Just a hypothetical question for anyone that is Pro-Life! :)~?

Question

Okay, let's say you owned a house. And you got this fancy lock that you thought always worked, but apparently, it broke off. And someone that was a complete stranger just sort of moved in. They mooched off all the food in your kitchen, and they kicked you once a day, maybe even more. Now, being that it is /your/ house, you should be able to kick out said stranger even if they cannot survive on their own, correct? I'd say so.

So, how come we can't kick babies out of our bodies? I mean really, it's not /my/ fault they can't survive outside my body on their own. I mean, if they're so 'alive' and such an 'individual', they need to be able to survive on their own. As long as they are dependent on their mothers, I don't consider them alive.

Opinions, opinions. Please, be serious. Unless you plan on using hypothetical situations like I did, because those always give me a kick. Also, feel free to IM me on your opinions also.

OH AND, no, I'm not pregnant. :)

Three things to say:

1. Yes, my mother did let me live, because she wanted me to live.

2. Read my analogy again. I said the lock broke, I never said the door was wide open. Especially those who didn't even want the door ever opened, but someone forcefully ran in.

3. And I do believe teenagers can live on their own. And when I mean 'survive on their own' I mean, be able to eat on their own, be able to breathe on their own, be able to drink on their own. I don't mean buying a house, having someone get your food.

Two more things to add.

1. I'm NOT talking about people who didn't use protection. I'm talking about people who had all the locks a person could buy, but for some reason, they just couldn't work.

2. You aren't quite understanding what I mean by 'survive'. Again, I mean they are capable of eating and drinking on their own. I don't mean going out to a store and buying the food. I mean they are able to complete the action.

I really don't think many people are understanding my 'dependancy' thing, so please don't comment on it unless you truly understand. Although, I will say this to someone who commented on the mentally disabled being dependant on someone else: that is true, some are dependant, but they do not latch themselves on to you, make you intake more food and cut out your alchohol. they simply need to be cared for, which isn't the case for 'fetuses' (since everytime i say baby, pro-lifers jump on me)

also, I really would like to thank Warren D, a pro-lifer, for explaining his reasons to me other than the 'God doesn't approve' explanation. I give my nods to you.

Answer 1

Depends on what reality really is. If there is no God, and your body is your own, then yes, your analogy stands up.

But God says your body does NOT belong to YOU. And ALL life belongs to HIM.

So if He is correct , and you are wrong about the basic assumptions of what life is, and where it comes from, you are in effect stealing from Him what does not belong to you.

You are of course "free" to make any judgements you wish about this, but if I were you I would be very concerned about standing in front of God at the Judgement (and you will) with such a silly defense.

Jesus said some very drastic punishments are awaiting those who harm "his little ones".

He gave you more brains than that.



....theBerean

Answer 2

I'm pro-life, and I'm a male, but before you say "Oh, what do you know?" I need to point out that my wife is much more hard-line pro-life than I am.

I would favor allowing abortions under certain circumstances. One would be rape or incest, another would be serious danger to the mother, and the third would be an absolutely unviable fetus. These conditions are not as common as some might think, but abortions could be justified.

I don't favor laws making abortion a criminal offense, but I do favor making efforts to encourage pregnant women to voluntarily have their babies. I also favor making adoption far easier and less expensive than it is now.

Many women become pregnant because of indiscreet sexual behavior. Unfortunately this can catapult a person who is emotionally a child into adulthood very quickly.

You suggest the woman doesn't invite the baby. Unfortunately, the baby gets there with or without an invitation. Could we maybe consider the child as having some rights too? Like maybe the right to live?

In my previous marriage I had two circumstances in which abortion was contemplated. I learned at that time that I am staunchly pro-life, even though I would have considered myself to be pro-choice before these circumstances. I can't be a hypocrite and say what was wrong for me would be right for other people.

We have to take life seriously. And I think rapists should be punished as severely as possible and that no woman should be forced into an unwanted pregnancy. I do favor contraception and I believe all children should be wanted by someone. But I don't think killing an innocent life punishes the right person.

