UNBORN NON-PERSONS
“And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them;
but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw
this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the
children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to
such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not
receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.” And
He took them in His arms and began
blessing them, laying His hands on them.” (Mark 10:13-16)
We were discussing this
passage during a Lent Bible Study. The Bible study leader pointed out that,
according to some commentators, children in Jesus’ time and culture were
considered non-persons. Then he asked us to name some non-persons in our time
and culture.
My immediate answer was,
“The unborn”.
What people are thought of
as not being people more than the unborn?
In the First Century A.D.,
when Jesus Christ walked the earth, the dominant culture in His part of the
world and well beyond was that of the Romans, who dominated other cultures and
peoples with their mighty empire.
Apparently the Romans considered
children to be the property of their fathers. The father got to decide whether
or not his children could even exist as part of his family. A newborn would be
laid on the ground and if the father did not pick him or her up, they were left
abandoned on the ground to die or taken in by someone else. If allowed to live,
children were still considered property, like servants or slaves.
Jewish children, as a rule,
seem to have received better treatment. However, the idea of children as
property was not absent, and Jewish families, especially poor ones, still
sometimes abandoned their children, though usually making sure there was
someone nearby who might take them in.
In any case, the way Jesus
treated the children even His disciples wanted to turn away as unworthy, or at
least nuisances, was radical. He declared and demonstrated that children were
not only worthy, but that they were people that we could learn from and whom we
should be more like.
Today, in most cultures,
including much of the institutional church in those cultures, unborn children
are considered the property of their mothers. Unborn child are seen as non
persons, body parts that have been added through conception to their mothers’
body. These spare parts may be removed from the mothers’ family at any time for
any reason, destroyed and disposed of before they can even be born.
It is not natural for mothers and family
members to turn their children over to death. This is something they have been
taught to do by an abortion industry fueled culture of death that is over a
generation old. Our culture has taught us to be silent about this and even to
shout down opposition. We have learned the lesson well, even in the
institutional church.
Now, as in the First Century AD, Jesus Christ
rebukes us when we treat children as non-persons and property. Likewise He
rebukes us when we treat children as less than human or even as lesser humans. Jesus
rebukes us when we directly abandon unborn children to death, when we give
approval to those who do so, and yes when we fail to speak out and stand up for
“the least of these”.
In the United States of America and in many
other countries, we think (or we try to tell ourselves) that we are a civilized
society because of form of government, our “education”, our technology.
But a society in which people will in any way participate in abandoning the most
helpless among us to death is not a civilized society. The fact that those people call themselves
Christians makes them not more civilized, but less civilized.
As Christians, Christ
calls us to be more than civilized, He calls us to be Christ-like, to be like
Him. He welcomed children and held them up as models of faith and what it means
to be a part of His Kingdom, The Kingdom of God. Jesus calls us to do the same.
(Copied from my blog, "Choking on Camels", at chokingoncamels.blogspot.com )
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
RACISM AND ABORTION PART 2
Please look into how you can participate in
spreading the truth and standing up against the genocide of the black race and
of other races in the name of “population control”. All of us are human beings with equal rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, created
by God in His image.
“God created human beings in His own image,
in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” (Genesis
1:27)
In Part 1, we examined the history of
eugenics and its racist core. Now let’s look specifically at the main tool of
eugenics, abortion. We will see how abortion is rooted in racism, and how the
goal of abortion is genocide, and in particular the genocide of the black race.
