Ideas that often sound plausible or valid sometimes lose that characteristic once they are taken all the way to their logical conclusion. A mentality or concept that is proposed is far easier to accept if we do not consider exactly what the end result of applying that mindset would be.
Recently, a certain viewpoint was presented, which could summed up as:
Because unborn children have a “parasitic” relationship with their mothers, the mother has the “natural right” to abort her unborn child.
This was an idea that I had never previously been exposed to. Though it may have been a “new idea” to me, it did not really surprise me because people come up with ideas like this all the time.
The argument was proposed that because the unborn child gets everything that it needs for life from the body of the mother, the unborn child is basically an internal "parasite" and the mother is the "host."
Many will claim that the only difference between an unborn child and a child that has been born is the fact that a birth has occurred, and that either way, the child is a human and has a right to life. @anotherjoe recently presented this viewpoint in his post here.
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with that belief, I believe that we can all agree that two (2) basic types of parasites exist in the world.
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
Here is where we can continue the original viewpoint that an unborn child is a "parasite."
If an unborn child can be considered to be an internal “parasite” because it is dependent upon the mother’s body to support it, then it should also be permissible to consider a child that has been born to be an external “parasite” because it still needs someone else (usually a parent) to support it so that it can survive.
For quite some time after they are born, newborn humans are incapable of providing for their own needs. According to the “parasite” mentality, this would mean that although they have been born, they are still "parasites."
Since it has already been claimed to be appropriate to kill “parasites”, then babies viewed as “external parasites” would be able to be “dealt with” in the same manner as those “internal parasites,” correct?
To many, this “reasoning” will appear to be appalling and horrendous. However, to some others, this is probably the actual goal.
Let’s start with the unborn, then the recently born, then the old, then the sick, then the mentally handicapped, then those that don't agree with me, and so on.
I believe ideas like the original one shared are put out there to “test the waters.” If there is too much resistance, at least the idea has been “planted” and it may have a better chance the next time it is shared.
Just like an unborn child cannot survive without the mother a newborn child cannot survive on its own. An unborn child receives its nourishment and protection from the body of its mother. A child that has been born receives its nourishment and protection from whoever takes care of it. Without assistance, a baby or young child will not survive on its own.
Does this fact makes the child a “parasite”?
In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
The care and provision of a parent for their young, whether born or not, is supposed to be a very special and precious thing. Many may choose to believe that it is more of an inconvenience, but even if the parent chooses to believe such a thing, it does not turn their child into a “parasite”, regardless of the location or age of the child.
This is how it usually starts. All that is needed is an excuse, and once the activity is excusable, the excuse will be discarded.
"Maybe abortion is permissible if the mother was raped" quickly becomes "or not."
"Abortion is permissible if the mothers life is at risk" also becomes "or not."
"Internal parasites can be aborted" will change to include "external parasites" too.
This is the trend that repeats itself, and the technique used to change what is and isn't acceptable in a society.
I hope this still makes sense to some of you.
For more about how ideas become acceptable, please refer back to my post Monty Python Predicts the Future.
These are my thoughts about why I find such ideas to be potentially dangerous once they are accepted, and you are all free to either agree or disagree with me. Either way, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
FOLLOW
Awesome Handcrafted @papa-pepper logo kindly donated by @vlad - Thank you!!
Translation.)
OPERATION TRANSLATION logo provided by @oecp85.
(click link above for more info on Operation
Hey Papa! As someone who believes a women should be able to choose the outcome of her pregnancy, I think that applying the parasite analogy to a child is a little extreme and pretty insensitive to the topic. I think for many women, it's a difficult decision to choose and go through with that reality. I think women deserve the right to choose because not having that right is yet another mechanism of control by the patriarchy. I also think that it depends upon when you think life begins, which is subjective.
abortion can happen naturally, from stress or unusual events...so to try and control a woman's body is cruel! I agree that a woman has a right to her body (up until they are five, lol). Native Americans had a matriarchal lineage in which the sons stayed with their mothers until they were old enough to hunt. Obviously society has too much time on its hands to be worrying about such minutiae as an unborn child. That fetus could naturally abort for no reason and has been known to. So let it go. Try again. It is not really that big of a deal.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of subjectivity on issues like this.
