THAT is the crux of the argument and why pro-life activists will fall short with the "murder" argument. Whether we agree with the privacy issue or not--it IS how the ruling was decided and, thus, will need to be the conerstone of overturning the ruling.
[/b][/quote]
Question: How do you respond to those who contend that the unborn child is a parasite and that by acknowledging its right to life you are giving him more rights than the mother; as no born person has the right to live off anothers body. When you have shot down all their arguments this is what it boils down to for them.
Reply: The position you describe was, in the early days of the abortion struggle, a popular refuge for those seeking a justification for following Roe v. Wade. I have not heard it mentioned in recent years. There was a time when the position was supposedly reinforced by claiming the unborn child to be an unjust aggressor, giving the mother a claim to self-defense.
Those holding this position should be asked for their definition of Parasite. They should be reminded that the term refers to a condition of symbiosis, where there are two organisms, the life of at least one of them being dependant on the other. Some symbiotic relationships are mutually advantageous, as in the case of the lichens, a community of algae and fungi. In others, one of the organisms may live to the detriment of the other. Mistletoe, and the tree to which it fastens itself, would be an example of the latter: a certain amount of mistletoe will kill the tree. Is this what is implied in the position you have mentioned the child is like the mistletoe and the mother is like the tree?
It would be helpful at this point of the discussion to deny the claim that the child is living off the mother. After conception, the mother merely supplies nutrients, liquids and oxygen, all of which come from outside of herself. She supplies warmth for her child, and carries away her childs waste. And, yes, add at least a minimum of mother's love. The body of the mother is not being consumed by the child. The child is not living off the mother. This is simple Embryology.
Or is the position you mentioned using parasite only by way of analogy that there are some maternal sacrifices involved in child-bearing? No one should deny that there are sacrifices of ones ordinary lifestyle because of motherhood. Thats why parenthood is a prime example of love for neighbor. And it is why the annual day of national gratitude, called Mothers Day, is celebrated.
So, the position is without merit. It is difficult to see how anything as natural as human reproduction could be antagonistic within itself, as though the child were in competition with the mother. In the natural course of events, as evidenced in the majority, motherhood is beneficial to a woman, both physically and emotionally.
It would be especially difficult to see, in cases where pregnancy had been willingly entered into, that a woman could look upon her unborn baby as a parasite. Even under the circumstances of rape and incest, the child is not an intruder; The childs father is the intruder, and he, not the child, should be held accountable.
Your question points up the complex area of interpersonal relationships. The cliché or sound bite needs careful study before it can be accepted as a solution to social problems. The problem of your concern indicates the need for establishing biological facts, and for applying ethical and social principles, as we have suggested here, to lay to rest the ragged excuse of the unborn child as an aggressor.
http://unbornperson.com/Displayed%20Respon...ry%2010,%202005
