A study should be done on how foolish and inconsistent the phrase “reproductive rights” is. Apparently the originator and deprived endorsers believe the birth mother is the only one responsible for a pregnancy to occur and thinks she should be the one who decides whether or not her unborn child should be born.
If you can’t tell, I totally detest the phrase. The loathing I possess goes beyond the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard. It may equate ice picks in eye sockets.
Who actually qualifies for “reproductive rights”? What about women who are barren? What are their so-called “reproductive rights”?
And what happens when a woman who tries to demonstrate this monstrosity and aborts her child, only to discover that the baby survives the procedure?
Am I being ridiculous? Am I over-dramatic? Not at all.
As reported in this article, Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, decided to abort her unborn son eight weeks in her pregnancy. She decided to do so because he was projected to have a life-threatening kidney condition.
The abortion failed. Percival was angry at first, but her frustration turned to joy.
“I just couldn’t believe this child had got through it all and looked so perfect,” she said.
Her son Finley was born three weeks premature. He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.
“He may need an operation but as only one of his kidneys is affected he can survive,” said Percival. “I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he’s here I wouldn’t change it for the world.”
So I ask again, how does this wonderful occurrence fit in the absurd philosophy that promotes “reproductive rights”?
No comments
Comments feed for this article