A poignant thought, or, perhaps, call it a critical issue, crossed my mind recently regarding law, morality, and justice as applied for human beings who essentially have no voice in determining their right to live and survive being murdered. This issue goes along with the rephrasing of the tritely offered, and answered, question. “Does a woman, any woman, in the United States have the unfettered right to abort, and murder, a child that has been conceived and is growing, with a fetal heartbeat, inside of her?” This is a very important question that has been flippantly answered by a legislated law in New York State, which allows a pregnant woman to decide, with impunity, to end the life of a child at any time prior to the time of birth, or at birth, based entirely upon her emotional state of mind; and which affords a physician immunity from prosecution for allowing a normal healthy child to die unattended after being delivered from the mother’s womb, or by C-section, if the woman decides that the child is not worthy to live. Had such a law been proposed by the New York Legislature in 1787, at the time the U.S. Constitution was being formed in the Constitutional Convention, the men legislating New York laws would have undoubtedly repudiated it calling it a license to kill the unborn. This New York State legislation was, however, overwhelmingly approved in 2018 by a majority of New York State legislators and the governor of New York, who happily signed the bill into law. Yet, such a perverse law was never debated in New York State government, or in any other State, until around 1920, when the wretched woman abortionist Margaret Sanger found support on the U.S. Supreme Court, in Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. and, earlier, in the White House, in President Woodrow Wilson for her plan to impose her eugenics birth control plan on the republic. Human life, all human life, in-utero or after birth, was, before the advent of Sanger’s proposition, regarded as sacrosanct by the federal and State governments, and laws were imposed by all U.S. States criminalizing unnatural abortion. Yet, Sanger eagerly languished in her own little morbid world propagandizing her proposition that some human life is just not worthy of being born, or even worth living after being born. Sanger was the person who coined and popularized the phrase, birth control. Sadly, though, regarding herself an advanced thinker beyond her years, Sanger had never applied the notion, that some people aren’t worthy of being born, to herself.
Popular historians of the various decades of the 20th Century were frequently prone to not revealing the details of the sad parts of contemporary history that reflect poorly on the supposedly reputable people making that history. To state the true austere facts about immoral people who are supposedly publicly distinguished in their probity and beyond the commission of immorality is regarded as taboo. For instance, if a President of the United States committed first-degree cold-blooded murder, it would be job of the Secret Service and the FBI to suppress all facts that would lead a rational person to conclude that the President had committed the crime, and, then, kill, murder, and disappear everyone possessing those facts who would consider going-public with the truth about the murder. The object of such a cover-up would be to make it appear that the President was a respectable person, incapable of having anything to do with a murder. In the case at hand, the salient facts disclose that, without a doubt, Margaret Sanger, President Woodrow Wilson, and, later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes preceded Adolf Hitler in the operational creation, support, and promotion of a plan to annihilate a certain unwanted and undesirable portion of a national population through birth control and eugenics. For Hitler, it was the Jews, and the Nazis succeeded, from 1935 until 1945 in killing over six million of them; and for Sanger, Wilson, and Holmes, it was children conceived through consensual sex and procreated by men and women who were considered of low social value. To Sanger it amounted to, either, abortion of the unwanted children, or sterilization of the low-class men and women producing those children. If Sanger had been around with her murderous ideas fifty years earlier, she would have endorsed the abortions of the babies, conceived in poverty to less-than-successful parents, who turned out to be Charles Dickens and Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Perhaps she might have endorsed the abortion of the baby born to indigent and poorly educated Thomas and Nancy Lincoln, who turned out to be Abraham Lincoln. The many millions of abortions that have been inexorably committed in the American republic since 1973, under the auspices the egregious Supreme Court Decision legalizing abortion in the States, Roe v. Wade, have, in all probability, deprived the nation and the States of some great people with great minds and talents. It should be remembered that the genius Leonardo De Vinci was a bastard son of an illiterate cobbler, and that the best can emerge from worst, and that the worst quality of human beings can emerge from the what is regarded as the best.
Unfortunately, beginning in the early 20th Century American citizen men and women began trivializing and carelessly regarding sexual relations as a plaything instead of a sacred and divine human function, whose ultimate natural purpose was procreation. It wasn’t until the late 1890s, when sexual promiscuity actually became fashionable and prostitution and whoring commonplace in an effort to demean Victorian standards, that illegal abortionists began having a great many customers. This was when unbridled premarital sex evolved from having fun with sex, regardless of the consequences of pregnancy, to a mindset of anything-goes. Even though young upwardly mobile men and women of that epoch were supposedly from devout Christian and Jewish families, the public high schools, colleges, and universities were being invaded by a philosophy called pragmatism, which was incrementally replacing idealism, or that there is always a right and wrong to every moral question.
