Your argument is that people do not have the right to take personal decisions regarding their child's health if it goes against scientific and medical evidence. Their rights as parents are voided by their child's right to good good health.
Insert the proposition 'Death is unhealthy, and abortion goes against scientific and medical evidence for a healthy and living baby' and suddenly you're arguing that parents don't have the right to hurt babies through ignorance, but do have the right to kill potential babies through ignorance (Assumption: Anyone willing to have their baby aborted without a damn good reason is ignorant to the value of the life growing inside them).
Now, I disagree with abortion but I do think it needs to be legal. Potential parents need the right to make their own decision about what to do. Even if that decision disgusts me. Even if that decision is ignorant, or maliciously casual. The responsibility is on society and the medical profession to help around the issue to ensure people are informed and responsible both before, during and after the event.
Unless I'm very mistaken, this is basically what OANST is arguing for innoculation.
__________________
:
|
“I always believe the movies I've made are smarter than the way they are perceived by sort of mass culture and by the critics,” Snyder said, a statement he immediately followed by saying, “Also, ‘It looks like a video game.’
|
|