Answer 3

NOW I have heard it all. A baby and a stranger who came into your house, are not the same at all. YOUR BABY is not a stranger, it is the creation of God, that was conceived due to the fact that you had sex with someone. It is not your fault the baby cannot survive outside your body on their own? Yes it is your fault if you take his/her life. So you say that as long as they are dependent on the mother, you do not consider them alive? WHEN ARE THEY ALIVE- when they get old enough to move our of your real house- like to go away to school? A baby cannot survive without a mom at birth, so it would not be your fault if you decided to kill it then too? THIS IS SUCH A RIDICULOUS argument. I am a Christian, and I try very hard not to get angry- but this issues makes me angry because we are talking about the life of the most innocent, and the ones who CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. What is wrong with this world- will we wake up tomorrow and read that the government has been it legal to kill a child until it can be independent and move out at 18?
I pray that when you get older and maybe need some help with life- that someone won't say, "well , since she cannot take care of herself,it is not my fault"
A condom may have broke- however is it the baby's fault?

Answer 4

I've seen some pretty interesting points on both sides of the fence here. I'm pro choice personally, but I respect the comments of the pro lifers who said something other than, "God says it's wrong". There are plenty of reasons against abortion that are beyond blind faith.

However, as long as it's done as early as possible, it should be a woman's choice. How many children do you see these days that don't have a chance? That are born to neglectful and abusive families. They were born to someone who didn't want or deserve them and will grow up to perpetuate the cycle of abuse and neglect and cause a burden on society. Is it a good thing that Charles Manson's or Saddam Hussein's parents were pro life? Or every other sick, twisted individual, that offends every ounce of your being, yet you're graced with there presence every day on the six o' clock news and CNN for that matter? I love flipping through channels to hear about mass murder, rape, and torture.

Who knows? Maybe if everyone didn't live by blind faith and thought for themselves some of these people's lives wouldn't have been protected from the moment of conception and maybe the world would be just a little better place???

Answer 5

The person that broke into the house was physically able to do the works to enter the house, therefore he is able to earn an income. Let him either work or not eat.
As far as the baby, the baby was invited when the woman agreed to sex. As far a rape goes, when a man is convicted of rape, that person should be fixed so it is impossible to ever have sex again and it should be made public so others will fear to go out and rape. Amputation is what I am speaking of. Abortion is just another sign of the latter days:It is a lack of natural affection.
2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 Timothy 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Answer 6

You've got a pretty flippant view of sex to assume that a baby is stalking your neighborhood and takes advantage of a broken condom to assault a mother.

Your hypothetical is great on the surface, but you are comparing two scenarios with too many dissimilarities. A home invader or squatter is there to commit a crime of his own free will. You are within your rights in America to remove that person from your home, as he is there uninvited. Also, if that man was truly incapable of surviving the moment he stepped out of your home (ie--poison gas, assassins or something else cool like that), the reality of the situation would be much more complex than just kicking that person out of your home. (Legally speaking, you would be guilty of murder in that case, because you can only kill in defense of your home if you believe you are in immediate bodily danger. Causing someone's death out of mere convenience you bring charges of manslaughter.)

A baby is in the womb because the mother invited it there. It doesn't matter if you use protection. The act of sex is basically asking for babies. It's a natural by-product. In a way, it's not your (I mean "you" in a non-specific sense, as you mentioned that you weren't "with child") fault that the baby cannot survive outside the womb any more than it is your fault that you need oxygen to survive. It IS your fault (at least, half your fault) that the baby is there in the first place.

A closer (but still not yet perfect) analogy would be to put up a sign saying "Abusive hungry squatters welcome", but then locked your house with a shoddy lock. Usually a squatter would be turned away, but once in a while, the lock won't work and the guy would get in. Then, when you found he was there, you would have to make a moral decision to allow him to stay and accept the consequences of your actions (putting the sign up) or pay someone to stab him in the head and give his cadaver over to the scientific community.

