:
|
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.
|
That is a false comparison, because the foetus has a substantial impact on the health and liberty of the mother and her rights to her own body. Until such a time as the foetus can survive physically distinct from the mother, either naturally or by medical incubation, it is an unarguable biological fact that foetal gestation and sustenance is inextricable from the body of the mother. The very health of a foetus requires the direct coercion of the mother’s body, and while this coercion is in process, the mother reserves the right to terminate her pregnancy.
Whilst a born child is an entirely separate entity whose inoculation has no impact whatsoever on the parent's health or right to her body, except in the case that the parent is not vaccinated and catches pertussis from their own unprotected and recently infected child. Shortly before it coughs its lungs out and expires in their own desperately clutching arms.
:
|
Assumption: Anyone willing to have their baby aborted without a damn good reason is ignorant to the value of the life growing inside them.
|
The value of the foetus must remain subjective. It is a life within a life, and whether it is a welcome guest is entirely the mother's discretion.