Looking through the news, one can’t help but be overwhelmed at the sheer number of problems that people must face on a regular basis. We read stories about shootings, terrorist acts, foreign governments intruding in elections (mainly Ukraine), a whole political party seeking the impeachment of a president on the grounds of “we don’t like him”, people claiming to be a different gender from what they are, people attempting to justify and rationalize the murder of the unborn, people demanding increased immigration, legal or illegal, as a means of “enriching” our country, etc.
 
There are a whole lot of problems in Western civilization (and the world as a whole, but we’ll focus on the West today) and one can’t help but think: how did it all come to this?
 
The answer to this question seems to lie in the past, about 80 years ago, with the findings of Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin in his book called “Sex and Culture”.
 
Unfortunately, I do not currently have access to this book, but thankfully, Father John Peck does and has written a very good article about it on his own website: frjohnpeck.com. The article is titled: “Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought.”
 
In this article, Fr. Peck notes that Unwin examined data from “86 societies and civilizations to see if there is a relationship between sexual freedom and the flourishing of cultures.” In his book, Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture” and levels of flourishing of those cultures based on architecture, art, engineering, literature, agriculture and other sciences. Fr. Peck says that the “primary criterion for classification was how they related to the natural world and the forces it contains.”
 
These four great patterns are as follows:

• Zoistic, which is completely focused on day-to-day affairs, needs and desires with no inherent interest in the understanding of nature. Unwin describes this as a “dead culture” and is the lowest form of civilization, if one can call it that.

 

• Monistic, where a culture adopts superstitious beliefs and/or “special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world,” as Fr. Peck describes it.

•  Deistic, where cultures attribute powers of nature to a god or gods.  

• And finally, Rationalistic, where cultures use rational thinking to understand nature and make decisions based on this logic and findings.

 
 
Unwin also noted varying degrees of sexual restraint that tend to appear in any given culture. These degrees are divided into two categories of their own: prenuptial (before marriage) and postnuptial (during marriage).
 
First, there is the prenuptial category of Complete Sexual Freedom. As the name suggests, this is where there are zero restrictions on sexuality before marriage.
 
Second, there is Irregular or Occasional Restraint, where “cultural regulations require an occasional period of abstinence.”
 
The final prenuptial category is Strict Chastity, where the culture demands that people remain virgins until marriage.
 
Then, there are four postnuptial categories:

• Modified Monogamy, where people are married to one spouse at any given time, but this relationship can be terminated by either person for any given reason.

 

• Modified Polygamy, where men can have more than one wife (sometimes, it’s the inverse, where a woman has more than one boyfriend or husband, but that is very rare and a product of our time, not something that would really be found during Unwin’s era), but the wife has the right to leave her husband at any point for any reason.

 

• Absolute Monogamy, where people are married to one spouse at a time and the relationship lasts for life (a more Catholic view, and not something I totally agree with, but ideally, the relationship should and would last a lifetime, provided both parties understand the trinity that exists in their relationship, with God being at the head of the husband and wife).  

• Absolute Polygamy, where men can have more than one wife, but wives cannot leave their husbands and must “confine their sexual qualities (activity) to their husband for the whole of their lives.”

 
So, understanding all of these concepts and the way they work in the real world, what are the effects that Unwin ultimately found with these 86 societies and cultures? The short answer: nothing good for the cultures in the long-term if they allow for sexual freedom.
 
According to Fr. Peck, Unwin found that “increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.”
 
This is very significant because we can easily picture our own culture here. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Western civilization went through what is known as a “sexual revolution”, where old norms of chastity and virginity were replaced in favor of allowing people to do what they want with whom they want any time they want, provided no laws or human rights were violated. While it used to be that virginity was something to be kept until marriage, the very concept of it is mocked and ridiculed in our time. If someone doesn’t have sex by their late teens or early 20s, that person is considered an outcast if it is known that they are a virgin.
 
Unwin also found the most influential factor in a society’s flourishing to be whether or not prenuptial chastity was a requirement. If it was, that culture would typically flourish, while if it was not, that culture would descend into collapse and eventual replacement by another culture that has more social energy and for this to happen, the replacing culture has to have more sexual restraint.
 
