According To Vox Writer, Abortion Will Be Deemed Unimaginable In 50 Years

I have to tell you, this one hit me like a truck. I am completely stunned that a writer for the infamously hardcore Left-wing Vox would write an article titled: “Abortion will be considered unthinkable 50 years from now” and it’s not satirical mockery or anything of the sort.
 
The author of the piece, Karen Swallow Prior, according to Vox, is a Professor of English at Liberty University and is a research fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
 
Now, the piece does start with something interesting that I would quickly like to make a note of:
 
“The list of those who have had few or no legal rights throughout history is staggering: women, children, orphans, widows, Jews, gays and lesbians, slaves, former slaves, descendants of slaves, those with leprosy, undocumented immigrants – to name a few.”
 
I would simply like to point out the fact that “undocumented immigrants” are ILLEGAL immigrants. Why would they have any legal rights, apart from the basic right to life, if they are here illegally? I agree with all other ones (only sort of with gays and lesbians, as I still hold that they should not be allowed to legally marry or legally adopt children, but otherwise can do whatever they wish) as they truly have suffered injustices in the past, but illegal immigrants?
 
In any case, that is really the one of the only few parts of this article that I would have to challenge to some extent, as the rest is about what society might (and according to her, will) think about abortion in the future.
 
She continues by saying: “Nothing marks the progress of any society more than the expansion of human rights to those who formerly lacked them. I believe that if such progress is to continue, prenatal human beings will be included in this group, and we will consider elective abortion primitive and cruel in the future.”
 
While I understand her point of extending human rights to the unborn, which I wholeheartedly agree with and find ludicrous that they lack such rights, I would have to argue that what marks the progress of any society is the ability of that society to improve its quality of life, whether it be through financial gains or advancements in the medical field, improving the quality of life of people is the best way to mark progress for any society. Which is why I so often lambast and attack socialism and communism, as they destroy people’s quality of life and only improve the government’s quality of life.
 
But taking that aside, yes, it is 100% necessary to push for the inclusion of unborn children as part of the human rights cause, since, as I mentioned a few days ago in my article destroying Alyssa Milano’s fake faith, human life begins at conception and it is an atrocity to end it, since it would be nothing more than murder.
 
This next paragraph is something that I would also like to point out and keep a close eye on something held within it:
 
“The eradication of abortion may be difficult to imagine. But consider how difficult it would have been for our grandparents to foresee a culture in which nearly one in four women has an abortion by age 45. Certainly, some factors leading to this situation reflect real and substantial progress for women: greater equality, more work options, improved understanding of sexuality, and increased moral agency. But rights for women that come at the expense of unborn children aren’t true liberation; they merely, as one writer put it, enable the ‘redistribution of oppression.’”
 
THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING AS OF LATE! And what I would also like to point out here is the fact that this increase in women’s “rights” to have an abortion do not benefit women in the least. I don’t know what the writer means when she says women have received “greater equality” as a result. It could mean pretty much anything, so I won’t go too much into it, but if I had to take a guess, I suppose she means equality in terms of the workplace and life in general, which I would argue has happened despite the “rights” of abortion.
 
The Women’s suffrage movement began in the late 1800s and it wasn’t until the 1920s that the 19th Amendment was ratified, the one that gave women the right to vote. So this was many, many decades before the 1973 Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion. Progress for women had been made throughout the country’s history regardless of abortion “rights”.
 
But in any case, the writer makes mention the fact that sacrificing unborn children’s rights for women’s “rights” is not liberation, which is something I’ve been saying a lot as of late.
 
It’s not “women’s liberation” to be enslaved to sexual and carnal desires. It’s not “liberation” to be enslaved to sin - and to MEN. It’s bondage. And this writer has it right.
 
The writer also talks about some important things about a first trimester fetus, such as the fact that at that age, he or she will suck his/her thumb, will kick his/her legs, will yawn and most importantly, will show a heartbeat and developed brain activity.
 
These are not yet fully-formed humans, but are humans nonetheless. Which is why I am annoyed, if not necessarily surprised, that Hollywood elitists and Leftists in general have lambasted Georgia’s new heartbeat bill and law.
 
You can DETECT A BEATING HEART and you still think it’s okay to eliminate it? You can tell that there is, in fact, a human heart beating strongly within the uterus and people still think it’s 100% okay to force it to stop?
 
Rhetorical questions, of course, since these beasts are beginning to argue in favor of allowing for AFTER BIRTH abortions, so clearly we are not dealing with people with feelings but rather bloodthirsty demons.
 
Even if you were to ignore the religious aspects of this, that we are all made in the image of God and that makes us special, you cannot argue that a fetus is not a living human being because morality and especially SCIENCE prove otherwise.
 
Of course, you can’t fully ignore the religious aspects of this, as we get our morality and set our morals according to God’s morals, at least that’s what we ought to do. But there is not one solitary argument that is ever good enough to make me or any reasonable human being believe that abortion is anything less than the murder of a helpless, innocent child.
 
And I certainly hope the writer of this Vox article is right (I’ll take “Things I Never Thought I’d Say” for 500, Alex) when she says that in 50 years, or at least in the not-so-distant future, we will see abortion as something as taboo as “polluting and smoking”.
 
Personally, I hope we will see abortion as something as taboo as, oh, I don’t know, BLOODY MURDER?! I think that comparison makes a bit more sense than “polluting and smoking”. Sure, I argue both are pretty bad, but since we are talking about the elimination of life, actual murder should be what we compare abortion to since that is precisely what it is.
 
I don’t know exactly how we would get there, but I imagine the Left going more and more insane about the whole debacle will turn off all reasonable people. Here’s hoping the Left doesn’t create enough incestuous like- and absent-minded lunatics that agree that abortion after birth is somehow an acceptable thing.
 
A society that is this self-destructive and insane cannot possibly sustain itself.
 
Genesis 2:7
“Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!