My reply to a “parasite” argument for abortion

The woman (and the man, by the way) has all the rights to be free of aggression, AS LONG AS AND ONLY AS LONG AS those actions she CLAIMS are defenses of her own body and property, ARE IN REALITY as she perceives it.

In the non-rape scenario, neither she NOR THE MAN have any right to claim the Non-Aggression Principle as a basis for KILLING THE RESULTING BABY, a proper description of the act of prenatal infanticide.

She (and he) has no obligation to any other person except to those persons that by her (or his) actions has direct responsibility for having put that 3rd party (the baby) into such a situation as to be totally dependent on her (and I would say him).

The baby would not be totally, 100 percent dependent, if not for an action by the mother AND FATHER.

So they are BOTH liable for the nurture and care of the baby up and until the mother (or father) of the baby find another viable situation for the baby.

RAPE: In the case of rape, it is still an innocent party that arrived on your property through no fault of his own. In that case, the RAPIST is responsible 100 PERCENT for all the nurture and care that baby needs. And just as in the case of someone who was, for example, dumped on your property or stowed away on your private plane now discovered in your aircraft, and any action you take to evict the person would directly cause the death of the person, it’s still murder. In such a case of an adult, he would be liable for the cost and maybe double for the trouble.

In the case of the baby, though, complete dependence is just that, and the rapist would owe the baby all his needs, ALL of them. That would include ALL the mother’s needs until such time the baby grows a little and finds another home.

It stinks for a woman who wants to say Yes instead of No from her perspective if she thinks it’s okay to kill a baby if a baby “just happens”, but that is, after all, the purpose of the act, from the point of view of the biology of it.

Prenatal infanticide has no justification any more than the “baby ponds” of 19th century China or the bridges in Roman times where babies were thrown overboard. WIth today’s methods, it’s more like some of the ungodly paganized Jews condemned in the Bible that “fed” their babies to Molech, an idol made so that the mother would put the baby on a slat, and a “priest” would work the pulleys and gears that brought the baby into an orifice where the baby would fall into a fire.

By the way, the real criminal is as often as not a father or boyfriend that hates the idea of a daughter shaming the family, or the idea of child support, that coerce the mother to “lose the baby”. Theirs is the greater sin.

In these discussions I usually at some point share one of my favorite scriptures:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.-_Isaiah 1:18

%d bloggers like this: