A Feminist Denies the Right to Live of the Unborn Because "He Can Not Write Poems"

@ElentirENG ES 4·20·2018 · 7:15 0

This Tuesday, the debate on the decriminalization of abortion in Argentina went into the most absolute absurdity with the intervention of journalist and feminist activist Julia Mengolini.

Scientific Arguments Against Abortion
A Pamphlet of an Abortion Lobby: 'Abortion Kills Life' And Is 'Dangerous' for the Mother

A human being who can not write poems does not deserve to live?

According to the Argentine newspaper Clarín, the feminist tried to contradict what science shows about the beginning of human life, and more concretely the beginning of the life of every human being, when it acquires its genetic identity and begins to form itself as a being different from his parents, in the moment of conception. Well, none of that. According to Mengolini, a unborn child is not a human being "because an embryo can not write poems, a fetus is not a baby". It seems that the feminist did not spend much time to verify the consequences of her statement, since with that argument you can deny the right to live of any child already born who does not know how to write, or even any other person who has a disability it prevents you from writing poems. What will be next? Deny the right to live to those who do not know how to compose symphonies? Defend abortion by claiming that unborn children do not paint pictures?

She denies that pregnant mothers consider their unborn babies as children

Mengolini also denied that "losing an even desired pregnancy is the same as losing a child. It does not hurt the same, because for that woman it was not a son yet. What realizes that the embryo is not a baby." To begin with, this argument is purely subjective, since the feminist appeals to what the mother feels or fails to feel for that child. The reality is that many mothers already talk about their prenatal baby as a son, because he is. The biological relation of filiation between a baby and its mother does not exist by the mere fact that the mother loves him or not, but because there is a biological link between the two, and that biological link is amply proven by medicine, both from the genetic point of view as well as the fact that the unborn child develops in the womb of his mother and not in that of another woman. If we accept Mengolini's thesis, a mother who commits infanticide could go unpunished alleging that she does not consider the murdered son to be her son. Human rights do not exist on the basis of subjective opinions, but derive from the human condition itself, and that condition is acquired at the moment in which a human being begins its existence, and not at the moment when a mother decides to accept it.

She refers to scientific evidence as if it were a matter of faith

The feminist also resorted to a fallacy very common among supporters of abortion: "In Argentina, faith can not be imposed on us." The reality is that here we are not talking about a religious dogma, as if human life started at a certain moment because that is what the Church affirms. The beginning of human life is a fact proven by science. We are talking about biology, not faith. In fact, in this parliamentary debate, the National Academy of Medicine of Argentina has affirmed that "the unborn child, scientifically and biologically is a human being whose existence begins at the moment of conception", so "destroying a human embryo means prevent the birth of a human being." This is not said by a priest. It is something that doctors say, whose profession requires a scientific training. Formation of which it is clear that Julia Mengolini lacks, unless she does and is saying the opposite of what she thinks with the intention of deceiving the Argentines, to snatch their right to live the most innocent and defenseless.

---

(Photo: Daniel Vides)