Reproduction, and abortion / anti-abortion. 

Two critical points to bring up here are about whether a pregnancy is the growing of an internal part of a woman’s body or a separate being. This is turn leads to whether we understand seen / unseen, as it relates to male reproductive anatomy vs female. 

In ancient persecuting times (in the Judeo-Christian sphere), a pregnant woman could be executed because it was considered that the execution was of one person, not two. As I have heard it argued today, that there inside the womb was the growing not a baby but a part of her body, no different than the female’s thigh. I shall not go into long explanation what the thigh was in reference to, although it was likely related to what led a woman to be convicted and executed. 

Basically, the why of how she became pregnant to begin with, that is, if it were a “thigh” issue. The thigh, in the ancient times, that was symbolic the nerves / connective fluids / tissue near the reproductive anatomy region. I.e., the thigh as symbol of a sexual impulse. Thus if intercourse led to an unwanted pregnancy - unwanted by the man that is - one can imagine how the pregnancy to then be attributed to the female “thigh” - and her fault. And then it was possible to execute the woman.

What this in fact was, was the ability to terminate her ability to bring a child into the world. What therefore it was, was the man’s ability to end the child’s life. I.e., a child unwanted by the man -- perhaps his unwillingness to support child raising, a no small endeavor requiring care, resources, attention, support for a long time, and certainly longer than 9 months. 

Thus to the obvious again, a pregnancy signals that not only a child is soon be brought in the world -- but that a certain track was about to begin. The one requiring care, resources, attention, support a time period much longer than 9 months. Thus if persons then truly believed the baby growing inside were merely about “a part of the body no different than a thigh” growing inside the womb, it is also unlikely men would feel the need to execute the woman. 

However, by making the baby not a baby but the result of a woman’s “thigh” (her sexuality), then it could be argued the intercourse itself was a “her fault” matter, should the man want an out for whatever reason. Making the woman guilty for the act of intercourse would then make her responsible for the result - the causal connection (and argument to convict her), all the more possible, if the baby growing inside indeed, was considered no materially different than her thigh. 

We understand this through an example today, say, a man who upon learning of a pregnancy, suddenly finds the need to skip town - and a resulting abandoned pregnant woman who might feel understandably lost, alone, unprepared, scared upon imagining the years ahead, with no male, and possibly, no family support, to help her. Thus to state the obvious, if that woman were then considering to have an abortion - was it because of the pregnancy itself? 

Or because the pregnancy meant a child would soon come forth into the world. To state the obvious again, it is not the pregnancy that is the cause for most women seeking abortion. It is the child that the pregnancy signals will come forth into the world.

Returning to pregnancy executions in ancient times, those to prevent the birth of an unwanted child -- unwanted that is, by the man. I.e., the man who felt the child would affect his status in some way. This includes, if intercourse occurred not because of the woman’s “thigh” but the opposite. More than the opposite, but because of the man’s rape of the woman. 

Thus all the more did he likely become a man wanting to be relieved of an unwanted responsibility -- and in the case of rape, what was in fact the entirety of his responsibility. And yet the woman who was executed not him - along with the child growing inside her womb. The executing act that would weigh less upon the guilty party (the man), in allowing him to feel less guilty, if he could think only one life was taken instead of two. However might this also encourage rape to begin with. However would it not feel like rape, if one could blame the female’s “thigh.” Thus did the act of executing a pregnant female become more than an act, but a practice. I.e., normalized.  

Let us state for a moment the obvious again - the obvious point that upon the execution of a pregnant female, the pregnancy itself would automatically be terminated. 

The word terminate is deliberately used here, that is, in putting it in the same sentence as the word execution. 

Termination and execution, however, the words we normally do not put in the same sentence, let alone, the same discourse and debate, including of abortion / anti-abortion. In fact would we try psychologically try to distinguish the words from each other. And while the words are different, but let us see how they can help us re-frame the abortion / anti-abortion debate, to move forward. 

For a moment let us return to ancient Biblical (Old Testament) times, when a pregnant woman was executed, therein automatically terminating the pregnancy upon the ending of her life. 

Now let us look at the word and meaning of execution, what we generally associate with the act done to persons who have done bad, unholy things. Outside its moral tones, in basic terms is the ending of a person’s life by an action done onto the person causing that person’s life to end. 

Termination, by contrast, while also indicating the end of a life, is not necessarily due to an action done onto the life. Thus can it mean the coming to the end of life, but not necessarily due to an action done onto it.

Returning to the pregnancy execution, which was not just about the ending of the life of the woman, but the ending of the pregnancy. However must we not risk making truism out of the fact that executing a pregnant woman automatically terminates a pregnancy. 

Thus is it important to point out and correctly identify, that the execution of a pregnant woman did not cause the incidental termination of the pregnancy. Instead, the end the pregnancy that was purpose of the execution-- precisely because the pregnancy would bring forth a child into the world. I.e., the ending of the pregnancy that was not the incidental result of the pregnant woman’s execution, but the point. 

The cruel point we must point out, to distinctly move away from the casual glossing over of the automatic-termination of the pregnancy upon the death of a pregnant woman as an incidental occurrence, to realize the pregnancy termination was the intended result. I.e., to realize it was the act of intentionally killing the child growing inside. 

Otherwise, the act of a pregnancy execution would not have taken place in the first place. More so, would not have become the practice of pregnancy execution. 

