I guess it means woman have a right to reproduce.
But it’s usually used in defense of a woman being able to have an abortion, which, as you probably know, stops the process of reproduction that they claim a right to.
So that doesn’t really make that much sense.
And, if you didn’t fail biology, you know that it takes two of opposing genders to reproduce. So it’s not just a woman’s issue, obviously a man has to be involved as well. People don’t spontaneously crawl out of the mud or get dropped down the chimney by a stork. So do men have some say in this, since it’s half their child as well?
Just some critical thinking…
So women have a right to reproduce. But not always. Is it a woman’s right to sleep with a man that’s not married to her? Mmmm… I don’t think so. So it would appear that she doesn’t always have that right. Who regulates or gives that right anyway? But anyway, I digress.
Proponents of abortion would say, no, not the right to reproduce, but the right to decide what to do with her body. Referring, I believe, to her reproductive system being part of her body, hence the catch phrase, “reproductive rights”.
But that’s a dumb argument.
Specifically because it’s not her body she’s aborting. Again, with the state of the public school system, I understand some people’s confusion. But the fact is, an unborn baby (or fetus, if you’re trying to emotionally separate yourself from it) is a separate human baby. It has it’s own distinct blood type, it’s own distinct set of DNA, and quite possibly a different gender. To say that an expectant mother has the right to do what she wants with her own body is all well and good, but the inherent problem with that argument is the fact that she’s not killing a part of herself, she’s killing a distinctly different person.
It’s her child, though, and she does have a right to be that child’s parent. That’s a sacred right that should never be taken away, save for extreme circumstances of neglect and abuse. But everyone would agree, a mother doesn’t have any right to kill her child. And I think the right to that child’s life, regardless of who it’s inside, doesn’t start once it pops out. That child’s right to life starts the instant that child’s life is began, at conception. A person isn’t suddenly important when he reaches a specific stage in his life, he’s important as soon as his DNA is created. That’s when a human being is made, and it makes sense to award the rights of any human to that human as soon as it becomes a human.