The Baby's Rights

[Teallaura]

I argue that the baby has every right to be in the womb: it did not force its way in, it is there as a natural consequence of the woman's actions (or in the case of rape, the man's), and in any case it is an innocent party to any and all external circumstances.

I admit, I can't think of anywhere I've seen this argued directly but it's the most obvious counter to the 'it's my body' silliness. I see the indirect argument (the baby is a seperate individual so no, it's not your body getting killed) frequently but not the direct.

Thoughts?

[Little Shepherd]

I've actually seen all of those argued before in various places. I know Stand to Reason has articles that go into one or two of those, and so do some blogs like Theonomy(remember him?)'s own "Say Hello to my Little Friend" and his friends' Matt and Madeleine Flannagan's MandM blog. They all have some quite excellent, thorough responses to pro-abortion arguments regarding the "my body, my choice" mentality.

I forget which of those sites it was exactly, but one excellent example was, paraphrased, the following:
A pro-abortion advocate claimed that an abortion was similar to a person on their own private island defending that island from unwanted invaders.
The anti-abortion response was that no, that analogy was incorrect. It was more like the person on their own private island shooting cannons irresponsibly at passing ships and then deciding to kill anyone who washed upon their shores. Or in some cases like the person inviting people to their private island, with no means for them to safely leave on their own, and then deciding to kill them if for any reason they decide they no longer want the people there.

I see it much like the rules concerning your ability to hit people who enter your house uninvited, a basic legal allowance on the basis of self defense. That rule only applies to uninvited people. If you invite the person into your home, you need to have a better reason to hit them than "they're in my home."

[Teallaura]

Thanks.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes it is a fundamental argument. Particularly when people say "my body, my choice" to which I say, then why do want to tear apart someone else's body if you are so big on the rights of individuals to their bodies. To which some people actually claim that the baby is akin to a parasite. And anyone who would go that far is a moral retard that there is no point wasting valuable breath on. I sure hope they don't let their own children know of their own generosity in letting their own little genetic parasites live.

And the "my body, my choice" argument fails utterly on the hypocrites of women who believe it is only their choice, and then seek child support from the man who perhaps would have chosen abortion if it were his choice in the situation. If he didn't want the baby, why should "his body" be forced to work to support "her choice."

It is all so cognitively dissonant it makes me think society has swallowed the collective stupid pill.


Even when I was morally bankrupt enough to support abortion, I never supported forcing fathers who didn't want the baby, and wanted the mother to get an abortion, to support the unwanted child. Rights go both ways women. You can't have your baby and eat it too.

Wait, I think that last line only applies to atheists.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I've actually seen all of those argued before in various places. I know Stand to Reason has articles that go into one or two of those, and so do some blogs like Theonomy(remember him?)'s own "Say Hello to my Little Friend" and his friends' Matt and Madeleine Flannagan's MandM blog. They all have some quite excellent, thorough responses to pro-abortion arguments regarding the "my body, my choice" mentality.

I forget which of those sites it was exactly, but one excellent example was, paraphrased, the following:
A pro-abortion advocate claimed that an abortion was similar to a person on their own private island defending that island from unwanted invaders.
The anti-abortion response was that no, that analogy was incorrect. It was more like the person on their own private island shooting cannons irresponsibly at passing ships and then deciding to kill anyone who washed upon their shores. Or in some cases like the person inviting people to their private island, with no means for them to safely leave on their own, and then deciding to kill them if for any reason they decide they no longer want the people there.

I see it much like the rules concerning your ability to hit people who enter your house uninvited, a basic legal allowance on the basis of self defense. That rule only applies to uninvited people. If you invite the person into your home, you need to have a better reason to hit them than "they're in my home."

Some will counter with a situation in which birth control failed, so they will say they didn't invite the little bugger in. Which of course fails, as no birth control besides abstinence is guaranteed effective, so it would be like sending out a huge quantity of invitations, decide you don't want the party, and send out cancellations knowing well that while it is very likely that everyone will be notified, there is a chance a partygoer will still show up, and you can't blow them away with a shotgun.

[Teallaura]

Oddly, it isn't legal to kill gate crashers...

The consent to have sex is the invitation - that no one notices your roadblocks is your problem.

The parasite argument is just silly - a parasite doesn't continue the adult's genetic legacy; a child does and thereby provides a service (whether or not said service is desired is irrelevant). I suppose you could make the symbiont argument - but it's moot by then.

Thanks, Dee Dee.

You can't have your baby and eat it too.

Wait, I think that last line only applies to atheists.

[Ladybug823]

Perhaps I am too naive but I just cant understand how anyone would consider a baby in a womb as a "parasite" I mean where the heck do they get that from? If a person does not want a baby so bad that they would kill it if they got pregnant then they shouldn't have sex. Sex is not necessary to a persons existence. Sex implies so many things and a huge one of those is having children, and if you are unwilling to have one to the point of killing the child then don't have sex.

It is so strange for someone to say that a baby in the womb is less a person than a baby outside, just because you cant see it with your own two eyes outside your body does not make a child any less a person. It is all so frustrating and I don't quite know how to even begin an argument with someone who does not understand that a baby is a human and therefore we are required to protect that baby.

Seriously if a baby in the womb is killed as a result of the violence against or murder of its mother then the person convicted of that crime is charged with a heftier offense so why is abortion legal?

I apologize for any rambling involved this is a very... frustrating and difficult topic for me to approach.

[Teallaura]

Don't worry about it - it's a frustration we all share. Pro-abortion and rational thought aren't good friends - heck, I sometimes wonder if they are even on speaking terms.

[Catholicity]

Perhaps I am too naive but I just cant understand how anyone would consider a baby in a womb as a "parasite" I mean where the heck do they get that from? If a person does not want a baby so bad that they would kill it if they got pregnant then they shouldn't have sex. Sex is not necessary to a persons existence. Sex implies so many things and a huge one of those is having children, and if you are unwilling to have one to the point of killing the child then don't have sex.

Ladybug, you are very right. Sex is not vital to one's existance. What we have is a society, that pushes a reverse order of "Maslow's Heirachy of Needs" so to speak, that is before every other basic need is met one must indulge themselves into instant gratification or else you will not be happy. Unfortunately this mentality, leads to multiple issues, or rather creates a society conducive to multiple issues such as addiction, certain illness's associated with instant gratification, (STD's, nutritional deficiencies) and of course pushing the murder of our most vulnerable citizens. Why? Because it makes our own lives "easier" Yet we do not realize the consequences of our actions, and what it creates.
And we only, as a society, put band-aid's on the issue that is treat the symptom, rather than the infection. The infection in this case, would be a return to pre 1934 values of Abstinence and Birth Control by ALL CHURCHES!!!! And the ultimate education and recognition of the true humanity of the preborn children.

[Jedidiah]

I find it impossible to think that any sane person really believes a baby in the womb is anything like a parasite. It is just a way to try to rationalize their position.