My main point was that the "parasite" view is extreme and can lead to even worse things.
It certainly is a difficult choice, but I wish more information was shared about the health risks of the abortion process too.
Besides emotional difficulties that can stem from it, there can be some pretty severe physical complications too.
Thanks @robrigo.
I'll be sending you that shirt by the end of the week and may even include a jar of that Green Ghost Salsa for you!
Thank you for your generosity and also for posting quality content Mr Pepper.
@robrigo I upvoted your comment in spite of the fact that I respectfully disagree with your opinions, because you are a shining example of how to be civil and respectful when talking about a subject that usually ends in vicious attacks from both sides. Thank you for showing us all how to be human :)
Amendment:
A more simple disproof of the parasite-thesis is as follows:
In nature or biology a host-parasite relationship exists only between different species. Mother and embryo are of the same species. q.e.d.
Well said.
Proof that? Even if true: There are anomalies to nature. The human fetus is the platypus of parasites.
When i first heard about this concept, it made me sick to my stomach. Responsibility begins before conception. Yes rape is tragic and there is a morning after pill that can be taken right away. This is such a dangerous concept and so dehumanizing!! And needs to be stopped, it is IMMORAL to take the LIFE of another human being. If that CHILD, not parasite, is unwanted then there are many couples who are unable to produce children who would adopt! There is no excuse for this insanity. Even if the mother and child are at risk of death during pregnancy, we have come so far in technology, that child can be surgically removed and likely saved! Mother as well. Just breaks my heart to see the decline of humanity.
No it doesn't. Sex is for recreation. There's no reason that conception should be the main thing on anyones mind. Because it isn't. Pregnancy is an unwanted side-effect the majority of the time, being completely responsible would mean abstaining from PIV sex altogether. People can only be careful. The availabiity of abortion pills and surgical abortions are a logical conclusion of individual freedom and modern culture in many ways.
You make sick.
So does pregnancy. It can be very nauseating.
Do you know where you came from? Probably a good thing your mother didn't believe you were an unwanted side-effect or parasite. Sex IS how you get new people. I can't believe how dumb you are. This has nothing to do with "culture" which in itself is mere social conditioning and a belief system, it is fact that you create life through the act of PIV. If you choose to subjecate your body to recreational sex, that is your choice but then do the world a favour and get your reproductive organs removed, cauterized or snipped. Oh and maybe learn right/wrong and moral/immoral. There is no"modern culteral" justification for murder. This parasitic concept is only meant to disconnect between the child and that it is to something other than human and to justify its murder.
Thank you for sharing that @fitmama.
I am an advocate for being responsible.
Excellent post! You disproved the parasite argument with brilliant logial conclusions.
On the other hand, for some special reasons discussed in the comments there may be other arguments that could be used. So the general discussion about abortion may continue as long as humans exist.
Thanks, my main goal was to demonstrate that the parasite argument was not valid, so I'm glad that you believe I did so.
And, yes, many other variables are always presented as options in situations like this.
Thanks @freiheit50!
Excellent post @papa-pepper. And thanks for linking @anotherjoe's post, I had missed it and found it very well reasoned. By the way, you sure do have a cute little infestation of parasites.
I like your take on the parasite idea. It would basically make anyone that is incapable of taking care of them self a parasite. could be the old or mentally ummm not normal. It could even get pushed as far as anyone that receives help to survive is a parasite. be it paied by govement or help from family and friends. Sounds like we could even say sorry i locked you in the cage and you need me to give you water or you will die so your a parasite and i can kill you now.
xD
That may be the goal.
That sux but might be true.
