- Women's Health»
"Right to Life"...What it "Really" means
“Right to Life”… What it “Really” means…
The slogan “Right to Life” does not mean what it implies. It seems more in tune with your everyday product advertisement. It says one thing but in reality means another. In “true” words it does not mean that you and I have a right to live, it means, in fact, that if a female homo-sapiens’ ovary produces an egg that is meant for reproduction, and most are, and becomes fertilized by a male donor it somehow becomes piously sanctimonious, regardless of whether it is good or bad.” Good” meaning that the now fertile egg is healthy and legitimate (legitimate according to society that is) and “Bad” meaning that the egg is imperfect and or flawed in some way as to create a monstrosity at birth, or is illegitimate (illegitimate according to society that is).
“Right to Life” supporters do not seem to care whether a human egg develops into a normal healthy baby or some sort of monstrosity. If it is there, by God, it is meant to be regardless of its future permanent inability to serve itself.
It is a concept contrary to natural law of “survival of the fittist”, the same natural law which allows life to survive and exist on earth. “Right to Life” supporter seem to want all life to survive and exist on earth, whether it is fit or unfit in accordance with nature.
It might seem to some that any sane female knowingly making and acting on a decision to nourish an egg or embryo in the womb that knowingly will be a monstrosity of a human being at birth, is inherently the most uncivilized and irresponsible person ever. In addition, at the very least, the act should be viewed as felonious criminal negligence on behalf of the host as committing the absolute pinnacle of child abuse. Think of what the recipient, with no vote in the matter is compelled to inherit, a disabled state of monstrosity for life and being forced into a world that has no climate for it. Any sane person would have simply exchanged such a disastrous ferment in the beginning for a normal egg before permitting and causing the debacle to evolve into a pitiable deranged human being. A civilized society has a duty to help make that decision before handing down a lifelong sentence of suffering to an ill-fated child, rather than satisfying his or her own personal selfish belief.
Some may wonder why “Right to Life” supporters consider a “male’s fertilization of the egg” to be the “deciding factor” in whether or not it is ok to kill “God’s conception of a child” through intentional default, rather than killing the fertilized egg through intentional aborting. If the reader wonders what the author is referring to, let it be clarified.
God creates egg-producing organs (ovaries) in females for one reason, that being reproduction of the species. When it calls upon a selected female’s organ to act and produce an egg, it is for that reason alone. Let us view a female’s possible reaction to producing an egg, the fundamental building block of God’s intent for new life. The selected female realizes the existence of the egg and excitingly adorns it with a name, let us say that she names it “Cletus” and entices her mate to fertilize “Cletus” to insure its survival. The mate refuses, for whatever reason, and Cletus’ life and future dies by default and is aborted because of the mate’s inaction.
“Right to life” believers and supporters freely allow, without condemnation of any flavor, millions of human babies to die every day by default, and by the same breath condemn those for aborting unwanted or deformed eggs or fetuses. The basic structure of the “Right to Life” concept is contrary to God’s plan. The end.