Are Unborn Children Property?
edited: Tuesday, July 24, 2007
By Martin T Ingham
Rated "PG" by the Author.
Posted: Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Become a Fan
An analysis of Abortion:
In recent months, I have spoken with some people who are “pro-choice” based on the philosophical belief that a woman owns anything that grows within her body. While this may be true of a body part such as a leg, a tumor, or a tooth, I don’t see how someone can claim to own another living being (which a fetus is) and not call it slavery. I am also vexed by the explanation that an unborn child has no rights, because it is dependent upon the mother and feeding off her. Both presumptions are outrageous, and merely an attempt to justify a practice that most people would find immoral and wrong if they stopped and thought beyond the talking points.
An unborn child is as much the property of its mother as an employee is the property of the company that provides a living wage, or the grocery store that supplies the food you need to survive. If you can "own" an unborn child because it's "feeding" off you, then you can also own someone you employ, because they are similarly feeding off of you, and would be starving without you. It is the same thing. Just because one is feeding off the inside of a womb doesn't mean it's less of a person.
How far shall we stretch the definition of "property?" An infant requires the mother to feed it. How does that make them an object to possess, or to condemn?
Murder of Convenience is still murder, no matter how much you want to justify it. Abortion on demand makes a slave of every unborn child, and just because abortion is legal, it does not make it justifiable. A child is not a parasite, and it is not a non-human creature. It is a less developed human, one that in 99.999% of cases the mother voluntarily created through her own actions and choices. If she didn't want a child feeding off her, she shouldn't have spread her legs. She should therefore take responsibility for her actions and carry the child to term for its benefit, not hers.
I also hear people argue that a woman’s “emotional state” is more important than the life of an unborn child; that if it can “help” a woman with her feelings, and prevent hardship on her psyche, then it is therefore justified to commit abortion. I find this reasoning especially dangerous. Apparently, it was good for Andrea Yeats' emotional state to beat her 5 kids over the head with a hammer and drown them in the bathtub. Should that kind of murder be legal because it's more convenient and could be beneficial to some woman's "emotional state?" I don't care how young the child is, they are still a living being and should have rights, or we might as well start killing anyone we deem fit, for our own pleasure, because it's about feeling good and our convenience, isn't it?
In previous columns, I have noted how illogical it seems for Atheists, those who believe in no God or existence beyond the physical, to be pro-abortion. If you believe that this life is all we have, then how can you totally exterminate someone from existence, and deny them a chance at the one thing they have? Is that not an utter abomination?
Likewise, I believe that those with a belief in God could be more permissive of Abortion, as they would see the unborn child as a soul that would live on in some way, perhaps even be redirected to another womb by God. Though I object to abortion, and consider it wrong, I can understand that religious people should have less of a problem with it than Atheists. Quite a human paradox we have made out of abortion.
Whether you’re pro-Abortion, pro-Life, or on the fence, I sincerely hope my personal analysis here can assist you in your quest for answers, and lead you to a greater truth.