Something to Think About Regarding These State’s Abortion Bans

 

According to an article titled “The Conversation- A concise history of the US abortion debate, by Treva B. Lindsey, Professor of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State University, Published: June 10, 2019, https://theconversation.com/a-concise-history-of-the-us-abortion-debate-118157. History has again been totally ignored and the lesson lost.  This being the case, it bears out the great need for educated people to finally diagnose history as it happens and make the necessary changes to ensure that this particular piece of history is not constantly repeated.

Consider this, “While many may think that the political arguments over abortion now are fresh and new, scholars of women’s, medical and legal history note that this debate has a long history in the U.S.  It began more than a century before Roe v. Wade. As of 2019 “around 1962 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first commercially produced birth control pill, Enovid-10. Although various forms of birth control predate the birth control pill, the FDA’s approval of Enovid-10 was a watershed in the national debate around family planning and reproductive choice”.

“From the nation’s founding through the early 1800s, pre-quickening abortions – that is, abortions before a pregnant person feels fetal movement – were fairly common and even advertised. Women from various backgrounds sought to end unwanted pregnancies before and during this period both in the U.S. and across the world. For example, enslaved black women in the U.S. developed abortifacients – drugs that induce abortions – and abortion practices as means to stop pregnancies after rapes by, and coerced sexual encounters with, white male slave owners”.

“In the mid- to late-1800s, an increasing number of states passed anti-abortion laws sparked by both moral and safety concerns. Primarily motivated by fears about high risks for injury or death, medical practitioners in particular led the charge for anti-abortion laws during this era.

 

 

“By 1860, the American Medical Association sought to end legal abortion. The Comstock Law of 1873 criminalized attaining, producing or publishing information about contraception, sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and how to procure an abortion. A spike in fears about new immigrants and newly emancipated black people reproducing at higher rates than the white population also prompted more opposition to legal abortion”.

THE LOVE OF MONEY

This was the first real glimpse into how a needed debate of competing ideas is to a race for greater influence and a need for money.  Every side of the issue on abortion began to search for and seek out support for their ideas any way that they could to include out right lying about anything that would pull more voices to their cause than the others.  To that end, many began to seek those of great wealth, power, and influence to stand in front of a camera and say the words placed down on paper. 

But the most dangerous tactic used was when the Bible was enlisted in their argument.  Using religion to pretend to be standing on the side of God making others think that he believes in their stance. Regardless of the way we wish to slant religion, one thing is quite clear.  1 Timothy 6:10 of the King James Version says “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” so it is not that money is the root but the love of money.  Nothing God given is monetary but freely given.

RECOMMENDATION

The choices we make are ours and ours alone to make.  It does not need, want, nor require the consensus of the majority.  Each choice we make will be our cross to bear and ours alone and only God will be the judge of these choices, so man needs to resign himself from attempting to regulate something that even God has chosen not to.

For the fathers of daughters, to have complete strangers decide the course of the life of your daughter and refuse to stand and defend her from this obstruction means that perhaps you are simply a father in name only minus the actions.

For mothers of daughters, was it not a dream of yours to have grandkids but are you truly willing to jeopardize the health and life of your daughter because a group of individuals in some state house says so?

For birth mothers do you not have to bear the loss of your child for the rest of your life and how much more pain do you wish to bring upon yourself by failing to stand up and say, “keep your hands off my uterus”? 

I believe that for those who continue to play God and push these bands, the American Medical Association must step up to correct the thing that they started, along with all the parents of daughters and any one threatened by the laws being passed to say, if that, then they should is the course you truly wish to pursue, then we will see you in a court of law.  I suggest listing everyone and anyone who supported this cause, signing this legislation and pushing it on the list of those you sue and holding them monetarily responsible for taking the right to choose what happens to your body.  Really, if they feel so compelled to control this, then they should be willing to pay the cost of their ownership.