Roe v. Wade could be considered genocide
Forty years ago, seven black-robed men pronounced the sentence of death on untold millions of unborn children, currently 55,000,000 with no end in sight, the sentence to be carried out in the mothers womb.
I suppose the aftermath of that 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade could be called “genocide,” a crime that we usually associate with those countries ruled by a Hitler, a Stalin, an Idi Amin, or a Pol Pot. It is fitting that those seven men wore black. It is also fitting that they will face the justice of God who tells us in Proverbs 6:16-19: “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him; A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; and a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
I believe those seven men are guilty of all the above seven abominations but, in particular, they are guilty of shedding innocent blood.
The June 18 Opinion page of the Aiken Standard carried a “pro-slaughter of the unborn child” rant by a columnist from the Los Angeles Times, a far-left newspaper from a far-left state. The writer, parroting the American Civil Liberties Union, seems bewildered that anyone could believe the slaughter of the unborn is stupid.
Not only is the slaughter of the unborn child incredibly stupid, it is the act of a morally corrupt mind. Almost one third of a generation has been slaughtered since 1973, and now we are told by the devotees of this slaughter that we must open our borders. It seems that this country’s addiction to the murder of the unborn has created a labor shortage.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.