Give “unborn child” up for adoption
Embryos and fetuses aren’t independent and no one has a right to another person's body.
We all have heard the anti-abortion people claim that embryos and fetuses are “unborn babies”, that they are independent, and that we should “just give it to adoption”. After all, according to them, the right of the fetus to live is more important than the body integrity of the woman! So if the woman aborts, according to them, it is murder. Let’s unpack the fallacies in this argument:
The fetus is independent
Well, in that case, if the woman removes it from the womb since it is independent, someone else would take care of it. She can give it for adoption and the fetus would develop on its own since it is independent in the same way that a baby would grow on its own in foster care or with an adoptive family who would feed it. Right? What? What do you mean that it would die outside the womb? Wasn’t the fetus independent?
I know, I know, fetuses have different DNA. But so does cancerous cells and we don’t consider cancerous cells people. The debate about when a fetus becomes a person is still ongoing. But person or not, if it can’t breath and survive without using another person’s body, it is not independent.
Embryos and fetuses are “unborn babies”
All right, then you can give them for adoption as with born babies. Why not? if they are the same, then what is the difference? And while we are at it, we can give driving licenses to toddlers and allow them to drink. After all, the “only” difference is the development state. And obviously, seeds are the same as trees, right?
I think it is clear that an embryo or fetus is not a baby. If you believe this, you can’t have any objections to giving the fetus for adoption. Remember, if you give up a baby for adoption, it is someone else responsibility from now on.
It is only nine months
Well, if nine months is such a short time, then extracting the fetus earlier shouldn’t make much difference. After all, it is “only” 6 months less. Or 5, which is even less time. And you can work for nine months for free since it is “only 9 months”. And 9 months in jail is nothing since “it is only 9 months”.
Honestly, saying that 9 months of pregnancy and giving birth is nothing as if nothing happens during that time, is just plain ridiculous. In any other situation, 9 months is a lot. So this specific phrase just tells us how they value women’s time and lives compared with how much they value their own time and life.
The right to live is more important than the body integrity
But going back to the baby vs “unborn baby” thing, it just happens that a baby doesn’t have a right to use the biological parent's bodies. If they need a marrow donation and the biofather is compatible but doesn’t want to donate, the baby dies. That is why the law says. No buts, no ifs. Biofather doesn’t want to donate and the baby’s right to life won’t be prioritized over the body integrity of the father.
It turns out that in any other scenario, the right to body integrity triumphs over the right to live. Someone causes an accident and the innocent party needs a blood transfusion to not die? Well, the culprit of the accident can refuse to donate blood. Bad luck. Do you have a genetic illness and need marrow donation? Whether you receive it or not depends on the goodwill of compatible donors. Completely their choice.
So why aren’t anti-abortion people campaigning for forced blood and marrow donation and a compulsory donor register so they can identify you as a donor as soon as possible? Maybe they don’t really believe that the right to live is more important than bodily integrity.
Abortion is murder
Ah, the star argument. It has quite the emotional punch. Except it is not true.
To be true, an embryo or a fetus, not only should be an independent baby (we have already seen that neither is independent nor a baby.
And also, we would have to consider that refusing to let the embryo or fetus use the woman’s body to develop and survive is the same as murder. But then, we should also consider all the people who refuse to donate to murderers. After all, someone could survive if they donate. And they are independent, with their own DNA, and brain activity, alive, and they would remain alive if you donate!
So is it murder if a woman doesn’t donate her body?
I call out anti-abortion crowd bluff
So let’s just do what they always told us to do. Let’s give embryos and fetuses, “unborn babies” for adoption. We can ask for the embryo or the fetus to be removed from the womb, give it for adoption and, you know, someone would take care of it, god would provide or whatever happens with babies who are given for adoption.
What? What do you mean it would die? Born children also die in foster care:
Some of them are neglected or abused, but anti-abortion isn’t passing laws to improve living conditions at the foster care they recommend for fetuses that aren’t aborted but are still not wanted. And if it is OK for born children, it must also be OK for unborn babies too, right?
I’m taking you at your word: Let’s give “unborn babies” up for adoption
Whatever happens after that, it is foster care's responsibility. Or theirs, they can adopt the fetuses and the embryos. In fact, they can implant the embryos in their own womb so they develop and become babies!
PS: Yes, it is reduction to absurd of all the lies that anti-abortions use as “arguments”. If they were true, fetuses' adoptions would be a thing and everyone would be forced to donate.