This would explain, at least in part, why Islam is growing at the pace that it is. Of course, factors such as threatening people with “submit or lose your head” are taken into consideration here, but one of the very few pros of Islam is their sexual restrictions (apart from polygamy and killing of homosexuals, that is).
 
In today’s Western culture, if a girl gets pregnant at an early age, that is not usually seen as that big of a deal, even if it is a hindrance on the family, for a number of reasons. For one, abortion is seen as a viable, often preferable, option. Two, pregnancy is what often follows sexual freedom, so it is not seen as completely unexpected, even if not an ideal outcome.
 
But in cultures where there are high levels of sexual restraint, if a girl gets pregnant at an early age, the girl is subject to scorn and the family becomes extremely upset. This type of behavior, though seemingly harsh, tends to be a tool of discouragement for others to do the same.
 
Another of Unwin’s findings is that, when strict prenuptial chastity ceased to be the norm, categories of absolute monogamy, deism and rational thinking would disappear within three generations.
 
This is also rather easy to see in our own culture. With the sexual revolution happening a generation or so ago, we find less people in Western civilization who accept that marriage should be for life (50% divorce rate is the result of this), less people believe in God and less people accept objective truth and opt for subjective lies that comfort them, such as the belief that a man can be a woman and vice versa.
 
Basically, what we see today is the effect of the sexual revolution of the late 20th century. What Unwin noticed in the societies that allowed for sexual freedom are what is happening today: less acceptance in absolute monogamy and more acceptance of ending a marriage on the basis of “I just don’t feel the spark anymore”; less acceptance of God and His Sovereignty and more acceptance of abstract superstitions like astrology, giving power to the mathematical concept of chance, and believing in “karma” or “chakras” or other nonsense; and less acceptance of objective, provable truths and more acceptance of subjective, improvable lies that serve to comfort the individual and provide them with zero conflict, or at least, that is the advertised objective.
 
These things, Unwin notes, tend to lead to the collapse and replacement of a culture. As previously mentioned, when a culture allows for total sexual freedom, said culture collapses within three generations to a level of essentially being a “dead culture” where people have little interest in anything apart from fulfilling their most carnal desires day in and day out and not seeking, maybe even rejecting, any attempt at actually understanding nature and creation. It is at this level where a culture is often subject to replacement by another culture.
 
I’ve seen semi-joking tweets from Ann Coulter about supporting Islam when there would be stories about Muslim parents protesting schools imposing LGBTQ curricula on students. As I’ve said time and time again in the past, the LGBT agenda and Islam are very antithetical with one another and, under Hegelian Dialectics, are bound to clash at one point or another. That is one of the examples of these two cultures colliding, and given Unwin’s findings, Islam will come out on top here.
 
If Christians were to do the same (and I don’t see many, if any, stories about Christian parents protesting LGBT curricula in schools, likely out of fear of persecution by Leftwing mobs), Christianity would also come out on top, provided it remains resilient on this issue and doesn’t try to give ground away, like the Catholic Church has done in allowing for gay priests, or like some protestant churches have done in allowing “Same-Sex Attracted” pastors to lead congregations.
 
But the very reason any of that has even happened is because of the sexual revolution being so popular in the Western culture in the first place. Churches, fearing people would abandon them, chose to follow the crowd, even if that meant abandoning God and flocking to what is inarguably considered in the Bible to be sinful. As a result, people have still abandoned churches, seeing no real reason to attend, and the churches have abandoned God, so they provide no actual reason for anyone to attend, given that the Gospel is no longer being preached (again, in some churches, not all of them).
 
The reason pastors like Joel Osteen are so popular is because they actually preach the Gospel and provide the basic message of “God loves you despite what you have done if you trust in Him”. This provides a rest from the secular, shallow world and helps people to find meaning in their lives.
 
