a fetus. These are the same detractors, I suppose, who so violently protested Covid policies such as mask mandates. These are the same cruel parents who negligently refuse to vaccinate their children. All their cries for “personal liberty” are a disguise for mere selfishness and stubbornness, and they rashly endanger the wider community. Overpopulation is an even greater threat than any virus: it was the reason Covid-19 spread so quickly in the first place, and many other, more dangerous viruses are sure to follow. Just as experts determined emergency measures necessary to combat Covid-19, so now it is even more necessary for emergency measures to combat overpopulation. With the voting season just around the corner, I urge everyone to elect officials who will follow the will of the people by listening to the experts and implementing the policy of postnatal abortion. 

Nathaniel Pekari is a senior studying English and French.