Answer 7

I hope you never are pregnant either. I love children and if I allowed myself to get pregnant, regardless of the key fit and all that gibberish. the child would be part me, and it would be like killing yourself. If you hate children, then it is up to you, but get yourself fixed so you will never have to justify killing it, you do not deserve it anyway. You are only trying to justify yourself getting an abortion when and if the time comes. Lady, you are in control of who comes in or out of your "house/body", if you get pregnant, it is still your responsibility no matter if it can live and crawl around on its own, it cannot survive out on it's own. Is that what you did? You have a rather "WARPED" opinion about justification for killing unborn or just born babies. Maybe you house one day will be ''JAIL". Abortion is between the mother and God, I am not either, so I do not make judgments, but I would never kill an innocent baby no matter if it was born or not. However, I would not kill those that are doing it, but it is a crime I believe if the fetus is very far along, it is a baby, and alive, and you cannot kill it. Let someone adopt it, but do not kill it. You will live with this for the rest of your life. If you do not want children, they get your tubes cut,. Then you do not have to worry about all that stuff. Hitler had the same ideas, and guess what, he is the most hated person on the face of the earth, getting rid of people because you just don't like them.

Answer 8

This is not really a good hypothetical situation.
A stranger just cannot move in, so to speak.
Yes it is your house, and YES you can have a better lock on the door, hypothetically.
When you were two, did your parents send you to the supermarket to buy groceries?Give you the keys to the car? Make you get a job to pay for it? If you couldn't do it then too bad you don't survive, right? Maybe you were not independent enough. But I can imagine they did take care of you even though you did not pull your own weight.
That makes as much sense as your story.
If you really believe you are being "used" then there are doctors who can make sure you will not have to share your house.
I think that is a better solution than yours.

Answer 9

Well, no human being is self-sufficient at birth, either.

You said, "Now, being that it is /your/ house, you should be able to kick out said stranger even if they cannot survive on their own, correct?" Well, then anyone should be able to get rid of a baby even after it is born, because it's quite some time until a baby human is able to survive on his/her own.

And yet, that is illegal. Once a baby is born, it is given protection by the law. It's illegal to neglect a child, abandon a child, or otherwise endanger a child who is not able to survive on its own.

My question, as a pro-life, pro-choice person (yeah...figure THAT one out, but that's what I am), is simply this: What's so magical about the moment of birth that affords this "alive", "individual" being legal rights once it exits the uterus on its own? How is it that we can justify extending it legal protection at a particular moment, but not one day before that particular moment, even though it is a scentient being?

That's my opinion...free of emotion. Just some questions in response to your questions.

Answer 10

Your not talking about eviction, but killing this individual? I believe the law would not be on your side. Please try to take your hypothetical situation to its logical conclusions.


The allegory you've drawn suggests it's fine to take a baby to term and then throw it in the waste basket. I would suggest a 1 year old infant is also incapable of self-sufficiency...are we then to say it can be thrown into the forest at the whim of its caretakers? Also, this baby has it's own heart, brain , eyes, limbs, its own unique DNA structure...if it's not human life than what is it.


And if we are unsure as to the status of potential life, shouldn't we err on the side of caution. I noticed that when that mine caved in Utah their first reaction wasn't to blow it up and seal it off just to make sure they're dead, but rather an heroic effort by fellow miners to hopefully extract them alive. And by the way, in an overwhelming majority of the cases, the stranger you speak of in your first paragraph is a direct result of irresponsibility on behalf of the presumed homeowner. Either due to crummy locks or no lock at all.

Answer 11

Referring mostly to the second paragraph:
You CAN kick the baby out of your body. It's called going along with it naturally then putting it up for adoption. Give the kid a chance to live. And you said: "I mean, if they're so 'alive' and such an 'individual', they need to be able to survive on their own." Okay, would you say a three-year-old is alive and an individual? Yet, they can't survive on their own. Would you get rid (or "kick out") and three-year-old simply becuase they annoy you or you don't want him/her? Perhaps some people would...not me. So why is a newborn or one still in you so different? Since they're younger they're less valuable? And you said: "As long as they are dependent on their mothers, I don't consider them alive." Once again, isn't a three-year-old dependent on his/her mother? Isn't a 14-year-old fairly dependent on his/her mother? Maybe I'm missing part of what you're trying to say...
Thanks for your time. :)