David, you do realize that you’re comparing a child—an unborn infant—to a murderer? An attacker?
And, when you use the chemotherapy argument, you’re comparing said unborn child to a cancer?
It seems to me you have some really strange idea about children, and the actual nature of reproduction. Repeat after me: Kids are young humans. They are not deadly, pint-sized killers, they are not a disease. We all started out as kids, shocking as that may be to believe.
Sheesh, if babies truly are that deadly, and pregnancy so hazardous, perhaps women should all vow celibacy, or have themselves sterilized, to save themselves from the threat of those narsty, narsty babies! That seems to be the jist of your argument: “Babies are horrible, and dangerous, don’t have any!”
Also, it really can’t be argued that, like an adult attacker, the unborn child deliberately attacked the mother; forced itself into her womb, forced her to have sex in the first place, deliberately threatened her life, with malice aforethought, and now sits inside her uterus, chuckling evilly and thinking, “BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH, I’M GOING TO KILL MOMMY!” That’s an argument that just won’t wash. An unborn child can’t be regarded in the same light as an adult attacker.
Again, if mommy’s health is so precarious that a pregnancy can kill her (I suspect this is rarely the case these days, outside of Lifetime Chanel melodramas) she should avoid sex altogether, or get her tubes tied.
(David S., by the way, is reiterating the old, Victorian idea that females are delicate flowers, cursed with deadly wombs which cannot be understood by mere males; that pregnancy is a hideous curse, and a menace, to such delicate, fragile beings.)
And why don’t you buy the murder gambit? Does abortion end a life, or doesn’t it?