The secular world, particularly as it allows for sexual freedom, has led to the destruction of the family. Mary Eberstadt researched mass killings, the rise of mental health issues and the surge and dominance of identity politics and found that these are a “primal scream” as a result of “the loss of identity that was once provided by growing up in a long-term, immediate family with siblings and a sizable group of cousins, aunts and uncles, all of which provided identity – essential for well-being,” as Fr. Peck also notes in his article.
 
In other words, the destruction of the nuclear family has given rise to many of the problems we see today, like mass shootings, general mental health issues like depression and anxiety, and the dominance of identity politics and the perceived importance of valuing oneself and identifying oneself based on their physical attributes, sexual desires, or made up victimhoods.
 
And the destruction of the nuclear family can also be traced back to the sexual revolution and to overall sexual freedom. When kids don’t know who one of their parents is, that’s a problem. When kids grow up thinking that having two dads or two moms or more than two parents is normal, that’s a problem. When teenagers are mocked for restricting their own sexual desires, that’s a problem. When people believe marriage to be a “union of love” without any concept of God being a part of that union, that’s a problem. When people conflate love with lust, that’s a problem.
 
These things are all a result of sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the early 20th century. Western civilization, much as I would hate to admit, will fall if this is not remedied. There is nothing inherently special about Western civilization that would have it be spared of this fate by God, particularly when said civilization is less and less likely to believe in God as time goes on.
 
On this site, we’ve already explained that Israel would often be punished for disobeying God and would be redeemed for returning to God and obeying Him again. Western civilization, having been founded on Christian principles, cannot live apart from such principles, as doing so would divorce it from God.
 
My desire is for Western civilization to return to what it once was: fearful, obedient and loving towards God, who would reciprocate such fear, obedience and love with love and blessings. Note that this does not mean returning to the way everything was in the past. The Left often tries to argue that “Make America Great Again” envisions an America where black people are either segregated from white people or are slaves of white people. That is not what MAGA means whatsoever. It only indicates a desire to return America to the greatness and power it once knew, economically, militarily, and culturally.
 
Unfortunately, while Trump can greatly succeed (and is succeeding as much as he can) in the first two endeavors, the last one is totally out of his hands and things don’t exactly appear to be moving in the right direction in that aspect.
 
If the U.S., and indeed, all of Western culture does not turn this ship around culturally, then it doesn’t matter if the economy is the best we’ve ever seen or if we can win any of the wars we currently are engaged in or possibly could be engaged in, for Western civilization will ultimately be lost as a culture and replaced by another.
 
And given the horrible options of Islam or Chinese supremacy, I would hope that Western civilization will return to God sooner rather than later.
 
Exodus 19:5
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine.”

When it comes to the issue of morality, I will always reply with the ever-true statement that morality comes from God, as He was the one who created this planet and us, and thus decides what is considered morally righteous and morally bankrupt.
 
Of course, despite this, man is naturally evil. That is not to say we are horrible beings that always cause harm and do evil deeds no matter what, but we are totally depraved in as far as the original sin committed by Adam and Eve upon their disobedience to God lives within us all and we can only be forgiven by Jesus Christ. But of course, not everyone is forgiven by Him, so there are those who are often morally depraved but believe themselves to be morally in the right.
 
A recent Gallup poll shows this to some extent.
 
The poll covered a total of 21 topics relating to their moral acceptability; things like gambling, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
 
While the title focuses mostly on pre-marital sex and adultery, and while I will be covering those topics, I would like to explore as many of the 21 topics in the poll and talk in large about morality in general. I won’t get to every single one for the sake of time, just the ones that I believe I should talk about.
 
The topic that was viewed as most morally acceptable is birth control, with 92% of people saying they believe it is morally acceptable and only 6% saying it is morally wrong. Personally, I do not entirely disagree with this.
 
My biggest issue about birth control is that abortion is often considered to be a part of it. However, things like “the pill” or condoms I do not consider to be morally wrong, personally. That being said, of course, this issue is often at least somewhat tied to pre-marital sex, which I wholeheartedly disagree with (and we’ll get to that). However, I do not necessarily consider birth control options outside of abortion to be a bad thing. And as far as the Bible goes, well, you are not likely to find much about this at all. That is why I default to simply being against abortion under this circumstance because I know full-well that the Bible speaks often of the value of life and the love the Lord has for us on an individual basis.
 
