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.

THE “LOGICAL” CONCLUSION – THOUGHTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ON "PARASITES"

Because unborn children have a “parasitic” relationship with their mothers, the mother has the “natural right” to abort her unborn child.

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

Does this fact makes the child a “parasite”?

In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

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.

FOLLOW

OPERATION TRANSLATION logo provided by @oecp85.