Think about it this way. If the act were not in fact of ulterior motive to kill the child growing inside, then by the very moral outrage a pregnancy execution would provoke amongst people, it would have been avoided as a practice. 

Additionally is it understood this way. Is pregnancy a mere stage of containment, the holding of inert cargo for 9 months until “delivered” (say, like a package)? If so, then the execution could wait until after that function was performed. However, since we know it is not just any mere cargo but a child, then why risk doing something that people would perceive as cruel? This would eventually send the cruel executors themselves to the gallows, not the pregnant women who were their victims. 

However, if convincing people that there is only cargo inside and virtually inert (and only “living” to the degree it is part of the tissue/body of a living pregnant woman) then can such an execution take place without provoking moral outrage in the public. But we need only look to what would we be our reaction today, if we heard of a pregnant woman who had been executed. We’re immediately feel the pregnancy was not mere container of tissue and cargo. And that it is not inert. 

Thus while many frame abortion by framing “termination of pregnancy”, one understands the limits of this framing when you think of the framing “executing a pregnant woman.”

Then do we realize that people in ancient Biblical times had those same reactions too - and thus was the practice put in place to try minimize the reaction, and try normalize it. However does mere common sense tell us, not to mention our own personal reactions, that the killing of a pregnant woman should be considered a cruel act.

It might be considered not cruel however, if done repeatedly. I.e., for the execution to become a practice. Time after time, and eventually would no longer seem cruel. However when we return to that Biblical ancient time -- that is, to understand our understanding by that frame there, did we actually look no further or deeper. I.e., the framing by “ancient practice” that frames our mind to automatically, look no further. The vast unknown reservoir, sometime pre-America, circa ancient.

As a result, the “ancient practice” -- the one resulting in end of the life of a child in the womb by the termination of a  pregnancy -- is the one we never link to the modern practice. This however, is also how we have come to understand abortion - that is, as a generally acceptable practice. The one that is the terminating of a pregnancy. The connection we fail to make, by not hearing the part about executing the pregnant woman. The step now eliminated (the step no longer eliminating the woman). However is the result the same. 

And if the result were not the point, then why are we not taught this in America? Why not as part of the requisite education coming now with an entire academic major and marketing point, called “women’s studies”? The education also generally implied, academic major or not, at high-tuition charging liberal arts college touting “women’s equality”. The education being touted as worth its very high tuition, implying a smarter female at a college of presumably higher smarts than others. At such institutions, would not this information be able to be presented, and their women’s studies be able to bear some scrutiny by it? Yet we do not even arrive at that point, and the rather large point about the historic practice of executing pregnant women, curiously left out all, across the board. 

Thus let us return to the obvious -- and test our “obvious” knowledge now. The obvious, in which a woman getting an abortion today is generally not doing so because of the pregnancy per se, but because the pregnancy would bring forth a child into the world.

The obvious to the point of truism, that it became the looking-no-further. We know this is true when we frame it in the theoretical opposite. The one in which abortions are in fact about the termination of the pregnancy itself, and not “per se”. The theoretical that would not hold up because most women could tolerate a condition that she felt was an “inconvenience” or a tolerable hardship, because it ended in 9 months. Thus why go through an abortion, and in fact, why have an entire abortion movement, if all “inconvenience, difficulty, hardship” would be over in 9 months? 

However as we know, because it is not just about 9 months. Or that is just about an inconvenience. It is about the perceived hardship that would continue long after 9 months, in fact for the next 18-21 years, and more after that. And then might a woman feel she not could handle it. Then might she turn to abortion - and because it was now the modern accepted practice. And by all of that, did it become so. 

Yet one would think women’s studies would study this, since the one who had least say in a pregnant-woman execution, was the pregnant woman herself. The one not only not able to protect herself -- but unable to protect the child that her pregnancy was bringing forth into the world. This was since there was considered no child to defend to begin with, as it was considered part of body and her tissue. 

As a result, having had no separate person to defend, was it easier to convict the pregnant woman as guilty. Guilty, as the woman of the “thigh” --  and the proof of her guilt, growing inside her own body, and as part of her body too. The ever more that was her guilt thereof, in the whole of her guilty person, including the result of her unholiness and guilt, growing inside herself. 

To state the obvious again, pregnancy that signals the soon coming forth of a child into the world. The obviousness of it however, leading to the point where the word child is not actually frequently used, nor predominately figures in the verbal language, in the abortion/anti-abortion discourse and debate.

Surprisingly is this most true, on the side one would expect to hear the word most, which is the side calling itself pro-life. The pro-life movement that of course, predominates in the use of the word “life” including in the movement’s most oft-used phrase, “life begins in the womb”.

Any life? In which case, maybe we are talking about a plant. Let us thus pose that absurd yet illustrative point. 

If the life we were talking about was a plant (or in the other hypothetical, inert tissue or cargo), women would likely not have been executed. To the same degree the “cargo” would be considered a no big deal, so it would be considered no big deal to birth a plant into the world. And mostly, to care for it thereafter. A woman was likely able to grow a plant by herself. A child however, as we know, presenting a bit more difficulty - to the woman, and also the man. 

Thus again pointing out, that a pregnancy does not bring mere “life” into the world. Pregnancy that brings forth a child into the world. And from here, the no small endeavor ahead, of raising the child into an adult. 