Next came drinking alcohol, with 79% of people saying it is morally acceptable. This one I can bring the Bible to discuss. Obviously, getting drunk is a big no-no. Verses like Ephesians 5:18: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” and Proverbs 20:1: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise,” are only some that speak against drunkenness. However, particularly with verses like Proverbs, there appears to be at least some moral acceptance of alcohol, provided it does not lead someone to get drunk and debauch and to overall sin against the Lord, being led astray by it. Similar to how it is okay to seek wealth, as long as it does not lead you from the path of the Lord, I think drinking alcohol is okay so long as you are not led astray by it and it causes you to debauch yourself and others. And let us not forget that Jesus turned water into wine, so it is not morally wrong to consume alcohol. Personally, though, I would not drink alcohol because of the long-term effects it can cause to the body and its risk for addiction.
 
Then comes the issue of divorce, with 77% of people believing it to be morally acceptable and 20% saying it’s unacceptable. I know depending on the denomination, different Christians will hold different views on it. Personally, I think divorce is okay under the following circumstances:
 
   1) The marriage is abusive to either partner. If someone is being verbally, mentally or physically abused, then divorce is okay especially because of the following point. 
 
  2) One or more of the partners is not a Christian. If someone is abusive of another person, the abuser is not really a Christian, even if they were to claim to be so. If the marriage is not a union under the Lord, it is not a true, Christian marriage. Receiving a marriage certificate may make you and your spouse legally married as far as the country’s laws go, but that does not necessarily mean you are married in God’s eyes. A marriage is a holy matrimony; a union not only between two people, but among two people and God, with God at the head of the marriage. 
 
So when it comes to divorce, I believe it is okay under certain conditions, but I believe it should be avoided by two Christians if the reasons for them desiring to divorce are petty and fixable. Just saying “I don’t love him/her like I used to” is not a good enough reason.
 
Next comes sex between an unmarried man and woman, with 71% saying it’s acceptable and 28% saying it’s not. No doubt, the Bible speaks against this. This constitutes adultery. Having sex with anyone who is not your spouse is considered adultery, even if you do not have a spouse.
 
I am reminded of a twitter debate I have spoken of already around the time Alabama passed one of the most pro-life laws in the country, the topic of pre-marital sex came up (somewhat) and I was mocked for believing it to be good to not have sex until marriage and being darn proud of believing this. That only goes to show the kind of thinking the secular world has brought about.
 
Next comes gambling, with 68% saying it’s acceptable and 31% saying it’s not. Now, gambling is not explicitly covered in the Bible. It largely speaks about wealth and riches, with verses like Proverbs 13:11 saying: “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it,” and 1 Timothy 6:10 saying: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
 
Again, it’s the love of money, not necessarily the pursuit of it, that is sinful and evil. So I am not quite sure about this one. Personally, I don’t mind if people gamble, but wouldn’t do it myself because of the risk of addiction (and I consider it a massive waste of money anyway).
 
After this comes smoking marijuana, with 65% deeming it morally acceptable and 33% disagreeing. As with other things, drugs are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. However, one verse in particular ought to stand out: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
 
This verse speaks highly of our own bodies. But beyond that, it speaks largely to Christians. The part about being bought with a price does not apply to non-Christians – to those whom God has not elected to be saved. If anything, the verse speaks about Christians not doing anything to their own bodies, for it is God’s. So if God decries doing such things to our bodies, the conclusion one must reach is that any intake of things that mess with it in such a way is morally wrong (yes, I know alcohol could technically count here too, but it largely becomes a problem for your body when you have too much alcohol in your system and when you have been drinking alcohol for a long time, leading to your bodily systems and organs to decay as a result. Drugs have a more immediate negative effect on your body, particularly the brain, and it’s more severe).
 
