Eight Questions for Moloch

I have a set of questions for Lena Argon. She may no longer be reading here, so I will open the question up to anyone who cares to answer.

We have heard many arguments that an unborn human baby is not a human being, despite being biologically a unique individual, with a given sex, and a given DNA code, able to take in nutriment and grow, maintain homeostasis, react to stimuli, and therefore are alive. The living offspring of two sexes of the same species is of that species, biologically. Yet the claim is that the offspring of male and female humans is not a human.

Let us, for the sake of argument, set aside the question of the human rights of the unborn child, and look at the human duties of the grown parents, particularly the mother.

We will assume the child under age three is not functionally human in the theological and legal meaning of the term. For the purpose of these question, all children are livestock.

Question 1. Does the mother have a duty to love and protect her offspring, and guard its wellbeing?

By the word “duty” I am not asking a difficult question. Duties include both those things we ought to do because they are right and just, and those things we are compelled to do because a righteous and just law will otherwise punish us. Basically, a duty is that thing you ought to do whether or not you want to do it, whether or not you think it in your best interest.

Question 2. If the mother has such a duty, when does this duty vest? After the birth? Before the birth? At some other time or under some other circumstances?

The common opinion is that it is not morally permitted for a pregnant woman to smoke, do drugs, or engage in other behaviors likely to produce deformities in the offspring. This is not enforced at law in this country, but the morality of the matter is unambiguous.

Question 3. If the duty vests only after birth, it is permitted to blind, maim, or create other birth defects in the child by damaging the growing child before birth?

Logically, if the mother has no duty to guard the wellbeing of the child until after birth, anything she does before birth to ensure a lifelong defect such as blindness, deafness, mental retardation, or lameness, would be permitted.

By the same logic, failing to buy a crib or childproof her flat, or any act of negligence before the moment of birth which will result in clearly foreseeable harm to the child should also be permitted.

Question 4. If the duty vests only after birth, and it is permitted to kill the child before birth, is it permitted to sell the child’s eyes, organs or other body parts for money?

Question 5. The market demand makes the organ harvesting of a more developed unborn child much more lucrative for the mother than less developed. If the mother’s duty to love her and protect child only vests after birth, is she permitted to carry out the pregnancy of a child fated for abortion until the very last moment before birth to earn extra money?

Question 6. If the mother’s duty to love her and protect child only vests after birth, is it permitted that she use the meat left over from the abortion in her cooking? May she feed it to the father of the child without telling him the source?

Please do not raise the objection that this is cannibalism, since all these questions are taking place under the hypothetical assumption that the child is not human and has no human rights.

Question 7. If the mother’s duty to love her and protect child only vests after birth, is it permitted to keep the severed hand and feet of the child preserved or mummified as trophies or mementos?

Question 8. If, on the other hand, the maternal duty vests before birth, then inflicting harm on the developing child is not permitted. How can killing be permitted if inflicting harm is not permitted?