Part II – Knowledge. If you didn’t see the last post, click here for Part I. This one will make much more sense if you read the first, also.

For those that call themselves “pro-choice,” they seem to forget that the choice is whether or not to have sexual intercourse. In that respect, I am pro-choice…all adults should have the choice to have sex or not. But, the pro-abortion crowd thinks the choice is in whether or not one can be expected to be at the mercy of consequences for actions. People know that sex has a very possible result of creating another human. In fact, that is the entire reason for the act of sex. Sure, it bonds those who enter into this very intimate act, it feels quite lovely, and most of us would like to partake in this activity on a regular basis. But, the entire system of sexual intercourse, the mechanics of it, if you will, are all engineered to make more humans.

Of course, one can USE this power in many way, some of which would never result in the creation of a human, but I’m discussing the original meaning of “sex,” so, don’t get all philosophical on me about what “sex” means. You know exactly what sex is and what I mean when I write that word.

**Note: I am NOT getting into rape and incest here. That’s another post. This discussion is about abortions that come about because of people being created due to consensual sexual encounters between adults.**

In the last post, I asked you to fill in part of a sentence. Now, I ask you to finish another.

“It’s okay for laws to remove the consequences of behavior, of people who knew what the possible consequences were, when _________________________.”

When people have the knowledge of what sex’s purpose is, even if they are trying to avoid it, must be held accountable for their actions. So, they can deal with the consequences in a variety of ways, but those ways must not include shedding the blood of innocent humans for the sake of covering up the evidence.

Imagine if there were laws that allowed people to kill their children to hide abuse, kill invalids when they don’t want to care for them any more, or singled out a group that was not worthy of rights, even the basic right to life, based on circumstances, which the targets cannot control. Name me any other group, where the entire group is made up of completely innocent humans, that it’s morally okay to kill due to the way they look or their current location. There are none.

Totally innocent humans that cannot defend their own lives, but have been proven to do so when finally given the opportunity (abortion survivors), are the only group in American that is legal to kill and/or maim just so someone doesn’t have to face the consequences of their actions.

History will judge us, as a people, by how we treat the weakest among us, who have no voice to defend themselves. Do we choose to be barbarians? Or heroes?

Know where you stand.