"Women are Hosts"

Tell me, Dave, how do you figure that someone not yet born, having competing rights with someone who is born and is alive?

More to the point, the moment you grant rights to the unborn, then the mother's rights go out the window. Those rights cannot compete when one resides inside the body of another. Once you start talking about "competing set of rights" of the unborn, then you are denying women full rights to their own bodies.

Which is why rights are usually granted to the child, when it is born. Not when it resides inside the body of another person.

If you are granting rights to the unborn, then you are simply treating the mother like a host.

Have you never paid attention to issues of abortion? Did you miss the debacle of Marlise Munoz, for example?

Want to know how pro-lifer's described the macabre and frankly awful thing they did to Mrs Munoz and when her family were finally allowed to turn off her life support when the hospital and the State tried to keep her decaying body on life support so she could deliver "the baby" (which had been without oxygen for at least an hour and had severe abnormalities and probably would not have made it to term, due to its mother dying)?

In accordance with a judge's order sought by her husband, officials at John Peter Smith Hospital removed Marlise Munoz from all life support equipment yesterday.

Her case became a national rallying cry for the pro-life movement, because the 33-year-old woman, who had been pronounced “brain dead,” was carrying a 22-week-old baby.

The Fort Worth hospital removed Munoz from her ventilator at 11:30 Sunday morning, initiating the process that would lead to the baby's demise.
​

Mrs Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant when she died and was kept on life support with the sole intention of keeping her body alive as a "host" to deliver the foetus. She was kept alive until it was 22 weeks old. The foetus was not viable. But that did not matter to pro-lifer's. All they cared about was that the "baby was executed by judicial tyranny" (that is the headline for the article quoted above)..

Or imagine if your wife is pregnant, and she suffers a miscarriage. A limb is sticking out of her cervix and it is clear that this is a miscarriage, as the foetus is not viable and there is no chance that this is just a miscarriage scare, but a full blown miscarriage. You rush her to hospital, expecting that she will be treated, as miscarriages can turn septic and endanger your wife's life.

Now, imagine if upon arriving there, you discover that they will not perform a D & C on your wife or induce labour, because there is a still a foetal heartbeat, and they will not do anything at all? Imagine if you find out that pro-life policies are the norm in the public hospitals in your area and you have to travel 90 miles by taxi or your car, to find a hospital that would treat your wife? Or imagine your wife is miscarrying, the hospital refused to do a D & C, your wife has gone septic and her organs are starting to shut down and the hospital still refuses to do anything for her because there is still a foetal heartbeat and being a pro-life hospital, doctors are prevented from treating her and because your wife's sepsis and her haemorrhaging is so dangerous, they were finally allowed to call another hospital to accept her to treat her? These things are actually happening in the US, because of pro-life policies of the Catholic Church, who buy the management of public hospitals in the US.

So tell me, what do you think their motives are, Dave?

Does not apply to the unborn.

In fact, the UN has affirmed that access to safe abortion is a human right.

 

But the child cannot survive without the mother's womb.

Understand now?

Because if you are going to argue that the foetus' right to live supercedes any other right, then you are basically making the mother's rights null and void. Her rights cannot exist or continue, so long as she is pregnant, if the foetus' right to live supercedes "any other right".

It is very much true.

You are arguing that the "unborn" has rights to live. Those rights cannot be exercised while it resides inside the mother's womb. If those rights to live exist for the unborn, then the mother's rights over her own body become non-existent.

You cannot have competing rights when one resides inside the body of another.

It is simply impossible.

If you confer rights to the "unborn", then you do so at the expense of the mother's rights to her body and her rights to her life. In cases where there is a medical condition that requires termination of the pregnancy to treat the mother, by giving the foetus a right to live that supercedes any other right, then you are pretty much arguing from the standpoint that the mother's right to seek treatment does not exist if it endangers or will result in the termination of the foetus. You argued that the right to live supercedes any other right, remember? If you confer those rights to the foetus, than its rights directly compete with the mother's rights to live. So who do you think should win? The "unborn"? Or the mother? See how those rights cannot and should not compete?

If you grant rights to live to the "unborn", then you are treating the mother like a host, because her rights over her own body no longer exist and in whatever circumstance that may arise, the rights to life of her unborn will come first over her rights over her own body. You can't have both. Either the mother's rights exist, or they are in direct competition with her foetus, in which case, if its rights to live supercede any other right, then she has absolutely no recourse, regardless of the circumstances involved. It's why Munoz was kept on life support and her decaying corpse forced to endure ridiculous measures to keep her heart beating, because the oxygen starved child she carried, had a right to live.. The child was never viable, but because it had a heartbeat, the hospital determined that its right to live superceded even human decency and her spouse and family were forced to watch her body visibly decay, as she was kept alive so that her blood could keep flowing to the placenta. It is also why women who suffer ectopic pregnancies are often denied treatment in Catholic managed hospitals, or women who miscarry are denied treatment, because the child's right to life supercede any other right, including the mother's right to access to medical care.

It is why the UN Human Rights Commission declared abortion a human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not confer human rights to the unborn. Because to do so, would be at the expense of its mother's human rights.

I'll give you a real life example. A young woman is critically ill, and she doesn't have long to go. She is 25 weeks pregnant. If she delivers the baby, she will die. She asked to hold off delivering, to allow her some more time. Doctors also advised that the baby would not survive delivery, and forcing her to endure a c-section, would kill her. The hospital took her to court, where a judge ordered she have a c-section, because the baby's right to life supercedes any other right, including the young woman's right to life. She died and so did her baby.

In principle, it should be a private and personal decision, one made with advice from one's doctor.

Pro-lifer's argue that from the point of conception, the right to life exists and that it is a person. Which is why in some states, miscarriage can now be a criminal offense ....

In practical terms, the Declaration of Human Rights apply to those who are born. It does not apply to the potential of a human life. Because that is what a pregnancy is. A potential to become a person/life.

 

Then she does not have every right to her body.

There is no "but" after saying she would have every right to her body. Once you insert that "but", then you have removed every right to her body.

You simply cannot have competing rights over a person's body.

So either she has every right to her body, or she does not because the foetus has equal rights. Which do you think should be the case? And do you think that the law should protect the foetus' rights over that of the mother's rights to her own body?

Because that is simply what it comes down to.