Interesting subject my friend @papa-pepper in particular I am on the abortion as long as it is the fruit of an allowed love and healthy people and in normal quotes. There are cases of girls with daw syndrome violated, in this case I agree to an induced abortion.
Because I think that way, I think there are many families that are not blessed with a child, this would be the good opportunity to adopt a child and the opportunity of life for that child that maybe the mother wanted to abort. Everything I say I say with a lot of respect is a very delicate subject to deal with.
Excellent post my friend congratulations and continue the success.
I've met a few victims of rape that actually kept the children too.
They would have changed the situation that the child came from, but they love their children.
I agree that this is a very delicate subject and was not sure if I should mention anything myself.
Thanks for the honest reply!
It was a pleasure my friend
The 'in event of rape or incest' as exception mantra, does more harm than good. It stigmatizes which can markedly complicate a woman's decision. If abortion is simply allowed without controversy, things will continue fine. Most pregnancies are unplanned, so far less are aborted. And few women do so cavalierly
This is a very tough topic to talk about papa. Having had 4 pregnancies, (3 beautiful boys and one early miscarriage). I've also been in a position of hopelessness while making the very important decision to keep viable pregnancy #3 going as my world fell apart. Through it all, I've never judged a woman for her decision to keep or abort. We don't live in anyone's skin but our own. That being said, I used to call myself "the incubator" during my pregnancies because they were energy sucking little parasites. And after they were born, they were emotional, economical, and time parasites too -- but I personally wouldn't change a thing.
The language in what is and is not acceptable often shapes us with mob mentality, peer pressure, and a shame society - all of which I will push back on with everything I've got.
Agreed, a touchy subject to be sure, and I am no woman, nor will I ever be.
Thanks for what you shared.
Time-burglars and need-machines!!! lol Thats what I think of 'em, despite loving my neices... and I KNOW most mothers hate the job sometimes, no matter how much they love their kids. The range of emotions is valid and good that women can talk about it and not play the self-sacrifice suffer in silence role any longer.
papa-pepper ever heard the parasite analogy before cuz he's not a woman, less probability of thinking/feeling that way or hearing it from someone :D
Speaking of feelings, I wonder if a pregnant womans feelings affect fetal development. IIRC it can effect epigenetic traits. Also, there was a study done on women who were denied abortions, their children had marked disadvantages; poverty being the obvious, and higher rates of illness among them. It is very hard for a woman to give up the child even if they are unwilling mothers. 'Just give them up for adoption' is more cruel and dismissive of the experience than implying a fetus is a parasite.
A very interesting concept to think about. All I can say is that technically the fetus is the byproduct of the first parasite which would be the invasive sperm doing its very best to swim against the current and penetrate the outer shell of the ovum. Then it changes that structure (the egg) very quickly genetically. That really sounds parasitic to me. lol
LOL!
I think that the sperm getting inside may have come from the first "parasitic" invader.
Where would we be without that invasive sperm????
It's definitely an invasive species and our environment has been paying the price every since! LOL
men are mutants! we all start as females than something weird happens to them, and they mature into creatures that spew millions of parasites!!!! lol fun as that may be sometimes
The term "parasite" in this context in the post you refer to comes straight from the Libertarian Rothbard, and his opinion. Apparently, it is not the only possible Libertarian view on the subject.
While I fully support the idea of the mother as the sole decider on abortion, I'm not sure the Libertarian reasoning is the best way of arriving at that conclusion, to put it politely. How convoluted Libertarian morals can become is also nicely illustrated by this post and my comments there.
I'm checking that out now...
Great thoughts Señor Pepper.
Then why not others who can't take care of themselves, such as elderly parents, paraplegics, mentality handicapped, etc.? Where does it end?
Agreed, once there is a leak in the dam, the water will keep coming.
Already, the goal post has seriously been moved. From Rowe vs Wade being about, women will get abortions whether it is legal or not, so we should at least make it safe for them. Now, it is my body, my choice. Forget about anybody else's rights (including the babies).
