I'm curious how "abortion" translates into "reproductive health".
I guess I always figured that health was the optimal efficacy of the body and mind to function in accordance with its purpose.
I forgot that reproductive organs' purposes are not reproduction, as one young scholar attempts to illustrate.
I'm actually curious...is it possible that in the upcoming months when FOCA may be passed to convince our legislation that a post-viable abortion could actually end in the life of a child and that all the rights given to any living person outside the womb be extended to that child?
And I'm curious that if FOCA does, indeed, legitimize tax funding of the abortion industry, if we can twist language enough to OUR advantage and claim that the purpose of that tax money is to also provide neo-natal care to Born-Alive babies?
After all, the wording in FOCA says to terminate the pregnacy. Not to terminate the child's life.
I think it sounds do-able.
It actually kinda reminds me of Shyloe's Catch-22 in The Merchant of Venice. He had a contract that said he was entitled to one pound of flesh. Nothing at all was said about blood.