“Linda Gordon, author of Woman's
Body, Woman's Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control
in America—indicate[s] that Margaret Sanger "defended women's rights to
abortion." In her own book, “Women and the New Race”, Sanger declares that
“"the most merciful thing a large family can do to
one of its infant members is to kill it." [i]
In “Racism and Abortion Part 1” we looked at The Negro
Project. Dr. Dorothy Ferebee gave a speech in support of this project at its
inception. She “…peppered
her speech with the importance of “Negro professionals, fully integrated into
the staff, ... who could interpret the program and objectives to [other blacks]
in the normal course of day-to-day contacts; could break down fallacious
attitudes and beliefs and elements of distrust; could inspire the confidence of
the group; and would not be suspect of the intent to eliminate the race”. [ii]
“Sanger
even managed to lure the prominent but hesitant black minister J. T. Braun,
editor in chief of the National Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Publishing
Board in Nashville, Tennessee, into her deceptive web.”[iii]
“[I was]
moved by the number of prominent [black] Christians backing the proposition,”
Braun wrote in a letter to Sanger. “At
first glance I had a horrible shock to the proposition because it seemed to me
to be allied to abortion, but after thought and prayer, I have concluded that
especially among many women, it is necessary both to save the lives of mothers
and children.”[emphasis mine] [iv]
It’s
too bad Braun didn’t stay with his first glance, and that he didn’t put more
thought and prayer into his conclusion. How he concluded that abortion could
save the lives of mothers and children, much less that it was necessary to
doing so, defies logic and Christian morality. The Negro Project to exterminate
blacks, birth control and abortion are all very closely allied.
Sanger,
by hiding the true agenda of herself and other eugenicists, managed to trick a
number of black American leaders into supporting the project and the heavy use
of birth control in disproportionately Afro-American areas. “They certainly
wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s
overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise
prosperity and social acceptance.” But Sanger and her American Birth Control
League offered no other medical or social solutions or support. Birth control
was the answer to their problems in
her estimation.[v]
Of
course, as we saw in Part 1, once the nation became more open to more drastic
measures, when blacks moved further away from slavery and oppression by winning
their civil rights, abortion became the
answer.
It
is a tragic irony that elective abortion became legal in this country because
the Supreme Court ruled, in Roe v Wade, that Texas was in violation of Due
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment—the same amendment that gave
blacks legal personhood. Now, the Due Process Clause was being used to strip
the unborn of legal humanity and human rights, and targeting blacks in the
process.[vi]
Since
Roe v Wade, Afro-Americans have taken a disproportionate blow to their
population. From 1973 to 2008, 14 million black American babies had been
aborted—over one fourth of their estimated potential population. More black
babies were killed by abortion than by AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer
and heart disease combined. With blacks being only 12.3% of the population, 36%
of aborted babies have been black, making black women almost three times as
likely as white women to have abortions.[vii]
Detailed stats on black mortality in 2008 show 285,522 blacks died of all other
causes while 363,705 died of abortion.[viii]
This
lopsided number of Afro-Americans killed by abortion, this huge decline in the
black population, cannot be coincidental. No, it is a deliberate targeting of
blacks, and Hispanics/Latinos, as shown by this map, which shows how abortion
mills are placed in areas with disproportionately large populations of blacks
as well as Hispanics/Latinos.[ix]
A
common response to this disparity by the abortion industry and abortion
proponents is that it’s not targeting minorities for genocide, but that
facilities are simply placed where the greatest need lies.
Yet
they have long argued that they are trying to reduce the number of abortions by
preventing unwanted pregnancies through the use of birth control chemicals and
devices. That should mean the black pregnancy rate and thus black abortions is
down. But as of 2011, the pregnancy rate among black women was three times as
high as that of white women. Black women made up less than 13% of the female
population, yet had nearly 37% of the abortions.
“Virtually
overnight, they went from claiming that they did target racial minorities with
noble intent to claiming that they don’t target them at all.” They began
quoting a fabricated statistic, not coincidentally put out by their own Alan
Guttmacher Institute, saying that only one out of ten PP facilities were in
minority neighborhoods. The mainstream media was happy to start printing
articles quoting this statistic, which according to the map cited above is
clearly false.
The
details of how Guttmacher Institute created this phony statistic is in a pdf on
racial targeting and population control from Life Dynamics. Also in this document
are detailed charts showing what the map also shows: clear targeting of
minorities.[x]
There
is also a unusually large number of minority communities with multiple
“population control centers”. Of 116 zip codes with more than one of these
facilities, 84 were disproportionately black and/or Hispanic/Latino.[xi]
Apparently,
“the greatest need lies” in lowering the black population by any means, whether
birth control or abortion.