After that, they take all the blame, shame, costs and social costs and dump them on the men (or society in general... but not the women).
Women have umpteen forms of birth control, and none of them a man can tell if the woman is using them. But, it is men who are blamed (you got her pregnant) and men who are held financially liable.
So, what I really hate is that women want to argue for inalienable rights, while offloading all the responsibility that comes with those rights.
And what women really want is plausible deniability, so they can get out of the bad predicament they got themselves into, while maintaining the "Good girl" image for when she wants to get married.
Also, women are said to be the more spiritually connected of the species. I can feel the presence of a child in a womb. How on earth does any woman get off saying it is just a pile of cells. (or a parasite)
The father has the choice to use a condom so leaving birth control up to the woman is just an immature cop out. i.e both parties are to blame for the unwanted pregnancy (assuming consensual sex).
I've never heard of men taking all the blame and shame and costs. You are actually saying that every time any unmarried woman becomes pregnant, anywhere in the world no-one ever says anything negative to her and someone else pays for all her extra food and special clothes and equipment and her standard of living remains exactly the same as before she became pregnant.
"women want to argue for inalienable rights, while offloading all the responsibility that comes with those rights." Presumably the right you are talking about here is the right to have an abortion. What responsibility are women shirking after the abortion?
"And what women really want is plausible deniability, so they can get out of the bad predicament they got themselves into, while maintaining the "Good girl" image for when she wants to get married." You just said here that pregnancy is the woman's problem alone, that the "bad predicament " is not the man's, it's not his problem and he did nothing to cause the situation because he doesn't have an image that he needs to maintain in order to be considered worthy of becoming a husband in the future.
All is an extremely powerful word-please use wisely and try to think about what you are inferring with the words that you choose.
Personally, I would never choose to have an abortion. However, I never had parents who would have killed me or disowned me or forced me into a marriage and I've never had any burning ambitions that would have been hampered by a child and I know myself well enough to know that I would have been thinking about the kid forever.
Maybe you should try to be less judgemental and have a go at empathy.
So, you are going steady with a girlfriend, and she tells you she is on the pill, so you don't need to use a condom. "It will feel sooo much better," she says.
As a guy, it is about a 50/50 probability that she is telling the truth. The other possibility is that she is trying to get pregnant so that she can try to lock down the guy.
And then, most abortions are because the bad-boy wouldn't go along with being locked-down.
She told him, "I'm pregggererrrrs" and he walked.
To avoid pregnancy and avoid paying for the rest of your life a man should always wear a condom or abstain. Yeah, that should work... except all the times that it didn't. (Yes, paying child support when you didn't even get to see the goods)
If a guy chooses someone with low morals to be his GF that is still his responsibility and are you seriously trying to use being weak minded as an excuse for men to make poor life decisions?
If you were my son I would teach you how to be a real man, find decent women and stop being a whiney little biatch and FYI babies are not property.
Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. And every single one of them thought they had a good woman. Oh the horror stories out there about the divorces.
Men get cheated on all the time. And when asked if they saw any signs, they did not. They thought there wife was true and allowed her to have her women's night out without a second thought. Oh, the horror stories.
The horror stories about what is termed "baby jail" are worse than the above.
The stories of women who pull underhanded tricks to get pregnant abound. (Including putting holes in condoms, or digging them out of the trash...)
And, even if the man says I do not want to have kids, and uses protection, and does everything right, these men have gone TO JAIL for not paying child support. (one case he didn't even know he was a father. In other cases, they weren't even the father)
When I said 50/50 above, I meant it from hard evidence.
And, what is it about babies being property? Where did that come from?
You were talking about unmarried women becoming pregnant and you were trying to absolve men from all responsibility-you can move the goal posts by moving the discussion to married couples if this is just about you feeling like you've won an argument.
"Yes, paying child support when you didn't even get to see the goods"- be careful with your analogies. I know you don't really think babies are property-I was messing with you but seriously you shouldn't defend men who have bad taste in women just because you are a guy.
