Who is responsible for creating the child? Is it the child? It is not the child’s responsibility because the child is not a self-acting agent. Regardless of circumstance, the child is brought into existence due to the actions of the parents and therefore bears no legal responsibility for any consequences of those actions. The freely acting agents whose actions are responsible for creating the child, regardless of circumstances, must be responsible for the consequences of those actions.

A baby does not take a woman’s body hostage. The one taking the woman’s body hostage is the actor whose actions have created the child. This can be both parties via mutual consent. This can be both parties through implied consent vis a vis acceptance of the risk inherent in contraception (whose manufacturers are legally obligated to display or publish results showing effectiveness of their products or techniques). This can be from one actor where in the second actor was an unwilling participant. The baby has no capacity as an actor until it assumes legal age and is therefore incapable of responsibility in this situation, this is default. The responsibility is, therefore, conferred to the next of kin which in this case is the parents who contributed the genetic material to create the child.

Now that we have clearly established that the child is in no way responsible for its actions inside the womb, it must therefore be the case that a child is not “using” the mother’s body.

Now that that business is through we can move on to the more complicated biological issues with your arguments. Sexual reproduction is common in the entire living world and is a cycle of death and rebirth through the production of a fruit seed which will inexorably grow, given the right conditions and environment, into the next generation of the creature or plant that was the progenitor of the seed. A “fetus” does not “use” the mother’s body. The womb is a specifically designed organ that is built to produce offspring and it produces a lining monthly for humans and at longer intervals for most mammals. From conception the embryo is dependent on that body however it is the mother’s body that grows blood vessels that service the umbilical cord and placenta. A human being consists only of what is within its own skin. The placenta forms out of the “shell” of the egg which is what the mother’s body produced. The internal contents of the egg, not the egg itself are what becomes the child. Therefore it is not the child that is occupying the mother’s body as a parasite but the mother’s womb is actively carrying, growing blood vessels into the placenta to engage in a type of osmosis feeding of the child in the womb. The baby is not a parasite by any definition biologically nor philosophically. No material from the mother’s body is taken from the mother’s body into the placenta as a form of sustenance. The baby and mother exchange waste products and nutrients through an osmosis reaction between the placenta wall blood vessels and the blood vessels in the umbilical cord. There is no shared blood between the mother and the child, her blood does not enter the placenta. Furthermore, it is the mother’s body that grows the vein network in the uterine lining in order to provide this connection to the placenta.

In conclusion, we are left with these facts and my conclusions in light of these facts.

1. The child is a non-actor until achieving a level of development at which it can make well-informed consent and thus reaches an age of “responsibility.” Therefore, the child cannot be responsible for any consequences of its birth and attribution of blame for those consequences to the child is wrong from all ethical standpoints. Individuals who treat children like this often cause them to go into depression or live stunted lives due to inadequacy. Therefore, there is a moral responsibility not to blame the child for things outside of its control along with a logical requirement by any ethical code of conduct to not hold people responsible for anything outside of their area of responsibility or control.

2. Offspring are genetic family members and members of the same species as their parents. The female parent of child in viviparous reproduction produces an environment inside the womb during estrus that provides the necessary network of blood vessels in the uterine lining in order to make contact with an embryo and form an osmotic bridge between the mother’s body and the umbilical cord that connects to the placenta wall in order to transfer nutrients and oxygen directly into her offspring’s blood stream and to carry out waste carbon dioxide and other respiratory system byproducts to be exhausted from her body. Viviparous species produce eggs that have no nutritional content and consist of a single cell. Therefore, sexual reproduction in viviparous species is carried out through nutrient exchange between the mother and child. Because the female body provides these things of its own accord, and because the child takes no action of its own nor does another species invade and deposit offspring there, it is impossible to define a child as a parasite.

In light of these argumentatively established statements, I would like for you to review these and consider them when re-crafting your argument if you should wish to continue.

Yours truly,


-The Blue Queen

Share via
Why shouldn\'t people fear suffering and dying, and why shouldn\'t people do what it takes to avoid suffering and/or dying, even if that means getting an abortion? No woman should have to feel as though she\'s obligated to remain pregnant, no matter how harmful or traumatic that is for her as a person. Fetuses shouldn\'t be able to take a woman\'s body hostage and force her to act as an incubator. After all, no other human being has the right to use another human being\'s body against their will.

Posted by cultureshift

A plea to win the hearts of those who choose to dehumanize our development and undermine our right to live.

Leave a Reply