I’m not sure just how many times I’ve heard the mantra of “reproductive rights” and how they are curtailed or violated over the past few years. And it seems like a fairly straightforward concept that a person has, inherent in the right of self-determination, the right to decide whether or not to reproduce or not.
The thinking person would agree on that principle that such a right could be argued and maintained successfully. But that’s the bait. The switch is that there are those who will try to argue that once a person actually reproduces that, following the same logic, that they have a contiguous right to prevent the consequence of the act from coming to fruition.
Um, how does that follow?
It simply doesn’t.
Allow me to explain.
Human reproduction requires 2 participants. If we logically follow the assertion, the argument is that one has the right to engage in an act (sexual intercourse) which, barring any interdiction (i.e. contraceptive, sterility, etc) will result in the end goal of human reproduction: a new human being. And while one may have the right to engage, or not, in the act of human reproduction, it simply doesn’t follow that one has the right to intervene in that which has resulted from the act.
Triggerman, why are you using such vague terms?
I was trying to be considerate to sensitive ones in the audience.
Why not just say that you might have the right to, or not, reproduce, but that doesn’t mean that you have the right to kill your baby?
You just did.
Keep thinking clearly, friends.