In a Live Action sting, an actor said he wanted to
donate money specifically for aborting Afro-American babies in order to lower
the black population. Not one Planned Parenthood employee refused the money or
expressed concern about his racist agenda; many even agreed with it. Many PP
facilities set up funds—out of our tax dollars--specifically for minority
member abortions. “With more than 79% of clinics in minority
neighborhoods, and more than 1400 black abortions daily, these programs are
doing precisely what our actor asked them to do.”[xii]
Black female PP President Faye Waddleton later confirmed in
a CNN TV interview that they received funds from people who wanted to have
black children aborted.[xiii]
“The
intent of Sanger’s Negro Project is firmly intact. Nearly 40% of all
African-American pregnancies end in induced abortion.9 This is by
design. Abortion kills more black lives (363,705)10 than
all other causes of death combined (285,522).11 The
African-American abortion rate is up to 6 times that of the white population
(as in NYC where black babies are aborted at 5.8 times the rate of white
babies).”[xiv]
“Abortion is
the number-one killer of blacks in America,” says Rev. Hunter of LEARN. “We’re
losing our people at the rate of 1,452 a day. That’s just pure genocide. There’s
no other word for it. [Sanger’s] influence and the whole mindset that Planned
Parenthood has brought into the black community ... says it’s okay to destroy
your people. We bought into the lie; we bought into the propaganda.”81 [xv]
Is Hunter
right, or is genocide too strong a word?
“Genocide
is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or
in part, a national, ethnic, RACIAL or religious group, as
such: KILLING MEMBERS OF THE GROUP ; causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life, CALCULATED to bring about its PHYSICAL
DESTRUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART ; IMPOSING MEASURES INTENDED
TO PREVENT BIRTHS WITHIN THE GROUP ; and forcibly transferring
children of the group to another group." African Americans are the only minority population on the decline.[xvi]
The abortion industry is undertaking the mass killing of a group of
people of a specific race, the black race. They are also, to a lesser degree,
imposing measures intended to prevent the births of black babies. It has
already been demonstrated that they are deliberately targeting the black race
in order to commit genocide, and that this has always been and is now the
agenda of Planned Parenthood, by far the nation’s leading abortion provider, in
particular.
So it seems that Dr. Johnny Hunter is not merely being an alarmist when
he says genocide. He is also accurate when he says blacks have bought into the
lies and propaganda. And he should know.
In January, 2013 Hunter “is quoted on Twitter criticizing the
association between the NAACP and Planned Parenthood because of that
organization's racist and eugenics history. Within minutes, after saying that
Planned Parenthood has the NAACP on a leash, LEARN’s Twitter account is
suspended and taken down. To put it succinctly, Hunter had been
"Yetted."
Samuel Frederick Yette “was an award-winning journalist, author,
lecturer and university professor. In 1964, he had been appointed Executive
Secretary of the Peace Corp after which he became Special Assistant for Civil
Rights to the Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. He later
became the first Black reporter hired by Newsweek magazine where he rose to the
position of Washington D.C. Bureau Correspondent.”
In 1968, Yette “wrote a book exposing high-level plans within the
United States to use birth control and abortion as instruments of Black
genocide.” Soon after this he was fired, under pressure from the Nixon White
House. His award winning book, which was selling well and being used as a
college text book, was taken off the market and Yette was dropped by his
publisher.
Not much has changed since 1968. In 2012, the Presidential campaign of
Afro-American candidate Herman Cain was gaining steam. Then he dared to remind
the public that Planned Parenthood had been found by wealthy white eugenicists,
and that PP was disproportionately placing their abortion and birth control
facilities in minority communities.
Within hours of calling for the defunding of PP, anonymous women began
popping up, saying that Cain had sexually harassed them. When Cain was forced
to drop out of the race, these women disappeared as quickly as they had
appeared.[xvii]
The accusations
of sexual harassment against Herman Cain are well known, but the connection
with his attacks on Planned Parenthood and their racist agenda is not. However
the timing was too close and too perfect to be coincidental. Herman Cain, like
Johnny Hunter, had been “Yetted”. The same has happened to a number of black
pro-life leaders, from Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) to Dr.