Afterwards comes stem cell research, with 64% finding it acceptable and 31% disagreeing. Obviously, this one falls in a similar category as abortion does in general (speaking of which, it is at an interesting 42% finding it acceptable and 50% finding it unacceptable, mirroring a recent poll from Harvard/Harris). Stem cell research stems (pun intended) from fetal tissue – more specifically, from a dead fetus. More often than not, aborted fetuses are used for this type of research, so don’t be surprised if the Bible deems this to be immoral.
 
Next is having a baby outside of marriage, with 64% saying it is morally acceptable and 34% disagreeing. Similar to pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex, considering the act of having a baby results on having sex, this is also morally wrong. That’s not to deem the baby to be less than human – he or she is still loved by the Lord – but having a child outside of marriage is not morally right.

In Genesis 38, we learn of Judah and Tamar. Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law, though a widow. At one point, Tamar went to Timnah, where Judah was also going to shear his sheep. While she was wearing her widow’s garments at the time, she had taken them off because her groom-to-be, whom she was promised by Judah, Shelah, Judah’s other son, was grown up and she desired to be ready for him. However, in taking off those widows’ garments and putting on a veil, covering her face, she made herself look like a prostitute of the time. Judah saw her, thought she was a prostitute, and slept with her, even conceiving with her (like I’ve said multiple times, the Bible is filled with sinners). When it was found out she was pregnant, Genesis 38:24 says: “About three months later Judah was told, ‘Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.’ And Judah said, ‘Bring her out, and let her be burned.’”
 
Yes, Judah is a hypocrite here, something he himself acknowledges later in that chapter when they discover the baby is his and they don’t burn her, but we can see clearly that child-conception outside of marriage is deemed to be morally unacceptable. Judah is a sinner here, as is Tamar, who accepted to lay with her father-in-law, and their child-making (though I doubt they intended to do it) was marred in immorality and unrighteousness.
 
Next comes gay or lesbian relations, with 63% believing it is morally acceptable and 35% disagreeing. This is the easiest one to make a case against. Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
 
Suffice to say that same-sex relations are not morally acceptable by any means. Now, while I would not wish to put to death people who do this, I understand that what they do is, indeed, an abomination that would lead them to the ultimate death, the second death, should they not repent of their sins. As I’ve said time and time again, homosexuality is a sin. All sins lead to death if not repented for and forgiven by Christ.
 
Now, while there are other topics that I would like to cover more, like doctor-assisted suicide, suicide in general, sex between teenagers, etc., the last item I will talk about is extra-marital affairs, with only 9% believing it to be morally acceptable and 89% saying it is not morally acceptable.
 
This, as with pre-marital sex, is morally unacceptable according to God. But all things considered, I’m not really all that surprised to see that people think pre-marital sex is fine but extra-marital sex is not. Extra-marital sex is a betrayal from one of the partners. No one wants to be betrayed like this. It’s more of an emotional issue to most people than necessarily a moral one.
 
But then again, many of these answers can be answered in a similar, emotional manner. Those who say things like pre-marital sex and same-sex relationships are okay do so with emotions in mind, be it their own or someone else's. Sex feels good and people don’t like it when you point out that it’s wrong to do so outside of marriage.
 
But this is why morality has to have an absolute source. Morality cannot be dictated by society, else morality fails to be morality and becomes normality – what is considered normal. In this day and age, pre-marital sex is considered normal, but that doesn’t make it moral. 71% of people deeming pre-marital sex to be moral does not actually make it moral.
 
Often times, people deem moral what is immoral and immoral what is moral. I know perfectly well that Hitler viewed his actions to be perfectly moral and acceptable. To him, he was getting rid of people who were holding humanity back. The search for the ubermench was seen as perfectly moral. But what he did was entirely immoral. It’s not simply that people would agree today that that was immoral, but that speaking in absolute moral terms, according to God’s morality, what Hitler did was abhorrent.
 
So that is why morality cannot be determined by society. What is moral today may not be tomorrow and vice versa. But that’s not absolute morality. Morality, as I’ve repeated countless times, comes from God.
 
