“An unborn baby can’t even survive on its own, it is totally dependent on the mother.”
We have heard this pro-abortion “justification” more times than we can count.
The basic argument here is that:
- An unborn baby is completely dependent on the mother for survival.
- Because it cannot exist independently, it is not yet a fully separate individual.
- Therefore, the mother’s rights take precedence.
This argument shares themes with the arguments from viability and bodily autonomy which we have refuted previously.
But why should it matter if someone is dependent? Why would it follow that by being dependent upon someone else, you lose your right to life?
Dependent is defined by Merriam-Webster as: “relying on another for support.”
As is often the case, this argument would not stop in the womb.
To refute it, simply draw the parallel to a newborn baby or an elderly person. A newborn cannot possibly survive without relying on another for support. The same can be true of elderly people who are unable to provide for themselves.
If it is true that an unborn baby has no right to life because it is entirely dependent upon the mother, it must also be true that a newborn baby has no right to life for the very same reason.
The idea that a distinct, living, human organism with his or her own DNA and self-directed future is somehow not a “separate individual” is absurd and completely defies simple biological truth. Embryology clearly shows that from the moment of fertilization a new human life has begun.
Additionally, dependence is a sliding scale, not a dichotomy. Every human being is dependent on others to some varying degree. A 10-year-old, while still dependent on their parents, is far less dependent than a 10-week-old. Does that mean the 10-year-old is more human?
As we have said many times, human beings do not have a right to life because of something that we can do. We have the right to life because of what we are.
In Defense of Life,
Victor Nieves
President, Life Issues Institute
Leave a Reply