Benjamin Carson, who has recently been attacked by the mainstream media and
abortionists for his pro-life stand.
The Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, NAACP and Jesse Jackson among
others saw what was going on. They were the first pro-life groups. So what happened
to them? They turned away to promote
their own liberal agendas and for profit. Jackson referred to abortion as
genocide in 1969 and tried to pass an amendment to ban all abortions. He later
flip-flopped to get money to run for President. The NAACP has ignored Alveda
King and others at NAACP conventions, ironically blocking them with buses and
covering window and doors with black paper. Recent NAACP President Benjamin
Hooks said they would not discuss abortion because it would divide them.[xviii] Meanwhile the black race is
being subtracted from at a great rate.
“The
Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for
immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere.” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1929-1968)
Dr. King was among a select group of black leaders chosen to promote a
seemingly beneficial plan to promote healthy family planning. It was a plan of
wolf in sheep’s clothing and Trojan Horse proportions. Dr. King, a man of love,
peace, non-violence and strong Christian faith would be assassinated before the
genocidal agenda of Planned Parenthood would be made public after the passage
of Roe VS Wade. The abortion agenda is in direct conflict with the teachings of
Dr. King.
Yes, Dr. King was offered the Margaret Sanger award in 1966. But he did
not attend the ceremony, and the award was accepted by his wife Coretta Scott
King. She, unlike her husband, was pro-choice. Her speech never mentioned
abortion and talked about the connection between civil rights and the early
efforts of Sanger.[xix]
The connecting of the Civil Rights Movement with the “fight” for women’s rights
to “choose” became popular. It seems unlikely that Dr. King, who always fought
for justice for “the least of these”, saw the “right” to abortion as a civil
right.
Thankfully, more
and more Afro-Americans are discovering the truth about Planned Parenthood and
the abortion industry. They are dispelling the lies with the light of truth
through many pro-life efforts and groups, some of whom have been noted in the
endnotes of this document. Black And white pro-lifers are uniting in a common
cause—saving the lives of our preborn children and sparing mothers, fathers and
families from the horrors of abortion.
We are all
created by God in the image of God, male and female, and all of our children
have the right to live, as all of our human races have the right to survive and
thrive.
Do you have any
doubts about the genocidal agenda of Planned Parenthood and the abortion
industry, as well as many in our government and among white elitists in our
society? Rather than simply writing off this blog post, please take the time to
check the end notes and read the documents and other documents referred to in
them. Look up the groups noted in the end notes and read their writings; many
of these groups have Facebook pages. Please watch the movie Maafa 21 on YouTube
or in high definition at http://www.maafa21.com/
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
RACISM AND ABORTION PART 1
“God created human beings in His own image,
in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” (Genesis
1:27)
In my last installment I demonstrated how “Slavery
and Abortion” are closely linked by several core commonalities.
It is well-known that at the center of
slavery, of course, lies racism, the idea that skin color makes some people
less worthy of life and freedom than others.
What is not so well-known is that racism is
a key driving force behind abortion.
It’s not that there isn’t plenty of
information about the racism-abortion connection available. But just as a great
many people once ignored or at least were unaware of the obvious racism that
lies behind slavery, a great many people now ignore or are unaware of a
likewise obvious relationship between racism and abortion.
From the founding of our nation until the end of the Civil
War and the Emancipation Proclamation, every aspect of the economy in every
part of the country was invested in the slave business, whether illegal or
legal.
When the slaves were freed, the economic balance was upset.
The freed slaves had become a “liability”, released into the economy untrained
and uneducated.
Many whites, especially the elite, feared intermarriage,
migration to the North, and being overrun by the black race.
The first solution discussed was colonization, “sending the
Africans back to Africa”. This plan was rather quickly dismissed as rounding
them up, loading them on ships, and shipping them off might appear too much
like slavery all over again. The political climate of the times would not
tolerate this; in short, it would have been politically incorrect. But a more
palatable replacement was at hand.
Frances Galton was of a wealthy family that profited from the
slave trade. He was a cousin of Charles Darwin, who himself believed the
superior whites would soon wipe out the other inferior races. Galton only
“rejected” slavery after it ended, along with many others wealthy white
elitists who “founded” the “science” of eugenics. They believed blacks were “unfit”
and unable to have or live in a civilized society.