As the Ruler of the Universe, as King, God is the one who determines what is moral and immoral. Man has absolutely no right to determine morality given our original sin. We sinned against God. We are God’s creatures. Who are we to determine what is right and wrong when we are NATURALLY EVIL!?
 
Isaiah 5:20
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
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!

It is not often that I talk about how proud I am of my state of Alabama (usually because either I don’t talk much about it or it decides to elect a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in decades), but I am very proud of my state today.
 
In a landmark decision, the Madison County Probate Court recently became the first state to rule that an aborted baby is a person with the same rights as everyone else.
 
The court took the case of a father whose baby was aborted by his girlfriend against his wishes six weeks into the pregnancy.
 
On February 10th, 2017, the girlfriend of Ryan Magers aborted their baby when she went to the Alabama Women’s Center, where she received an abortion pill.
 
According to Magers, he “just tried to plead with her and plead with her and just talk to her about it and see what I could do, but in the end, there was nothing I could do to change her mind.”
 
On January 25th, 2019, Magers filed a petition with the Madison Probate Court to serve as the personal representative of the baby’s estate (hereby called “Baby Roe”).
 
In February 2019, Magers said: “It was just like my whole world fell apart,” insisting that the reason for filing the suit in the first place is “I’m here for the men who actually want to have their baby. Even though there’s nothing I can do for the situation I was in, there is something I can do for the future situations for other people… I believe every child from conception is a baby and deserves to live.”
 
Regarding the suit, Mager’s lawyer Brent Helms said: “The only thing that estate has is the right to sue and so that is what Ryan is doing, is suing on behalf of Baby Roe’s estate.”
 
Upon the court ruling that the aborted baby is a person, thus leading Magers to be able to legally represent the baby’s estate, Helms said: “We have already had a victory, and it was the first one of its kind, ever… This is the first estate that I’m aware of that has ever been opened for an aborted baby.”
 
Helms also noted that Alabama’s law states that life begins at conception, so this case could also make its way to the state supreme court.
 
Overall, this is pretty good news. Unfortunately, Ryan’s baby is long gone. He or she has already been eliminated by a mother who did not want him or her and by a clinic that insists they are a women’s healthcare center when in reality are nothing but a legal human slaughterhouse.
 
However, this is a landmark decision. The fact that the Alabama law states that life begins at conception and their recent decision that an aborted baby is, indeed, a human being with rights, whose rights have been violated, should not be understated. It’s outright incredible!
 
And it could lead other states to follow suit. In a similar way that the Satanists that call themselves the New York legislature set the precedent for trying to normalize and promote third-trimester abortions, leading other liberal states to look to do the same, other conservative states could look to implement similar pro-life policies and laws as Alabama’s.
 
In this way, we continue the fight for life – the insistence that all babies in the womb are human beings, are alive and deserve the same rights everyone else: a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
While the evil Left insists that even babies who are already BORN are not human beings if the mother decides that it is not a human, the righteous Right insists that all babies, inside and out of the womb are a gift from God, with life and potential, created in His Holy image.
 
And that’s another thing I want to discuss: the fact that it’s just the mother who gets to decide what to do with the baby. Why is it that way? It takes two to make a baby, so why does only one get to make the decisions for it?
 
In every relationship, or at least the good ones, the two participants make decisions together. They talk things over, they have discussions and come to a resolution. But when it comes to abortion, the father of the baby has zero rights in the subject matter, zero say in what he wants, zero right to state his opinion and have it matter.
 
When it comes to abortion, the primary decision makers are the mother of the baby and the MURDERER of the baby.
 
And what exactly do you think the murderer is going to want to do? It’s his very BUSINESS to eliminate life. He makes MONEY off of doing that. It’s not like he’s going to talk to the mother and say “you know, you could at least TRY to love your baby. I mean, it may not have been planned, but you are growing a human being inside you and being a mother is one of the best and most rewarding things that you can do.” OF COURSE NOT!
 
A murderer is not going to pass up an opportunity to murder someone, particularly if they are not going to be prosecuted for it and can actually make MONEY off of it.
 
