Abortion and euthanasia: two burdens, better than one

The title is very surprising, but she insists that yes, “defending abortion rights is radically safe”. In addition to electricity nasciturusclearly.

In an article written to promote the book, it is important to note that abortion is approached with more caution than, say, removing a needle because “abortion is derecho”.

The journalist goes on to explain that “lack of access to legal and safe abortion is one of the main causes of maternal death in the world”.

This is not entirely certain. Approximately 39% of the shameful deaths of women are caused by previous pathologies (significantly hypertension) and 27% by bleeding during childbirth.

However, if we calculate that 8% of deaths may be due to complications from unsafe abortions, it is a number to keep in mind.

Therefore, it is reasonable for abortion to be performed in certain circumstances as a lesser evil. But ask me to mix it all up right away and confirm it “The alternative (to abortion) is to understand that women don’t have to make decisions about their lives”.

This is a common misconception in these cases. The understanding that a human being is not born is a part of a woman’s body, and that because of this it can be destroyed with the same calmness as a gift.

The persistence of this error is surprising because it occurs at a high elemental level: this upper part of the mother’s body has a different genetic structure.

For this reason, and because the project that follows will soon take place in an autonomous person, the question is not exclusively within the mother’s discretion until nasciturus He is a person who needs protection.

There is certainly an asymmetry in this assumption that is worth noting. Why is the father’s decision to abort exclusive, bringing all the genes into the project?

This exclusion is less felt because it must be remembered that in case the mother decides to continue the embarrassment, the father, who has not consulted her at all they will continue to have all the obligations of the person entrusted to them by the branch.

It’s natural that abortion raises a moral dilemma, but the aim of the book is to ease the “burden of guilt and shame” of people who have had an abortion to “fight the stigma”.

For this reason, instead of calmly reflecting on the reasons that make the existence of abortion acceptable in certain ways mentioned above, he devotes himself to unmasking the hidden reasons of those who object to it.

According to Ana Requen, the opponent is indeed concerned that “the possibility of voluntary abortion undermines the patriarchal project which, in permanent alliance with capitalism and racism, generates (because it is necessary) the existence of the first and the second and also the third citizen”.

Oh yeah? Yes.

“What doesn’t matter is not life, it’s control over women, it’s power to enforce a project that exactly destroys life.”

How evil they are, even if they are supposed to protect a defenseless person (or someone’s project).

But who are they?

“Religious Groups, Derechs and Ultras”. “Groups and individuals who actively seek care are those who worship the monetary fund (¿?)” and “individuals who refuse to intervene in the food market”.

Because one begins refuñando ante los topes de los alquileres y acaba objendo el potratu.

One of the most disturbing things about the case NoeliaThere is an obvious bias in the sequence that leads to a certain moral position. Ideally, you should hope that he follows you as a result of some ethical consideration and analysis of the circumstances.

But it doesn’t look like that. We have seen some average “progressives” rejoice in the girl’s death simply because it bothers Catholics.

Euthanasia is good because it is “progressive”, but it is valid in the descacharrada cycle that has taken place here.

Euthanasia law It has its origin in the proposal of Podemosalways looking for divisive causes. They say it’s better not to know how sausages and chickens are made, but Podemos’s have turned out to be particularly unhealthy.

In the midst of the pandemic, the PSOE was thus forced to avoid mandatory information for legal projects, including the Comité Nacional de Bioética. He approved (the votes of the Citizens, who at that time also wanted to be progressive) and now we have this legal scumbag. Let me say that this is a cadence created for pure partisan interest, but determines the moral position.

And if euthanasia is progressive, the more and with fewer complications, the better.

The Minister of Health will therefore submit to the autonomous communities a “manual of best practices” for “agile” euthanasia.

At the same time, the minister announced the creation of a new observatory (¡otro!) for suicide prevention. faster euthanasia, but at this point he tries to prevent suicide.

It’s an exciting career deal.