The first eugenic attempt was to try to pit all whites
against all blacks. But then (as now), there were too many people who either
weren’t racist enough or who wanted to keep their racism quiet in this new era
in which all people have been declared equal by decree and by Constitutional
amendment. Also, just being racist didn’t mean that whites wanted to kill
blacks. Such eugenics were too blatantly negative.
Next was a positive eugenics shot at black genocide. The
idea was to push whites to have so many children that blacks would be so
outnumbered that they would fade out of society. But that clearly wouldn’t work,
as the blacks were multiplying faster than the whites.
So the next genocidal move was to try to get blacks to have
fewer children and basically commit racial suicide. However, as with the
previous “positive” eugenics endeavor, Africans in America were not inclined to
cooperate.
Enter eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who taught that blacks
were increasingly taking “us” over and that “we”, meaning wealthy elitist
whites like her husband, were subject to their needs. She said these
“inferiors” should never have been born. [1]
Birth control could make that happen, could ensure that
fewer and fewer blacks were born. Sanger became the “front woman” for the
eugenics movement, which bankrolled her. However, birth control, while somewhat
effective, would still take too long. So she advocated putting birth control
chemicals in the water and food supplies of certain areas of the country that
were high in black and other minority populations.[2]
This was also apparently too politically unwise and perhaps impractical as
well. Nevertheless, there are advocates for spiking water and food supplies in
certain areas with birth control chemicals to this day.[3]
Sanger was also an early advocate for abortion and
infanticide. At times she spoke against abortion on demand, but on other occasions
she favored not only abortion but also infanticide. In the very volume in which
she had denounced abortion wrote, "The most merciful thing that the large
family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”[4]
She was a chameleon, changing colors and appearing to change her ideas with shifting
political climates or just in different circumstances with different audiences
in mind. This situational flexibility held true in her American Birth Control
League, later Planned Parenthood, and it does to this day.
The country was not ready for elective abortion or
infanticide, so Sanger initiated the Negro Project, in 1939. The key was
“Negative eugenics focused on preventing the birth of those it considered
inferior or unfit”, whether by birth control and sterilization, or by
immigration laws that kept “undesirables” out and segregation laws that kept
them separate from the rest of society to avoid interbreeding.[5]
There were laws against interracial marriage into the 1960’s, sponsored by
eugenicists.
Indeed, Sanger advocated for “corralling” “inferiors” in
segregated camps much like concentration camps.[6]
There she probably hoped to spike the water and food supplies with birth
control, more easily focus negative eugenics efforts such as forced
sterilization, and prevent interracial marriages.
She “persuaded a few reluctant, yet incredibly influential,
black ministers to join in her Birth Control movement. To dispel the rising
doubts among those who objected to Birth Control on religious and moral
grounds, Sanger wrote that “the ministers work is also important…offering to
train him in their ideals because “we do not want word to go out that we want
to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can
straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious
members”.[7]
For years forced sterilizations were legal, and most states
had laws for forced sterilizations. They started in California but were done in
all areas of the country. The last state to have legal forced sterilizations
was Oregon. “Oregon did its last sterilization in 1981 and did not abolish its
eugenics board until 1987. Sterilization was disproportionately to blacks and
the poor, often against their will. Welfare benefits depended on it, and that
included their children, even to 10 years old.”
I
n 1969 a Planned Parenthood president attacked a eugenics
board for a declining number of sterilizations, almost all of which were done
to blacks.”[8]
Many forced sterilizations took place in PP facilities. But while they
continued legally until 1981, they were by this time on the decline.
Another attempt at black genocide, legal forced
sterilization, was failing. As was a less subtle effort, the lynching of blacks
by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups, and their supporters. The KKK was
supported by Margaret Sanger and the racist eugenicists, and Sanger spoke at
their rallies.[9]
The victory of the Afro-American civil rights movement and
laws giving them equal rights, at least legally, spelled the gradual end of the
plan to exterminate blacks by legal forced sterilization, and of the “contributions”
of lynching as well. The eugenics boards asked the government to put birth
control in the water supplies of “urban” areas. This was discussed in the
United Nations in 1969[10],
but once again this idea failed, at least for now.
