If a baby in the womb could speak, would she object to being violently killed? Or, would she give her consent so that the woman could be spared the inconvenience of pregnancy?
If a child in the womb could speak. . . She can't, so we must give her a voice.
Nonsense religion, to write like this OP.
If mountains could speak, would they object to having their forests cut down? Ridiculous question.
Neither mountains nor fetuses have any objectively working consciousness that could even in any such manner be intelligent.
That is the logic of, "can't speak, so must be given a voice." There is
no necessity involved in the fact something cannot speak that implies someone else should speak for it.
A door can't speak, so we had better "give it a voice," whether it be closed or opened. Ridiculous.
An obvious falsity, whatever is represented as "the voice of the unborn," when such an entity is
always lacking the wherewith all to be speaking. And surely only
concocted in the mind of who ever does speak - with no possible way to
ever truthfully assume it is anything else.
BTW,
perhaps the greatest virtue the so-called "baby" then has is it cannot cry, i.e. has no voice!
A pile dumped in a toilet cannot speak either, but that in no way whatsoever means we should not flush it or even that it be given any kind of "voice."
Use of the terminology "the voiceless" is a way to try to suggest there is a real person, "if only"...
One of the manifold attempts to justify calling what is referred to "a baby," when it is no such thing.