Thus no matter obvious this is, for that same reason of being so obvious to the point of absurdity otherwise, do we gloss-over it again. This time, the glossing-over, that is over an extremely important distinction: the difference between a general life, and a child. 

But again, no one disputes that a pregnancy signals the coming forth of a child into the world. And for that matter, it is not the coming forth of a plant. However, do we still gloss over that it is about a child.

In the glossing over of the word child, do we then turn to other descriptions / framings, such as the “result of intercourse.” Or even by romanticizing it in framings such as “union of souls”. Or for that matter, the “miracle of life”. While none of these are incorrect and/or “bad”, they still do not directly address that it is about a child coming forth into the world. And again, this is seen in the lack of use of the word child, in the pro-life movement. 

Child, the truth so obvious, it is not emphasized by either side of the abortion / anti-abortion debate. Yet child, that can be the very framing to move the conversation forward. 

Child, enabling both sides to not deny that a child is a life. Child enabling us to define the life as one with many stages -- and the no-small endeavor required to raise one, into an adult.

I.e., the animal species with the most amount of stages of any creature on earth. So many stages, that the youngest stages are given its own special name: child. 

By contrast, all other species of animals have “babies”, such as kittens, puppies, foal, cubs. But after a few short stages (compared to humans), quickly grow into adults. Thus do we tend not to characterize animal offspring as “children.” However do we call young humans, children. And within children is another name within -- babies.

Ironically therefore, the predominating language and use of the word “life” is the very thing most undercutting the pro-life movement. How so?

This is because the word life automatically conjures in our minds all sorts of other framings too, not just “the abortion / anti-abortion debate”. Indeed, all things we associate with the word “life”.  And now it is not just about a child. Now it can indeed be about a plant. Or if an animal, a lower-species of animal such as a bug. 

Then we see that there are many justifications to end life, for which we generally have little debate or objection (at least not on the scale of abortion / anti-abortion). This comes in the form of “the potted plant was dying so I threw it away and got a new one.” Or when it comes to bugs, by hiring an exterminator.  

Or back to the human world, by ending one via the practice of execution.

Outside the pregnancy-executions of ancient times, executions we generally think of as the killing of a presumed “unholy” and evildoing person. The person presumably an adult who should have known better but despite no end of rehabilitation is unable to be rehabilitated and thus must be executed. However even in America, will such an execution not occur to a person who, though might have done something terrible, also might now have been of adult age. The child is then judged differently, and likely will not be executed. Beyond the unlikelihood of sentencing a child by death penalty, death row itself gives room for the matter to sit for a few years. Thus is no child ever executed in the United States.

However, if a human being is uniformly categorized as a form of “life”, we risk an automatic-framing of things, in the glossing-over manner described before. By that sheer tendency alone (the one of automatic framings, ie, assumptions), does it then become automatically possible for a child to receive an execution-penalty. This is whether it was intended or not, but simply because our assumptions were automatic. The assumption under discussion here, is the one where we assume people understand we are talking about “child”, when we are talking about life, the framing used by the pro-life movement. 

And thus does the pro-life movement’s use of the word “life”, undercut the very thing it is trying to prevent: death. How so?

The use of the word “life” automatically causes most people to think death -- including people in the pro-life movement. Yet the very pro-life mission and raison d’etre, is to try prevent death inside the womb. Presumably for this reason, did they then use the word life. 

However well-intentioned this was, the “life-death” framing not only did not convince pro-abortion persons to their side, but repelled them further. This is because pro-life, in its pre-occupation (and mission) to “protect life in the womb” .. failed to talk about life after the womb. I.e., the continuing stages of life of the child. 

I.e., what pregnancy was signaling forth would soon come forth. More pregnancy? More hardship, measured in months? Or not only more than 9 months, but 18 or more years ahead. 

All that is failed to be understood by the word “life”, when in fact abortion became a modern practice, because “life” did not address the life stages. Ironically most of all, the ones of a child. 

Thus might we see - the failure to address the life stages of a child after being delivered from the womb, might cause many women to want to end them in the stages while still inside. And taking a cue from ancient times, the feeling that would feel less guilty about, if those stages are not considered those of a child to begin with. Instead, just a result of an act for which it was now a part of her body. She might especially feel that this is the case, if the act were not her choice. And yet she who was penalized most, as the one who would bear most of the responsibility in the 18+ years thereafter. This, that made the 9 months getting to that point, the far-lesser hardship. 

All, that we fail to understand and address properly, when failing to use the word child. Is this not evident in all of society, and not just the abortion / anti-abortion movement? Can we not make no end of assessment as to the dire state of the world now, when seeing finally this one failing? Perhaps we may begin to understand as well, why we have no shortage of women’s studies failing to study that one thing ... yet no women yet reaching the highest positions of leadership in America, despite there being no lack of US female politicians of “women’s studies” education. 

Thus must we frame things properly, by Child.

Child, also enabling us to address the most contentious debates within the abortion / anti-abortion movement, including age of pregnant female, rape, incest. And the most contentious of all, how to define a fetus. 

I begin with the age of a pregnant female, as this frames every other point. Mostly because age, addresses whether the pregnant female herself is a child. This designation enables us to properly address additional matters of rape, incest. 

