That is not a valid response to the request. The request was "Explain to us why those new humans deserve to stay alive", and you have basically stated, "just because they are humans". This is like saying that "bugs deserve to stay alive just because they are bugs". You have not responded in a way that is valid in a Debate. Try again!
That's a reasonable response to the second question, but you have entirely ignored the first question (bolded).
FALSE. A woman's physiology is distinctly touched and altered by pregnancy. And the word "molested" might apply too,
especially the first definition here, depending on what the woman thinks about it.
And so we should equally deny treatment for other "supposed" conditions, which by the way happen all the time, such as malaria, ringworm, trichinosis, etc?
Are you saying that Natural Mindless Biology deserves more control over her life than her mind?
Finally, why are you using a biased definition of "condition"? And how do you expect to get away with the bias not being exposed for the idiocy that it is?
============================
I have now finished responding to Msg #604. Part of this response was in
Msg #605 and
Msg #679 It appears that despite the many messages between those first two and this last one, you have responded to almost none of it. (I see some blather in #606 where you tout the Law over Science. Do remember that I have always asked that we consider a
generic definition of "person", a Scientific way to identify one anywhere, of any type --and despite mere claims and Law, so far nobody, including Felicity, has presented a definition that succeeds at always separating mindless animals from mind-possessing persons, while simultaneously including mindless humans as persons, too. And that is the basis I use, when I say such things as "brain-dead humans on life-support cannot be persons".)