via What It’s Like to Have Two Abortions in Three Months – Rewire. News
As we see a continual evolution of abortion and its 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 picking out a new blouse.
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 minds) the senseless killing of innocence, they promote an avenue of hope for anyone who might feel queasy about using abortion to defer any guilt or shame of a misconceived 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.
In that speech, she made plain that she viewed them as irresponsible and reckless people whose own religious scruples prevent them from exercising 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 referring 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 later ages of humanity has overwhelmed any sense of rightfully deciding who should live and who should die. 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. Thus, she rails among stories of the Old Testament, 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 may seem an unusual method for 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 partial or fully gestated or one who’s just been born and alive, but only want the right to deny any life they see fit. In the confines of killing another human being, this is eerily classified as premeditated murder and cannot be rendered null and void, just because there is a litany of indigents who see a choice paramount to any truth.
Ballenblog.com 