In sum, a child (a girl) should not have to carry out a pregnancy. The reasoning in a moment.

To begin, let us look at the instance of a 10-year old child who is pregnant. This is clearly a case of rape, for reasons we should not have to go into. A man who thinks a 10-year old child is ready to have a child, let alone to have intercourse, needs to be imprisoned. 

Let us take a moment to read that statement again, though it is not a statement up for debate. Beyond being a moral matter, it is also one of population / longevity, for which I go into on the separate documents, that we should seek to increase human lifespan. We no longer live in an era of saber tooth tigers and lack of running water. Agricultural advancements have been made. This means children can and should be allowed to be children, and should not have to be part of a “labor force” due to some global existential reality. (I am not talking about a child learning the ropes and helping out a family business, so common sense shall prevail here). 

Thus what I refer to is child labor in the exploitative sense. Child labor was once common, and accepted. However it should no longer be the rule of human population, but the exception we seek to remedy. Thus while I understand there are areas of extreme conflict and deprivation in the world, the very existence of areas of the world where there is not, means “child labor” is being abolished as a global norm and standard, and should be the dire exception needing remedy. This includes, and will help mitigate, the recruiting of children to join militia, children stolen into sex slavery, and other things needing urgent remedying.. 

But returning to that statement again, let us look specifically at the “ready to have a child” in the context of intercourse. 

As we see often in society, sometimes (older) children, what we call teenagers, end up in an act of intercourse. If it is with an older person, this is rape (the teens ages are described further, below). However, if the intercourse is between two children (presumably, teenagers), this is most likely not rape in the criminal sense, as neither was truly old enough to understand fully the consequences of their actions. This does not mean there would not be punishment, if it turns out there was not consent by one person. 

In general however, as it regards possible pregnancy, while there may be intellectual understanding (by older children) that intercourse can lead to a pregnancy, there is also the matter of judgment, which we of course know is still lacking in children. Thus do we see that the capacity for higher judgment is one of the indications of whether a person is an adult or not, though of course there is not a clear cut definition, as is not, what is judgment. This again is further described in a moment. 

As for an adult male (the one commonly understood to be of adult age) in an act of intercourse with a child, the phrase “ready to have a child” requires some attention. The adult male, then was in full understanding, including in consequence, what this act could lead to, making the crime doubly so. Thus was the act not only the harm of violating the child’s body, but more so with a female child, as the age when menses might have begun is around 10. This is not an unknown fact. 

However if the adult claims not to have known that, this does not eliminate the possible intent to cause a pregnancy, for example, by the excuse “but she did not look like the age when menses had begun.” If so, then the child indeed looked precisely what she is: a child. Then why the intercourse? Thus would the crime of raping a child be admitted right there, by the denial of attempting to cause a pregnancy. 

Now let us look at the actual matter itself of “ready to have a child.” Here, where we are presented some thorny debate as to what constitutes “ready.”

The pro-life movement, especially since the recent Supreme Court ruling, is effectively interpreting this to mean that at the very age when it is possible for a female child to become pregnant, then she is ready. I.e., at whatever she begins menses. We see this being debated now, including the real matter I read about in the news of a 10-year old pregnant child. The matter embroiled several persons in Indiana, all caught in the confusion of the moment. 

The clarity comes, in this and related matters, by the designation, language and use of the word, child. The urgent need for this is apparent via this very terrible case. The lack of clear use of the word child, leading to a child becoming the victim. 

Hypothetically an adult male (though I doubt that particular adult male) might see a 10-year old female not as a child, but as “life.” Not in the general sense of the word life, but draped and illumined in the additional language of “miracle of life”. This is not to say that that is a wrong or bad statement. What I am saying however, is that within the pro-life movement, those are the predominant types of statements, and with such kinds of illumined messaging. Pregnancy that is the “miracle of life”. This crowds out more basic descriptions, first and foremost the one of child. 

Thus a real child, who if seen and overly-glorified in a “life” kind of characterization (vis-a-vis the movement) may cause that child to also be criminally targeted, e.g., in a way that appeals to the pathology of pedophiles.

While we are thankfully talking about rare criminal occurrences and exception-not-rule dysfunctional pathologies, nonetheless must we be a bit more clear-eyed moving forward. Including, how the over-emphasis on the word life in the pro-life movement, sets the stage for some extremism. Thus we note the often religious fervor accompanying the pro-life movement. This is likely due to the extreme framing of the movement itself, by the framing “Life vs Death.” And while the movement does not not understand that pregnancy signals the coming forth of a child, the child is oddly not the movement’s primary messaging. This is seen in the movement’s most visible entity, and slogan, March for Life. And again, the movement that is called pro-life. By contrast, it is not called pro-child. 

Thus while on the surface it might seem I am part of the “pro-life” crowd, in fact do I approach things quite differently. In specific differentiation from the pro-life movement, by emphasizing the child, as opposed to sheer framing by “life versus death.”

To begin, a child, if impregnated, has had multiple harms done onto her and are of a special category of harm, described below. Her pregnancy, thus to be clearly differentiated from an “inconvenience” or a general hardship. Instead, indicative of a clear physical violation, and multiple and categorically unique harms, by the fact that she is a child herself. Abortion is not only “permissible” in this case, but necessary. This is both for physical and moral reasons.