Pragmatism in the USA, deposing idealism, rose from the insane German philosopher, Frederick Nietzsche’s, philosophy that good and evil had never really existed, but, rather, a system of blatant sophistry that declared that the end-result of any conflictual issue was justified by the operational modem that such an end-result, good or bad, always justifies the means used to obtain it. Bolstered by the philosophical support of American sophist Charles Sanders Peirce in the first decade of the 20th Century, the notion that good and evil were antiquated terms and that negotiation and compromise with evil was much more fitting for the prevailing age became a guiding tool of an system of thought called progressivism. In other words, such a system endorsed the sophistry that if a person is hungry, stealing food is perfectly alright, for it is (a) means of achieving the end-result, satiation. This more of less established the rule that the end-result of any endeavor, good or evil, justified the means used to obtain it. Hence, the end-result of sexual intercourse was not procreation, but to have orgasms and ejaculations in order to feel good, regardless of whether the female became pregnant; for abortion was a viable pragmatic means of dealing with the unwanted result of sex, a child conceived. Strangely, the poor faithful Christian and Jewish families within the greatly populated urban areas, such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles produced, during this early 20th Century period, faithful children with much greater respect for human life than the 25 percent of the younger population who were from wealthy families and cared nothing for morality. To their credit, the great majority of faithful Catholic teenagers during this time were famous for not getting abortions when sexual intercourse resulted in pregnancies, while children of wealthy mainstream Protestants were the ones paying out most of the money for the bloody backroom abortions.
Therefore, the disturbing issue addressed in this article is whether the deliberate killing of an eight-week old fetus, emitting a viable heartbeat, by a mother through the instrumentality of a physician-abortionist is a legal abortion or a cold-blooded murder. For this recently legislated New York “law” to work, there can be no exceptions to the legislative definition that “an unborn baby is not a human being.” Beginning with ancient Hebraic law, under the Ten Commandments, the killing, or murder, of a pregnant woman was regarded as the killing of two human beings, or as many babies that were within her womb. This Judeo-Christian principle was advanced through the centuries to Greek and Roman law, and, later to English common law. Take, for instance, the example of a wealthy young doctor in New York City, in 2019, who has a wife pregnant in her 10th week of gestation, with his first and only son. Let’s say that the pregnant wife goes into a deli in Manhattan for lunch and gets murdered by malicious robbers. Let’s also say that the baby was killed when the mother was killed with several gunshots to her body. Is the New York City District Attorney going to contend that the killing of the baby was “not” the unlawful killing of one human being by another, and that the perpetrator of the crime is only culpable for the murder of one human being, the wife? Let’s say that the father of the baby, a heart surgeon, was just listening to the heartbeat of his son and watching him by sonogram the day before the murder. Do you think that that father Is going to allow that New York abortion law to trump the multi-homicide law that had been passed ninety years before by a unanimous vote of the New York Legislature? Certainly, the people of New York can’t have it both ways. Either an unborn child, healthy or healthy, is a viable unborn human being at the time of conception, or the child is just a piece of abstruse human tissue tantamount to a turd, which can be terminated from the body without consequences. People are actually more concerned with the consequences of other people smoking pot than with the killing of millions of human lives through abortions. This is an unfathomable thought that most people don’t consider, because if they did it would certainly keep them up nights worrying. How many potential geniuses, Mozart’s, Einstein’s, and Frosts’ have been murdered through the capricious whims of young, uncaring women and lovers just for the sake of no bearing the responsibilities of parenthood? Is what is produced inside a woman’s body through irresponsible sexual relations only the concern of that women and her lover, or is it the concern of the State as to the care for the life of a human being. It is only a matter of time in the last couple of weeks of a woman’s pregnancy, when the fully-formed child becomes ready to exit the womb into the air-breathing world, and is born through a doctor or midwife. Is that child any less a human being minutes before he, or she, emerges from womb and is helped to breath by a physician, than he, or she is after birth? The answer to this question was answered many thousands of years ago through natural law that is no more, or less, than the law of God.
Overturning Roe v. Wade very soon, before the end of 2020, won’t bring back to life the millions of babies, human beings, murdered by abortion with impunity by their natural mothers, fathers, and abortionists, many of whom are sadly haunted throughout their lives by their egregious decisions to commit these crimes. But they will insist that the “law” gave them the right to murder, or end the lives of their viable sons and daughters. Nonetheless, was, and is, this killing abortion or murder? Can murder ever be excused, especially when the victims have no voice in the matter?