The Responsibility of Reproductive Freedom
By: Saige Smith
Tags: Planned Parenthood, Living Tissue, Abortion, Dogs Neutered Or Spayed, Reproductive Freedom

Doesn’t reproductive freedom include the arena of dogs retaining their reproductive systems? Some states require dogs to be neutered or spayed, a health risk for them in the future. Of all the dogs we have had, we made sure their reproductive systems always remained intact. We just coped and managed the male dog’s intensive drive when he smells a female in season (one who is either too small or too young to mate). So it is that when a dog is neutered or spayed, the chance of new life is reduced by 100%. After all, you know, what they do to animals, they eventually gear towards humans. If we don’t take care of the precursor, the pets in our lives, who will take the stand for us? If we let the institution define how we tend to our pets, then we also permit it to define how we approach life’s basic regenerating system through reproduction.

A case in point would be the Chinese laws on having children, definitely restricting. I don’t live in China, but I sure don’t appreciate a government telling me when and how many children I can have, even though they now permit two children per family. What if the next leaders were really the third and fourth children? Isn’t China losing out on that opportunity? They’ve already lost out big time by preventing new generations to continue on their culture, their ideals. There’s a big gap, a glaring error — or simple mistake — constantly before their eyes. It may have reduced some population problems, but it also created new hindrances, all because a government decided it could overrule the freedom of reproduction.

Another case in point would be the strong influences of Planned Parenthood (via abortion), which hampers not only future population growth for Westerners, but also the mental and emotional stress of loss that the female body endures (let us also remember there are male minds that are affected by these decisions as well). Fetus, tissue mass, call it what you want, it still is life. Two live cells dividing are still living, so anything that comes from that is also alive. To assume that a fetus, a mass of tissue is otherwise, masks a deeper and sinister agenda against life. That mass of tissue is living, a result of reproduction. Take also, into account that the freedom to abort living tissue doesn’t compensate for the freedom of reproduction. There is no equal status for terminating life. Remember, two living cells dividing produces living tissue which in turn forms into new human life.

Let us also consider that with the freedom of reproduction comes the responsibility of reproduction. To exercise freedom without responsibility is a form of abuse, enjoying a privilege without being accountable. Freedom is not the capacity to do as we wish without regard to others, but rather the responsibility to exercise the power we have.

What would life be like if our government told us that we needed to restrict reproductive freedom? What would we do to compensate or side-step that mandate? Would we submit to that? Would we relentlessly refuse to conform? Or would we deaden our reasoning and actually accept termination of life, the tangible result of reproduction? Isn’t that what reproduction is all about? To produce after our own kind (as the human race)? Terminating the living result diminishes the value of reproductive freedom.