Yet, if the entire argument I make is of designating life inside the womb as child, isn’t this still failing to solve the debate? Because it is still life? And would not that then be why the pro-life movement has simplified all matter inside the womb indeed, as life? Thus their mission to prevent the ending of it, to prevent life becoming death? Am I now simply confirming the pro-life message, that this would be the killing of a child inside the womb? 

For a moment, I make the common sense point that a child, even if having begun menses, is not ready to “bring a child a into the world.” This is obviously so for a 10-year old child. More on older age children (i.e., teenage females) in a moment. 

In the meantime let us return to the two words, termination and execution. 

Execution, we associate with the act done to persons who have done bad, unholy things. Outside its moral tones, in basic terms is the ending of a person’s life by an action done onto the person causing that person’s life to end. 

Termination, by contrast, while also indicating the end of a life, is not necessarily due to an action done onto the life. Thus can it mean the coming to the end of life, but not necessarily due to an action done onto it.

How do these apply to the abortion/anti-abortion debate now?

First, the fetus is a child, though an early-stage of child. This designation applies from the moment a pregnancy test can be done. Thus are there many stages even within fetus, but “pregnancy test” is the test we apply, for people are taking the tests not because they wake up one morning curious to know the pH of their urine, or to see if they should wear a mask to work. Or for that matter, to plan the next 9 months of their life. They are taking them to know if they must plan for the next 18+ years. I.e., if there is a child growing inside the womb. The entire “baby shower” industry is testament to the common-sense knowledge that there is a child growing inside the womb. 

If a child-rape occurs, as described to follow, this encompasses arenas of both “termination of pregnancy” and execution. We say execution, to identify the true potential crime that has been done to a raped female child, for it can be the equivalent to her death sentence. 

The child who has been raped, has had something done onto her. Her in this case, since we are talking about of a different category and plane altogether, than other crimes. This is because a fundamental violation regarding the very definition of child. 

The pregnancy is now of a different category, because it contains within it and materially itself signals, not a child coming forth in the world, but a cruel contradiction: a child carrying a child, like a cage-fight. The child, if forced to carry out a pregnancy, is setting potential stage for a child to be sacrificed for the sake of another child. The additional cruelty is that this is occurring within the child’s very body. The death / sacrifice fates of both, are now interlocked.

Sacrifice is an extreme word, but used on purpose, precisely to make the extreme point. A child having to bring a child into the world, is of a different category of violation than a simple attacking harm. A harm for which I shall seek to find the appropriate unique word to describe (as it eludes me for the moment what that word would be). A word that would convey the very specific strain of cruelty - and horror - of pitting one child life’s against another.

Termination of pregnancy is thus an applicable term in this case, because it is the termination of the cruel cage fight itself. However is it not pretending where a child’s life was not lost, i.e., sacrificed. More like, given a death sentence, by the criminal -- who is not the child carrying the child inside. If not, then it is a death sentence and virtual execution, of the child victimized into having to host such a cruel fight, inside her. 

The harm and cruelty done to her, thus more akin to a sickness, and indicative of the heights of dystopia and deviancy we have reached in America, if a mere child is put in the effective position of potentially having to sacrifice her own life to bring another child into the world. 

It is all the more dystopian to the degree we do not see it that way. As a result, the world we live in, the one where books are written such as “the Hunger Games” - and more so, think it is normal for such a book to be published. And more so, to be marketed to children. How is this not a sickness? The story of children killing children, normalized to the point that the book became a movie.

Thus do we begin to see the crisis level proportions America has reached, and more so, to see it in its scope and scale of sickness. The dystopian sickness of children being slain across America - and yet because we normalized horror stories such as the Hunger Games, failed to actually characterize it all as dystopian sickness.

Instead, we called it “wrong”, we called it a “tragedy.” We called it by bland slogans such as “No More Silence End Gun Violence” and “Time For Change Not More Prayers”. 

However did we never call it out for the sheer sickness and dystopian deviancy that it really is. Nor make did we make the connection to cultural tropes such as those seen in those movies - the tropes circulated sometimes by the very persons decrying such school shootings, especially the ones of children shooting children.

The most harmful, damaging way America does so, is by failing to clearly call out the horrifying crime of raping a child. Thus has America normalized indeed, the raping of the children of America. We do not understand it that way, because they come in the form of guns. This of course, would be an entire telling in and of itself which is beyond the scope of this writing here.

These matters are not unrelated to America’s origins in English history, and continuance of it, by praying to its Bible written by King James who tortured and burned women at the stake -- probably most of all, those who were pregnant. The pregnancy executions glorified by way of the Christian Bible, then settled into, and established by places like Jamestown VA.

And then unquestioned for over 400 years, are now surprised at the American “victory” culture it has culminated into. Including by the well-intentioned, but nonetheless, fundamentally war-like and holy mission of “life versus death”. That, instead of simply using the word child. Thus perhaps might a child think he is an adult, and acquire some semi-automatic weapons to prove it. Specifically by trying contrast himself from other children -- by killing them. However in fact was he a child himself - the one killing other children, the narrative spun in his own hometown, for which the author undoubtedly was lauded, revered. The narrative perhaps he wanted too, the one that made him feel “victorious” - until realizing the horror he had laid in blood and slain children, then shot himself. 

