That is correct. And it means that you cannot tell anyone else what they can do regarding their own bodies, or medical procedures they may or may not choose to have. And it is really that simple: it is wrong of you to try to stop a woman's medical consent regarding her own body.
And the foetus can give consent for itself? And when the foetus is about to become the cause of the womans' death, you would still ask the foetus what it thinks then? That would be ridiculous, of course, and yet some countries just say what you are saying, and so women die. There is no good reason for you to advocate for a foetus that has no viability outside the uterus. You seem to think your opinion matters when it is a private decision for someone else.
| What About the Life of the Mother? The personhood campaign cares as much for the mom as for the baby, so why no “life” exception? The doctor’s goal should be to save mom and the baby, if possible, but never to kill the mother to save the baby, nor to kill the child to save the mother. With a tubal pregnancy for example we cannot save the child and we must remove the embryo to save the mother. Sadly then the baby dies. Society’s attempt to justify killing the unborn leads to absurdities like the exception in the partial birth abortion ban. In reality, when a delivery is needed to save mom, the doctor shouldn’t stop caring for the mother just long enough to kill the baby. The PBA ban itself has no authority to save a single child because the abortionist simply uses a variation of PBA or some other late-term technique to kill the baby. However, the very idea of delaying the saving of a mom in order to stop midway to kill the baby is such an obvious cruelty and deception that it exposes the hard-heartedness of those who argue for such exceptions. An “exception” is a euphemism for deliberately killing a baby. That’s why personhood is changing what it means to be pro-life. |
I think there is some irony that a person with an affiliation to Judaism would spend such an effort to save the life of a male foetus, then have its genitals mutilated when it is born. You don't think so much about the rights of a child then, do you.
It is me accusing you of denying reality. Does Numbers 5:11-31 represent the reality of your god?
Which foetus are we discussing? One that is live, healthy and at the centre of a planned pregnancy where the woman is looking forward to motherhood and feels confidence she can give the newborn the best opportunities for a rich new life? Or is it one that continues to live inside a woman who is suffering from an ectopic pregnancy? One that has died and will eventually kill the pregnant woman if left in place? One that is alive but suffering from severe deformities that will cause it a shortened life with numerous debilitating medical conditions? Or is it a live foetus that arose accidentally but which will rob the pregnant woman of an opportunity to fulfil her life ambition to get ahead with a dream she had for a better life?
I disagree. Abortion could be a very loving thing to do. Just like assisted dying for people in severe pain with a terminal illness could be a loving thing to do. A problem with so much moronic 'pro-life' rhetoric is that it is often promoted by religious zealots who appear good at counting the quantity of life but know little about the value of life.
Well, in Ireland and Gibraltar, as just two examples, there have been abortion laws that are so restrictive it has led to death of many pregnant women. I think you should be clear: although you are full of emotive language, you do actually support abortion, right? So if one abortion is OK, then why aren't all abortions OK?
And being a sperm cell, or an egg cell, or a zygote is not being a human in any meaningful sense, unless you are an extremist. And being an embryo is the same. And your attitude is dehumanising to pregnant women in need of an abortion, whether the reason for that need is something for which you approve or don't approve. And as I said earlier, why should a woman have to ask your opinion first?
Egg cells are living, and so are sperm cells, but that's still a really good question, and I'm not an expert, but I have heard an expert describe it as the slow turning up of a dimmer switch, with no clear point of distinction. Obviously birth is the time at which the breathing of air starts, but even then there is still much development to be done before the senses work properly.
What, because you say so? There is no good biology to support your emotive language. And your theology looks a bit suspect as well. I take it you don't believe in original sin, in which case what was the execution of Jesus supposed to be about?
It's not capable of expressing that. Now, what about the mother's claim to her own body?
It would indeed, as drowning a newborn baby would also be murder. What is your point?
Now you are being ridiculous, although I considered your position ridiculous earlier on...
And what were the reasons for those abortions? Were they reasons that are 'not in debate', like saving the life of a woman?
Legally, in your country, they are. That is exactly what I was writing about, your religious sexism. Did you mean to say that men and women are not the same?
So a woman who didn't want to have a child, and didn't want to have sex, but is raped, still has to have the child. And you don't count that as a punishment? It's actually enslavement.
You know all about the quantity of life, but nothing about its quality.
Huh? What freedom would you lose in order to achieve equality?
Have you read that tract from Numbers yet? Or have you thought about the deaths of the Amalakite foetuses being carried by the women ordered to death, supposedly by your god?
I agree that is backwards, whether or not the intention to control population growth was honest or cynical. But what is the difference between your religiously-motivated need to try and take decisions away from women you don't know, and the Chinese government's ideologically-motivated need to take away decisions from women it doesn't know?
And I hope I have shown you that this is such a sloppy claim that it does you no favours to repeat it. It's the cry of those who can't understand much about the complexities of being a human, but then I suspect your religion does not set you up very well for understanding humanity: that's not very important to you I imagine.
And read the first three commandments, then the rest. Not taking a life comes a long way down that fictional list, so no wonder the abortions are allowed to be caused by the god, but not by the robots, er I mean humans.
So you do know what I am talking about. Are you a member of a community that would abuse a newborn boy by mutilating its genitals without its consent, for non-medical reasons?
If you think about it, which I would recommend strongly, the only relevant example in your list is that of prostitution. And in my country and some others, prostitution has been decriminalised to improve health outcomes for those who choose to work in that industry.
Ok, I'll do the thinking for you then, since you seem a bit resistant: this is a question of medical consent, which is the specific case of you deciding what happens to your body, not what you do with your body that might affect other people.
I see. Well, given how often newborn babies get herpes infections from the lips of a rabbi, or how often complications lead to long-term permanent damage and sometimes death, I'll put you down as a supporter of child abuse, since there is no good reason to be slicing off bits of children's genitals that will have sexual function. You should be ashamed of your nasty religious practices. The rabbis should be in jail.
I see you have given up on reasoned argument now. QED nothing.