"Should one chops off a toe to avoid the lugworm?"

SWAN = Stephen Wan's Opinion:
__________________________

(1) In Hong Kong, we have a proverb laughing at people's ludicrous reaction in avoiding trouble-

"Chop off (get rid of) the toe to escape from the lugworm (a trouble)"

(2) If there is such a woman who really chops off her toe to escape from the lugworm, we will ask:-
(a) Is this woman crazy?
(b) Then some of us may say,
"Oh, the toe belongs to the woman. She can do anything she likes to her toe as part of her body. Nobody should interfere with her decision to chop off (get rid of) her own toe."

[President Bill Clinton once said that a woman should be allowed to get rid of ('cut-away'/ remove) her foetus/baby inside her womb, as part of her own body.]

(c) Some may add a further comment,
    "Well, the woman can chop off her toe by herself. She need nobody's help. She is really free to do that. Whether she is crazy or not, we should not query. She has her own autonomy. She is an adult who knows how to take care of her own body. She has personhood"

[In abortion, however, the pregnant woman does need medical help. Some may even need surgical operation depending on the stage of maturity of the foetus.]

(d) In the case with the woman chopping off her toe, we (100%) will say,
"This woman must be crazy.
Why?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (the trouble). We should never help her to chop off her toe.
Why?
Because we know this is torture. This is grievous bodily harm. Whoever helps her chop off her toe commits a SILLY crime.
WHY SILLY?
Because we know there can be many ways to avoid the lugworm (trouble).
Why should she cut away her toe?
Why can't the woman be more sensible to her toe as part of her own body, be more creative to seek other solution, or to listen to other people's advice rather than getting her mind stuck in a dead end!"

(2) Thomson and pro-abortionists (president Bill Clinton for example) do talk in the same way:
"Because the baby/ foetus (a trouble) belongs to the pregnant woman, as part of her body, nobody but herself can decide how to deal with her own foetus/baby (trouble). If she wants abortion (cut-off/ remove the baby/ foetus), she must be absolutely free to do that. Medical help must be provided."

[BUT haven't we all agreed that it is crazy to chop-off the toe (as part of the body) to avoid the lugworm (trouble)?]

(3)We can find that the LOGIC of Thomson and pro-abortionists appear NOT sound:
(a) in the case with the woman chopping off the toe, the trouble is the lugworm;
(b) in the case with the pregnant woman, the trouble is the foetus;
(c) both women are free to remove their troubles;
(d) in the case with lugworm (trouble), the silly removal method is by chopping off the toe (as part of her body) by the woman herself;
(e) in the case with foetus/baby (trouble), the removal method is by cutting away (getting rid of) the foetus/baby (as part of her body) which is also the trouble itself. Is it silly too?
(f)So the BIG questions are:
- Why the healthy toe as part of the body should NOT be chopped off?
- Why the healthy foetus/baby( argued by Thomson and pro-abortionists) as part of the body should be allowed to be 'cut-away'/removed?
(g) Thomson and pro-abortionists may argue:
- The lugworm is a trouble the woman hates;
- The foetus is a trouble the pregnant woman hates;
- The woman is actually free to chop-off her toe when she hates the lugworm even when we find her silly.
- The pregnant woman should also be free to 'cut-away'/remove her foetus when she hates her foetus even when we find her silly.
(h)- Lugworm is EXTERNAL. The woman hates the lugworm (NOT part of her body). She does NOT hate her toe as part of her body. She only wants to avoid the lugworm. She chops-off her toe as part of her body. Of course we all laugh at her. She is silly!
   - Foetus is INTERNAL. The pregnant woman hates the foetus (BUT it is part of her body). SHE HATES PART OF HER OWN BODY. SHE wants to avoid the foetus. She ASKS DOCTORS TO DO THE JOB OF 'cutting-away' her foetus as part of her body.
(i) Why should we allow the pregnant woman to hate the foetus as part of her body?
We have already recognized that
toe (as part of the body) is NOT = lugworm
therefore we should NOT chop-off the toe to avoid the lugworm.
Is foetus = toe?
Pro-abortionists will have to say:
foetus = lugworm = trouble
(j) BUT lugworm is NOT part of the body
    Only toe = foetus = part of the body
  
    BUT a healthy toe is NEVER a trouble, so how can a healthy foetus be a trouble as part of the body?
    The ONLY possibilities are:
    (i) The pregnant woman sees the healthy foetus as an alien lugworm. Should we provide counselling services to help her and advise her to change her weird perception?
   (ii) The foetus is fatal to the pregnant mother. Only a sick (NOT healthy) foetus can threaten the health and life of the pregnant woman.

(4) (a) Therefore it appears unsafe to allow freedom to abortion to anyone with new law of encouragement. Sociologists should promote the requirement of more counselling services in societies to really help pregnant women in trouble rather than promoting the concept that a foetus is definitely a trouble as long as a pregnant woman sees it as an alien 'lugworm'.
     (b) The trouble is the mindset of the woman, never the healthy foetus, never the healthy toe, both as really part of the body ('part of the body' are words in description in Thomson's and pro-abortionists' arguments).
     (c) Pregnant women should be advised to love every part of her body, even a sick toe or a sick foetus, whenever possible.
     (d) Thomson and Bill Clinton should advise pregnant women to love every part of their bodies, the toes and foetuses alike. Indiscriminate cutting-away healthy toes or healthy foetuses are both silly and unnecessary.
     (e) There should be always other ways to solve problems and deal with troubles. Healthy toes and healthy foetuses cannot be troubles. Troubles always lie with the troubled mindsets of some pregnant women only, NOT all.
     (f) Such minority of troubled mindsets should be helped with counselling services, NOT to be presumed representative as norms for justifications at any time anywhere under all normal circumstances in all societies.