However do we use the word life, and in the near-hysteria to ensure a “miraculous life” is brought into the world, even if it means sacrificing a child to make that point, have we indeed frame the world in Life and Death -- and the children, who are its greatest and most tragic victims. This is not just a tragedy at this point, but indeed, a sickness, and a dystopian deviancy, and horror show.

The horrifying state of affairs in America we have reached, when a child is raped and impregnated then faced with the prospect of having to die to satisfy some requirement of “miracle of life”. These must be seen as some of the most immoral crimes of a human society.

However, do we not perceive it as a crime when the abortion/anti-abortion debate remains trapped in trappings indeed of “life vs death” -- rather than the reality of a child. 

The pitting of lives, of one child versus another. And of having placed a child in a position of having to risk her own life, for the one inside. I.e., because it is a matter of actual physical viability, as children are not actually physically ready to safely bring a child into the world (carry out a pregnancy). thus do we see that it violates the very meaning/state/existential state that is life.

This does not mean that the definition of the fetus, changes from that of a child. Thus do I not deny that an abortion of a fetus-child, would indeed be the killing of a life - and yes, the killing of a fetus-child. 

However would it be nonetheless done due to the singular, and hopefully extremely infrequent situation of an impregnated child. That child’s life that comes first - including, because it was due to a harm that came to her. By very fact of her being impregnated was it a harm, for very fact of her being a child. I.e. as should be obvious by now, and as mentioned, it is the automatic crime of rape when there is an intercourse act with a female child by an adult male. 

However again, to the extent that this presents a sick, dystopian contradiction, must the penalizing of the rapist be severe, to signify the multiplying nature, including in sickness, that is the crime of raping a child. The crime that cannot be denied, including by denying knowing the child is of menses age, which would also be the crime of intent of future harm, in a potential pregnancy. The particularly cruel and dystopian harm, of forcing a child into a position of having to abort a child, or risking her life to bring the child into the world. 

The scale of the crime would be punished by these scale and multiple too, to deter such future crimes by others. And again, shall come with a special terminology, perhaps a frightful one, to characterize it accordingly. To the degree the rape of a child was thus so particular in its dystopian cruelty, including to force the choice of one child versus another, would the characterization be akin to permanent character assassination of the rapist, in addition to imprisonment, and likely also, chemical castration. 

The unmistakable and multiple penalty to the child rapist, would be such as to seek to cancel out the harms done onto the child, to the furthest possible extent. However as these are psychological harms too, is there never complete justice. Nonetheless must there be attempt to recompense the psychological harm done to a child having to go through an abortion. However would this obviously be considered the lesser harm than the child trying to carry out the pregnancy, which could lead to the ultimate harm of all, and most final one, of the pregnant child’s death. And then would the point of pro-life would indeed be moot. The attempt to carry out the pro-life mission of not allowing a life to die, causing two lives to die in the process.

Returning thus to termination versus execution. The forcing of a child to carry out a pregnancy, would be the equivalent to executing a pregnant woman. However would it be accomplished, by the opposite. Thus to recap, in pregnancy-executions, the death of the child was accomplished by killing the woman, though it was thought of, as the automatic termination of pregnancy by way of her death.

In the case of child rape, would it be the potential of two lives dead. And similar to pregnancy-executions, by focusing on the one to effect the deaths of two. This time however, not by the execution of the pregnant female, but by the not-terminating of pregnancy of the female and letting the pregnant child, “live.” However, since there is high potential of her death, is is the effective sentencing of her life and that of the unborn, thus two lives dead. 

Thus did I use the word “female” in both instances -- although the females are of different age. In the pregnancy-execution, the female is of an age capable of bring a child forth into the world. If she were not age-capable, they would not have bothered with the execution, knowing she had little chance of survival - i.e., because she herself was a child. Let us recall there were ancient times ago (minimum 3000 years ago). Pregnant female adults had dodgy chances of survival, let alone pregnant female children. 

Thus to reiterate: in ancient times, they would not have bothered executing a pregnant female child, because they knew the child had little chance of survival. However is the point not about lack of modern medicine, obstetrics and gynecology. It is the point that they sought to execute the unborn child by executing the female - as they only sought to do to hide the cruelty and criminality, of the rape done to her. However was it simply considered the terminating of a pregnancy. The ancient practice, unexamined for thousands of years, leading to the modern practice today of “terminating a pregnancy.” I.e., abortion, the practice accepted by most modern women, as an option.

Now back to the pregnant child, also the result of rape. While executing a pregnant woman would cause the unborn child to die, it is opposite with a pregnant child. It is her letting her live to carry out the pregnancy that would likely cause the unborn child to die - and the pregnant child too. Not just because of the trauma, but she might even try to die at her own hands, to spare herself the agony of a drawn-out death. 

Thus again by framing the matter within the one of execution, do we understand the morality - this time, the abortion being the most moral act when we are taking about a pregnant child. The one not only unlikely to survive the pregnancy without permanent injury, but possibly not even with her life. We are additionally clarified in our understanding, that is, in the real bounds of morality, by way of the criminal violation that is rape. The rape, that caused a pregnant female to be executed .. or not executed. One or the other form of execution, depending on the age of the female, to accomplish the goal of killing the unborn child. 

Thus again, the high morality in the case of a pregnant child, to allow the abortion. And because “allowing to live” was the actual form of execution, of a pregnant child. I.e., a raped child.