And don’t try and tell me abortionists aren’t murderers. Do you know how old I was when the subject of abortion was brought up at all? 8, maybe 9 at most. My father explained to me what it was and I was really surprised that it was legal. Why? BECAUSE EVEN AS AN EIGHT OR NINE YEAR OLD, I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS MURDER!
 
I also knew what murder was and was under the assumption that murder was illegal. On that day, I discovered that there is one legal way to kill someone: in the womb.
 
Even at that young of an age, I knew perfectly well that abortion was murder. It only stands to reason to follow that up by saying that an abortionist, who is legally murdering someone, is a murderer, not really any different from Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer except for the fact that they can legally do it.
 
I am so incredibly proud of my state of Alabama for having recognized an aborted baby as being a person with rights. It’s outright DEMENTED that it takes A LOWER COURT to recognize the FACT that a baby inside the womb is, in fact, a human baby and should be afforded the same rights as anyone else, but this is the society we live in.
 
I feel terrible for Ryan for what his girlfriend did. However, I can consider this a teachable moment as well.
 
What do I mean by that? Well, consider what the situation was: Ryan’s GIRLFRIEND, not wife, aborted their baby.
 
This is precisely why I would advise everyone, not just Ryan, to not have pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
 
We would not have anywhere near as many problems in this world, especially when it comes to abortion, if people understood the importance of strictly marital sex and the sinfulness of pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
 
Had Ryan and his girlfriend been married, they very well might have kept the baby because they would’ve been ecstatic to start their own family (I say "might" because there of course is always the chance that the girl did not want a family at all and still would’ve gone through with it, but for the most part, married women would rather keep their babies, especially if it’s their first).
 
I’m not saying this to castigate or place blame on Ryan at all. I’m saying this to reaffirm the importance of marital sex.
 
Most people don’t see what makes sex special. No doubt, it’s enjoyable, but it’s supposed to be enjoyed by a husband and his wife only. Not a man with his girlfriend, not a man with another man, not a woman with her boyfriend, not a woman and another woman, etc.
 
Sex is supposed to be an enjoyable activity for child-rearing and marriage-consummation. It’s not supposed to leave people with strictly carnal desires for one another. It’s not supposed to be between two (or more) people outside of marriage. It’s certainly not supposed to lead people to regularly sin against God with lustful desires of the flesh.
 
The biggest reason I often say that abortion is linked to bondage of sin, bondage of the flesh, is because it is only ever a result of having been in a sexual relationship, usually outside of marriage.
 
Do you think anywhere near as many babies would be aborted if people understood and respected the importance of marital sex? Abortions are an evil result of an evil act of immorality and one of the seven deadly sins: lust.
 
Take that out of the equation, and so many more people come to realize just why we used to say that life is a miracle. Take that out of the equation and so many more people are happier and feel more fulfilled.
 
If society is to truly progress, we need to reaffirm the major tenets of the Bible, including what it says about marriage and sexual intercourse.
 
And for the few lefties that think that’s being regressive, let me tell you something: take a look around and see what your “progress” has gotten you. Depression rising, violence increasing, shootings on a regular basis especially in areas where guns are heavily restricted to the public, suicide rates on the rise, drug abuse worsening and a people so damn sensitive to anything different that they think Will Smith isn’t BLACK ENOUGH to play Venus and Serena Williams’ father in a biopic.
 
To me, none of that is progress. To me, all of that is the saddening and ever-worsening state of the human soul and psyche. It’s not progress to have a society so divided by race. It’s not progress to have a society where your gender can be left up to the individual to discern.
 
It’s lunacy and it’s human regression. I believe in evolution in as far as I believe a species can progress and regress. Humanity is doing the latter. Life is as meaningless now to many members of mankind as it is to animals, except animals aren’t animalistic enough to eliminate their young before they are even born.
 
Truly, truly, I say to you, the only way for humanity to be saved from this sin is to believe in and follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
How many Christians do you think abort their children? Or have pre-marital or extra-marital sex (and I’m talking about real Christians not the fake ones like the Catholic priests that molest young children)?
 
I can tell you: not very many.
 
Acts 4:12
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
 
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!