So what were the racist eugenicists, racist organizations
like Planned Parenthood, and the racists who supported them to do now?
“What is striking is that lynching came to a gradual end in
1968 at about the time abortion was decriminalized, starting in Colorado in
1967, California in 1968, and New York in 1970. Roe v. Wade followed in 1973.”[11]
Racists dealt with their “crisis”, the end of legalized
slavery, by instituting legalized birth control and sterilization, and by supporting
lynching. Now they, through Planned Parenthood and other abortion
organizations, had another lethal weapon, against their new “crisis”, the civil
rights victory—legalized abortion on demand.
Having given some background and history on racism and
eugenics, in Part 2 we will examine more directly the connection between racism
and abortion.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
SLAVERY AND ABORTION
Likewise the preborn are created in the image of God, from the moment of
conception. Human life begins at conception, and that’s basic biological fact,
not religious dogma.[vii] The unborn are just
as human and just as valuable, and they have just as much of a right to live as
anyone and everyone else.
“God created human beings in His own image,
in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.” (Genesis
1:27)
Barack Obama recently pledged support of
gay marriage, leading to a call for a national Marriage Equality Act. This has
emboldened gay rights advocates in associating the plight of homosexuals and
the struggle of blacks for freedom from slavery and for civil rights.[i]
During his gubernatorial campaign, Virginia
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli “took heat…for
comparing the anti-abortion movement to the fight against slavery.”[ii]
So which of these, if either, is a fair
comparison?
The purpose of this article is to see
if there is a connection between slavery and abortion. (For those who want to
look for a possible link between slavery and homosexuality substitute
homosexuality related terms for abortion related terms.)
A chart equating the treatment of Jews
in Hitler’s Nazi system, of blacks in slavery and of the unborn in a culture of
legalized abortion on demand reveals several things common to all three.
Jews, blacks and the preborn were defined
as less than or lesser human beings, they had their rights and freedoms as
human beings taken away using the language of “choice”, they were a class of
people who had things others wanted or were seen as keeping others from getting
or doing what they wanted, they were seen as a disease on society or diseased
themselves, and they were seen as a drain on society’s resources because they
were unable to and would always be unable to take care of themselves.[iii]
Another chart comparing slavery and abortion
shows these additional similarities: slaves and the unborn were both were considered
non-persons and were treated as property, and they could be bought, sold or
killed in the case of slaves, and kept or killed in the case of the preborn.
Both slave abolitionists and pro-lifers were not supposed to impose their
morality on others. Slavery was and abortion on demand is legal, and both by
7-2 Supreme Court decisions.
Further links between the two can be
found by clicking, at the bottom of the page (below another chart showing
parallels between reasons for abortion and euthanasia), a link entitled “Another
comparison: Slavery vs Abortion”.[iv]
An article that discusses the slavery
debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas as well as William
Wilberforce and slavery in England, points out further likenesses between slaves
and the unborn. These include arguments that they have no Constitutional
rights, that the Constitutional right to privacy protects the decision to own
or kill them, and that because blacks and the preborn have been or might be abused,
slavery or abortion is the best thing for them.[v]
In a blog article, Dr. Alveda King
compares and ties together the three movements for the rights of slaves, women
and the unborn. [vi]
The tragedy is that the slaves have
been freed and women have their rights, but in the name of women’s rights the
preborn have had their rights taken away from them just as women and slaves
once were not allowed their rights.
It seems to me that the
slavery-abortion comparison is not only fair, but that the parallels between
the two are clear and shocking. But does it matter?
Yes, I believe it matters a great deal.
It matters because of a continuing
connection between racism and abortion that will be the subject of my next blog
article, coming soon.
The abortion-slavery correlation
matters because anyone who is against slavery should be against elective abortion
for the same reasons they are against slavery.
The enslaved were and are human beings
created in the image of God, and thus of unique and sacred worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)