Termination of pregnancy, will thus be now no longer be some mere bland medical term, of zero association with and relation to the full concept (and history) of pregnancy-execution, and the failure to understand this how this has led to our modern-day frames today. Thus must we not be casual with the term called “termination of pregnancy” known as abortion, which must be understood beyond simply being a medical procedure. The cruel situation of a child having to abort a child, is thus considered both a termination of pregnancy, as well as a form of killing. The cruelty to the pregnant child placed in such a terrible position, will thus be acknowledged, addressed by the full suite of penalties applied to the criminal offender, as described. 

We know this is true, because English royals have known it the same -- the truth underlying its entire history from early Tudor to now. In the 15th century, a 13-year old child forced to carry out a pregnancy, at the near cost of her own life and only by sheer luck did she live. However from there came the chain of disaster, in impregnation, death, folly, execution of wives, mothers, dystopian hell. Thus while some might say, despite how disastrous, how can you deny that those people were born out of the survival of Lady Margaret Beaufort? 

I do not. Nor do I deny that they are very aware of the tenuous spot they have occupied in the life-death chain -- the one that when borne of the rape of a child, led to permanent internal damage to Lady Margaret’s reproductive organs rendering her unable to have more children. 

This led to power struggles in England and the event called the War of the Roses. This is not because she had only one child. It is because of the physically-traumatic birth that set the very specific cruel stage wherein English fought English, or as they might say, brethren against brethren. As God might say, Cain vs Abel. I.e., children against children. Therein, leading to Henry VIII thinking it was perfectly normal to kill members of his family, the spousal equivalent of like kin killing one another, in lopping off the heads of his wives. His child who would be so traumatized by it (Queen Elizabeth I), she would go on to have zero children of her own. While some may say this was the price of the English dynasty, in America we should know better - and seek to be heirs of something different, and higher. 

Let us go now to the exceedingly unpleasant subject of incest. These cases shall also call for abortion, if wished by the pregnant female (which would likely be the case). If her wish is contradicted by the male, then we know it was not only incest but a rape, for the mere fact that there was a crime to begin with in incest. The denying of this by the male (i.e., failure to know it is taboo) would automatically also deem the act not only incest, but rape (if the male wishes the pregnancy to be carried out to a born child.) Thus does the similar logic apply here, as the dystopian sick crime of raping a child. 

If the male contradicts the female’s wish for an abortion, then we know not only was it rape, but rape in order to continue incest. I.e., the sickness not only of the act, but of wanting the act to result in children. This then becomes of a higher category of harm and crime, for it can negatively impact the health of society.

Thus is a sickness test applied, as seen in child rape and incest, on whether abortion in acceptable (and necessary). Thus shall this also apply to rapes to the disabled, mentally-impaired, and adult females who by all common sense do we know would not have been able to defend themselves and/or understand what is happening. Thus would such acts summon our gut reaction of sickness, and of a deranged situation. This thus includes for adult females lured into cults, sex enslavement, thus would of course be rape. However does the sickness test enable a specific additional component of criminality to be applied, that would also make indisputable the need to get an abortion. 

All that said, we return back to the matter of the age of a pregnant child, and at what age it is considered child rape. This will be a type of metric overall, of what constitutes the age is the child becoming an adult. 

We shall be careful using the phrase “constitutes the age” as constitution also means, material body. This shall not apply uniformly to all other matters of American society, such as age to purchase cigarettes, join the military, and in general be considered a legal adult. These must be figured out for a new Corpus Americana. 

However the following thoughts are indicative of a philosophic / moral / materially practical basis from which those other age-determinations should consider and not be inconsistent. Also shall those keep in mind the goal of extending the lifespan age of the American people as a whole, to allow them live longer. To not only live longer, but more happily, healthier along the way. 

Thus is it said here, that we still base our age laws by comparing modern society, to times of ancient wars 2000 years ago. While the human body has not really changed since then, our understanding of it has -- specifically, the time it takes to reach psychological maturity (=capacity for higher judgment), but also, inner reproductive maturity. 

I turn for the moment to the subject of recruiting for war. If America were faced with a world war, it might have to begin conscription. This might include conscripting males at age of 17. Or perhaps younger, ages 16, 15, 14 and perhaps younger than that. In ancient times, males were sometimes forced to go to war at age 10.  While this sounds extreme, would it not align with America’s guns-obsessed culture? 

A world war would no longer be a fictional book or video game, but a real battlefield. Today, would turn into an endless, multiplying battlefield of brutal, catastrophic proportions. By mid 21st century, would result in a decimated population of America, and possibly no America at all.  

Returning to inner-reproductive organs, and children. 

Only recently is it becoming known the high mortality rates of female children, giving birth. Thus to clarify, I am talking about the maternal mortality rate of children having to give birth, not the mortality rate of the born-child which is a separate statistic and likely high too.

The statistic has a very distinct crossover line, at around age 20. While we think “younger is healthier” in fact under the age of 20, does the maternal mortality rate increase significantly. Under the age of 19, it doubles. 

This may also be due to depressed financial/economic conditions leading to inferior quality of care. However, given that most studies on maternal mortality rate have a race aspect to them (black women vs white women), must we also judge those assessments as being made based on the assumption of race (and perhaps with some political motivation). I do not deny that there is inferior care in certain areas, and societal injustice. Everything I present herein, is implicit recognition of this fact. However to the degree this is a heated political issue, must we step away to look objectively, with common sense. 

