I wrote this argument today on another forum. I thought you guys might like it:
Let me assume, "pro-choice" persons, that your premises are correct. Let me assume that there is such a thing as a primacy of consent and a primacy of bodily autonomy, i.e., that these things unconditionally should be taken seriously, and if there is a violation of them, there is a violation of rights. What consistently amazes me is the concerted "pro-choice" effort to dehumanize, to repaint and to demonize the unborn child as an aggressor, as a parasite, etc.., only to focus on what the unborn child "does," and not to focus on the mother in any way, shape or form. After all, for every single thing a "pro-choice" person has to say about the unborn child, I just as easily could assign it to the mother:
"Pro-choice" person: The unborn child is siphoning nutrients from his mother!
I say: Nay, the mother is siphoning nutrients to her unborn child.
"Pro-choice" person: the unborn child is taking up space in his mother's womb against her will!
I say: Nay. The mother is housing her unborn child in her womb.
I could go on, but I won't. Every single way that you describe the "action" of the unborn child, I just as easily could redescribe as an action of the mother (which in and of itself, of course, shows that "pro-choice" discourse about these things is perfectly asinine).
But let us focus on bodily autonomy and consent. Why do you only paint the unborn child as violating the bodily autonomy and consent of his mother? Why do you only require consent of the mother with respect to her unborn child?
Where is the reciprocity? Do you not just see that, just as easily, by these very premises, every mother, every woman who ever has sex, violates the bodily autonomy and consent of her child?
"I never asked to be born!"
"I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"
"So long as you live under my roof, you live under my rules!"
Any of this ring a bell?
You say consent is necessary? Ok, fine. Then why stop at redescribing the "actions" of the unborn child in an idealogically based attempt to make it seem like an aggressor? The actions of the mother lend themselves much more easily to being repainted in such a way, and what's more delightful is that she actually intends to do these things.
Every mother, by liberal premises, should be arrested, tried and convicted for an entire laundry list of crimes against most basic human rights:
1. Smuggling of persons
2. Kidnapping
3. False imprisonment
4. Sexual assault (the mother, after all, "forces" the child to make contact with her sexual organs, and most especially when the child is being born; what kind of "sicko" would force a child to be imprisoned in her uterus?)
5. Assault and/or battery (spankings, anyone)?
6. Brainwashing
And every woman who has sex, even if she doesn't conceive, so long as there was even a remote possibility of her becoming pregnant? She should be arrested, tried and convicted for conspiracy to all of those crimes.
Children don't ask to be conceived. Their parents "force" them into being without their consent. Children don't ask for their incorporation into a family with these parents. Their parents "force" them into that relationship. A child most certainly doesn't ask to be born. His parents "force" that upon him. Children don't ask to be brought up in this household, with these rules, with these values, in this society, in these times, etc. His parents force that upon him.
In fact, you say that abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy by removing the child? Then I'll tell you, on this very line of reasoning, the State has an obligation to abort every child. After all, the mother is holding him hostage in her uterus. The State has an obligation to set him free!
But perhaps, social liberals, all of this is just too ridiculous for you. You'll tell me: "But a mother need not have the permission or consent of her child. She is his mother." I'll answer you: "Yes, precisely. A child need not have the permission of his mother. He is her child."
Let me assume, "pro-choice" persons, that your premises are correct. Let me assume that there is such a thing as a primacy of consent and a primacy of bodily autonomy, i.e., that these things unconditionally should be taken seriously, and if there is a violation of them, there is a violation of rights. What consistently amazes me is the concerted "pro-choice" effort to dehumanize, to repaint and to demonize the unborn child as an aggressor, as a parasite, etc.., only to focus on what the unborn child "does," and not to focus on the mother in any way, shape or form. After all, for every single thing a "pro-choice" person has to say about the unborn child, I just as easily could assign it to the mother:
"Pro-choice" person: The unborn child is siphoning nutrients from his mother!
I say: Nay, the mother is siphoning nutrients to her unborn child.
"Pro-choice" person: the unborn child is taking up space in his mother's womb against her will!
I say: Nay. The mother is housing her unborn child in her womb.
I could go on, but I won't. Every single way that you describe the "action" of the unborn child, I just as easily could redescribe as an action of the mother (which in and of itself, of course, shows that "pro-choice" discourse about these things is perfectly asinine).
But let us focus on bodily autonomy and consent. Why do you only paint the unborn child as violating the bodily autonomy and consent of his mother? Why do you only require consent of the mother with respect to her unborn child?
Where is the reciprocity? Do you not just see that, just as easily, by these very premises, every mother, every woman who ever has sex, violates the bodily autonomy and consent of her child?
"I never asked to be born!"
"I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!"
"So long as you live under my roof, you live under my rules!"
Any of this ring a bell?
You say consent is necessary? Ok, fine. Then why stop at redescribing the "actions" of the unborn child in an idealogically based attempt to make it seem like an aggressor? The actions of the mother lend themselves much more easily to being repainted in such a way, and what's more delightful is that she actually intends to do these things.
Every mother, by liberal premises, should be arrested, tried and convicted for an entire laundry list of crimes against most basic human rights:
1. Smuggling of persons
2. Kidnapping
3. False imprisonment
4. Sexual assault (the mother, after all, "forces" the child to make contact with her sexual organs, and most especially when the child is being born; what kind of "sicko" would force a child to be imprisoned in her uterus?)
5. Assault and/or battery (spankings, anyone)?
6. Brainwashing
And every woman who has sex, even if she doesn't conceive, so long as there was even a remote possibility of her becoming pregnant? She should be arrested, tried and convicted for conspiracy to all of those crimes.
Children don't ask to be conceived. Their parents "force" them into being without their consent. Children don't ask for their incorporation into a family with these parents. Their parents "force" them into that relationship. A child most certainly doesn't ask to be born. His parents "force" that upon him. Children don't ask to be brought up in this household, with these rules, with these values, in this society, in these times, etc. His parents force that upon him.
In fact, you say that abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy by removing the child? Then I'll tell you, on this very line of reasoning, the State has an obligation to abort every child. After all, the mother is holding him hostage in her uterus. The State has an obligation to set him free!
But perhaps, social liberals, all of this is just too ridiculous for you. You'll tell me: "But a mother need not have the permission or consent of her child. She is his mother." I'll answer you: "Yes, precisely. A child need not have the permission of his mother. He is her child."
