So, as we see a continual evolution of abortion and it’s right to kill the innocent there are as expected new ideologies springing up all over the place. And the latest decree is that no matter how many times you get pregnant from unprotected sex keep a quantity of medication on hand that allows you to vacate your responsibilities for life. Making it appear that abortion and any/all elements involved are to be seen as no more relevant to one’s choices than a social media account.
Among the guise of contraception, abortions are now the newest trend in removing one’s guilt. As abortion advocates continue to legalize (in their own mind) the senseless killing of innocence they promote an avenue of hope for anyone who might feel queazy about using abortion to defer any guilt or shame of a miss-conceived offspring.
This is a paragraph in humanity’s story that aligns directly with Margaret Sanger’s ideas of race and economic disposition being factors for those mentioned in her “The Morality of Birth Control” speech in 1921. Where she viewed them as irresponsible and reckless people whose own religious scruples prevent an exercise of control over their populace. And concluded, “That there should be no doubt in the minds of people of thought, that any procreation of this group should be brought to a halt.
The consensus of her speech led many to believe she was in reference to the African population of the world, and as a result, she immediately worked to affirm that birth control is a proponent even within the black communities. While Sanger separated birth control and abortions the advent of sexual promiscuity in the later age of humanity has overwhelmed any sense of rightfully deciding who should live and who should not. I doubt the woman mentioned in this article from Rewire considered unprotected sex as a route to conception, at least not at the moment of intercourse anyway.
Among the stories of the Old Testament, there’s one which speaks of two women who came before King Solomon for a decree of who is the mother of an infant they were in dispute over. 1 Kings 3:25-27 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. Though this appears as an unusual method in his determining the true mother, his statement drew out the one who had given birth to the infant. 26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.
What’s interesting is the woman who did not give birth to the boy had no desire for its life but only wanted to remove the other woman’s right to mother it. 27 Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof. This is where we are today we have men and women who have no desire for an infant’s life whether partially or fully gestated or one who’s just been birthed and alive, but only want a right to deny any life they see fit. In the confines of killing another human being, this eerily classifies as premeditated murder and cannot be rendered null and void, because a literary of indigents, who see a choice paramount to any truth.