Common sense tells us to consider the most important relevant thing regarding birth, which is the actual reproductive organ of the female from which birth occurs: the womb. Wouldn’t it make the most common sense, to begin there? Of course it is. But by fact that we do not begin there, should trigger our common sense to tell us that the reason for the high-mortality rate of females under the age of 20, are due to origins we have not examined yet -- to the degree we outwardly attribute it to the socioeconomics of race.

Thus do we go to the unexamined area, the womb. 

It is better we assume now, rather than many tragedies later, that female children are unable to safely support a pregnancy to full term, until they themselves are age 19. 

In American culture, adulthood is considered to begin around 16 leading to 18. We can understand the matter more clearly, through the matter of abortion. The “age of adulthood” should increase from 18 to 19. 19 years would thus also be the age until which an abortion is permitted, however, not through “abortion clinics”. Hospital and full-medical facilities should be the only permitted abortion providers.

Existing abortion clinics should become pregnancy support transition centers, and monies invested into them to begin that process. Endowment funds from women’s education should be applied here, to accelerate the process. 

Every student in such an institution (and other liberal institutions) of academic major “women’s studies” should have requisite training/education in such centers, such that theories take root in the real world. By contrast, currently we see college-aged student weighing in as adult experts, yet not having children themselves. We note that college students usually declare an academic major by sophomore year, which is around age 19, and this is considered a big decision. These same-age persons also think themselves able to weigh in on matters of child, and childbirth. 

Returning to age and rape punishments. 

As there is some increasing maturity (judgment) from age 16 upwards (in this case, as to the consequences of intercourse), the punishment-level against adult males committing sexual crime to such teen-aged females decreases  as the age of female victim increases from age 16 to 19. This decrease would not be incremental but correlate to non-linear psychological development from ages 16 to 19.

The “child rape” designation would nonetheless remain at age 17 (what we call now statutory rape). The most severe of penalties (including chemical castration) would be requisite considered punishment for harm done onto females from age 16 and younger. It would not necessarily be a requisite considered punishment for male adult sexual crime against females 17 and up. Chemical castration would be automatic punishment for rape by adult males against female children 14 and younger.

Punishment for offenders against females of age 16 and younger would include pedophile-targeted “character assassinations.” I.e., deliberately going beyond “sex offender registries” that few people are aware of, or read. These would include highly public humiliations, for which there would be dedicated community-board areas depicting their photos, convictions, and most of all, what were their claimed defenses. Thus to warn community members the kinds of tricks, excuses, ploys used to rope in their victims. I.e., their trademark brand of delusion, dystopia. Thus is “character assassination” the correct way to describe the punishment on the criminal, of purpose not only to warn others, but to dismantle their criminal, sociopathic pathologies which the criminal apparently did not think were pathologic, but of good character. This would thus be done for their own good to dismantle their self-delusion of having “character”, the delusion of harm to themselves as well as society.

Such punishments would not be retroactive, and would only begin upon implementation of a new body, Corpus Americana. Thus are criminal and criminally-leaning persons strongly urged to change their ways now. 

For rapes against females age 20+ would penalties be less severe, but clear punishment nonetheless. Abortions would be an option for those rape victims, but again, from hospitals / full medical facilities alone. There shall be provided extra support to rape victim females ages 20+ deciding to bring the child forth into the world. Again however, does this assume new specific systems, to make possible the implementation of this economically, in America.

For all other females age 20 and up, abortion would not be allowed. It is assumed if a female can declare herself a “women’s studies” major at age 19, she is smart enough to not put herself into a situation leading to the point where she now wants to have an abortion. 

A 20-year old female is able to figure out how to use contraception, which can be as simple as a condom. Or just say no to the man in the first place. In lieu of this, realize she might still barely be an adult, and maybe still a child, inside. 

Intercourse is not some American right, though American books, movies, songs seem to suggest it is - which begins at an early age in America. The same American nation, for the sake of profit, thinking it is fine to market books about children-killing-children ... might be the same nation creating an existentialist citizenry believing it had better get what it can while it can, i.e., before they are picked off at an early age. Thus may they find solace in some teen drama leading to unwanted pregnancy.

Now, in the cases of rape / sickness of offender, this is different. However, abortion cannot be used a form of contraception for “adults” from the age of 20 and above, which abortion has effectively become. 

Barring rape / sickness of offender, if a young woman just over the age of 20 living in the so-called superpower of the world whose concerns generally fall under the category of “first world problems” finds herself wanting an abortion, she is not really an adult. 

However did she think she was, while simultaneously not preventing herself from being put in a wanting-an-abortion position. Thus do we realize wanting an abortion, by women closer to 20 years of age than not, is actually a sign she is still not quite mature. 

However to the degree she insists, can we surmise abortion for women in the barely-over-20 range, is indeed being used as a form of contraception to enable a certain kind of lifestyle. 

For women well above 20 years of age, there is very little reason how she could arrive to the point of an unwanted pregnancy now wanting an abortion, barring reasons of rape / sickness of offender. 

Finally and additionally, abortion is necessary for pregnant females whose lives are at risk, assuming the unborn child would not survive out of the womb in ICU. If survival is possible, it would not be an abortion, but a caesarian section delivery.