I'm assuming that you are hetero so that you find women attractive and part of that attraction should be to that part of their spirit which is feminine. How can you see past the surface of a woman if you are hating on women's characters in general? In order to hate on all women you have to deny that small part of your own spirit which is feminine and that is the part that you need to recognise a good woman. If you were my son, you'd be happy and you wouldn't be defending idiots of either sex.
I am sorry @cathi-xx I was trying to keep this PG.
I meant that there is a man in jail for not paying child support and he hasn't had sex with her!
I would suggest you avoid personal attacks in the future. You are not very good at it.
Thanks for clarifying that.
There certainly do seem to be a lot of double standards that have to be considered, as you shared.
If a father wants the child to be born, he has no "choice."
If a father doesn't want the child, he has no "choice."
I've heard some shared about that in the past too.
If a man wants to be pregnant, he has no choice.
Hi papa-pepper! I would just like to say that I support your conclusions wholeheartedly, althought I think that instead of trying to support them by saying logical conclusion (the conclusion stating that abortions are moral) is stupid and that the non-logical conclusion (abortions are immoral) is the right one, I believe that the immorality of abortion can be justified logically. I would also like to say that you should beware of ocrdu, he seems to be a (very smart) troll. I recently posted an article about animal rights and voluntaryism, and his comment appeared to be the only one that seemed like he had an intelligent question/objection. Quickly the subject was changed into one of children's rights instead of animal rights, which I also tried to explain my position on (not fully, obviously, since I could write an entire post about children's rights), which he/she did not even attempt to understand, but just proceeded to argue about semantics, accused me of supporting retarded baby stomping, and said my thoughts were a "dead end". I decided not to continue explaining myself because I realized that he/she didn't care (I did have answers to his objections, I just thought that they would be wasted on him/her). If you would like for me to write a post on my postion on the rights of children/babies/the unborn, please respond - I don't know if my efforts would be appriciated or a waste of time.
Best regards,
Ethan from TheLibertyAdvocate.com
You are certainly free to make the effort, but results may vary on how people respond to it.
It is good to share our beliefs with others and exchange ideas in an attempt to reveal truth, but not everyone appreciates it.
I share more about other topics here.
Thanks @libertyadvocate.
Question to @papa-pepper: At what phase does the "unborn baby" becomes a human being. Does a lumb of embryonic cells already a human being?
When is a lump of grown-up cells a person?
When does it stop being a person?
Calling something a lump doesn't negate it's humanity.
As @robrigo already shared, the answer to that question is subjective, which means my answer may differ from yours.
I believe that a conceived human (embryo, lump, fetus, ball of cells, etc.) will turn into a human if the process is left uninterrupted.
The goal of an abortion may not be to end a life, only to prevent it, but either way, that child "loses" it's life, whether we choose to believe it had already began or not.
My point was that no child, unborn or not, is a parasite.
Does that make sense?
Okay, first of all let me say that I think this parasite argument is really stupid.
Secondly, let me ask you another thing: Do you believe in the afterlife?
I agree about the parasite thing.
And for the question, yes.
So if you believe in the afterlife then isn't death also part of the continuum of life? I mean, it's just a dramatic translation, just like birth or conception, right?
Do you believe in the afterlife?
When do you think that an unborn child becomes "a person"?
I agree that one will not get from this life into the afterlife without dying.
@papa-pepper, I don't know if there is an afterlife. But I know there is this life, and in this life people sometimes have to choose the lesser evil, and who are you to judge?
Moral choices are always hard, and sometimes even agonizing. But when people sometimes have to make them, even if they are life and death decisions, we shouldn't put them in the position where they have to make excuses.
It is possible for a baby to survive without the woman who birthed it. Though they have parasitical qualities, it is not equivalent enough to disprove the parasite argument.
Lots of women who are averse to pregnancy feel the parasite analogy to be apt.