Complete News World

“Life begins at conception is religion, not science.” – The Observer

“Life begins at conception is religion, not science.” – The Observer

Is this topic still worth discussing? If there are people writing about this topic, it's because it must be worth it, otherwise it's a symptom of the fact that we all have nothing better to do than refute each other's arguments. And for what purpose after all? We are either applauded by those who think like us or verbally executed by those who disagree with us. I admit that all this, when analyzed in detail, is nothing more than an exercise in intellectual vanity, but we have to laugh at ourselves.

This world of opinion is a war of powers, and not even science can save us, because let's face it, neither I nor any columnist (nor anyone reading this article) will bother to go and read thousands upon thousands of medical articles. Scientific, philosophical, existential, and other articles…each of them contradicts each other and refutes the results of the previous article.

Nor is there anyone who says that voluntary abortion is not a woman’s right, nor is there anyone who says, like me, that voluntary abortion is a woman’s right. Neither of us will gather all of the information sufficient to give a sufficiently valid argument to the other side. Nowadays, saying that science shows something like this is unfortunately no longer a sufficient argument for almost anything. There are doctors and scientists who have actually shown that there is life for humans from the moment of conceptionbut also There are doctors who say the opposite. For example, professor of obstetrics and gynecology, Richard Paulson, of the Keck School of Medicine, in California, proposes what I consider a good argument (and which will serve anyone who wants to use it): Paulson argues that human life does not begin with the fertilization of an egg, because A) the egg within The woman's body was already alive, b) the sperm in the man's body was already alive, and therefore c) the zygote (the meeting point of the two organisms already) was also alive. But destroying a living thing is not synonymous with killing it (and perhaps we need to be more careful and sensitive when using the word kill these days, I mean for things that already exist).

The belief that a woman's egg alone is not a human life, but that the egg united with the sperm actually exists, is a binary thought, so to speak, all or nothing. It's somewhat magical, almost religious thinking. Fertilization is not instantaneous, not linear, and not always perfect. A woman does not kill a life every time she menstruates and her egg is not fertilized, just as a man does not kill a life (or thousands of lives) when he ejaculates. Just like the zygote will not be killed. The use of the word “murder” is very strong, and I am amazed at the sarcasm with which “feticide” is spoken of. No, I am not advocating “infanticide,” but science shows that the zygote and fetus are not children. To be alive, to be alive, is not the same as to have a human life. Just like the four-leaf clover that many of us have picked from the ground, which is still alive, it is not human life.

This was stated this week in an opinion article published in observer, Entitled “Voluntary abortion is not a woman's right”, a brilliant and distinguished university professor, philosopher, jurist, among others, Professor Norberto Bobbio, compares suicide to the fetus, with the difference that the fetus does not have the choice to be killed. Today, thanks to the beauty of freedom of expression, I will quote the excellent professor of obstetrics and gynecology, Richard Paulson. It was Paulson who wrote, and I quote, “It bears repeating that the fact that human life begins at conception is a religious concept, not a scientific one.” And be careful not to make a quote that denigrates the other.

Ah, the iron will of sacrifice, the Judeo-Christian guilt…we're already there.

Richard Paulson, who has a long career as an obstetrician and gynecologist, revealed the story of one of his patients, who underwent several fertility treatments for many years until she became pregnant. Paulson described the joy with which they saw the fetus's heartbeat, but unfortunately, soon after, it was discovered that the fetus had anencephaly, a fatal condition characterized by the absence of parts of the skull. If the pregnancy continues, the baby will be born with a very short life expectancy. But what if it is not possible to terminate the pregnancy? The questions Dr. Paulson asks later are really interesting. Paulson asks, and I quote: “Will this woman have to continue her pregnancy to term, even if the baby does not survive?” I've been demonstrating in public for months, facing gentle questions about the baby's gender like, “Have you picked out a name yet?” Will she instead choose to isolate herself from the world during her pregnancy? Would you choose to travel to a country with less medieval laws? The horrific scenario of her being forced to become pregnant against her will and without any kind of logic fills my medical mind with a profound sense of anger and injustice, especially given the clear observation that only women with wombs face this shocking social choice. “.

See also  The Biomedical Prize is given for cancer research

Now, this is an idea we may never know the outcome of, but I'm really impressed that the guy put it on the table. I believe that if men could get pregnant, no one would want to change voluntary abortion rights. I highly doubt that any man would want to give up his right to have a child he doesn't want, or a child who will be born disabled. But I will never know, because the truth is that men cannot have children in their bellies. But perhaps if this theory of mind, of putting ourselves in someone else's shoes, was practiced more frequently, we would have answers to many questions. And guys, what if you could get pregnant every month since you were 11/12/13 years old, what would that be like? (This is not a provocation, just a suggestion for internal reflection.)

For me, as a human being (no, not as a woman), it is also appalling that someone would consider it acceptable to allow a pregnancy that causes suffering to the mother, father, siblings, and future child. How many of us would (really) be able to sustain a pregnancy, give birth to a baby, or see a baby born with practically no skull, or almost no breathing? Really think about this, envision, imagine. How many of us, men, women, whoever, will care for that child until the age of 18 or until death? How many of us would have had a child from rape? How many of us will allow our daughters to have children from rape? How many of us would allow the women we married to have children from rape? How many of us would be morally impeccable to be able to raise children of rape in the same home in which we raised the children we bore with our spouse? How many of us would be able to have an unplanned child simply because it is “morally and religiously correct” and then live with the suffering and pain of giving it up for adoption? How many of us want a child that we cannot raise? How many of us will be able to do that? How many of us say we can do it, but never will?

See also  The vaccine injects confidence and joy into parents and children

If you were all capable, I would deeply and sincerely admire you (and even want to meet you), because I wouldn't be able to. But I feel that if we had the courage and honesty to be honest, we would be very few in number.

When we realize that we are not Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the arguments have real value. I and anyone can argue about what we want, but if we can't put it into practice, what does that say about us? It may be easy to say that we are capable, when we have never faced this choice before.