Did The God of Israel Provide Legal Means

Did The God of Israel Provide Legal Means To Implement A Postpartum (Following Birth) Termination (Abortion) Of An Undesirable Child? Read and find out ... Of The Life Of An Undesirable Child?

Did The God of Israel Provide Legal Means To Implement

A Postpartum (Following Birth) Termination (Abortion)

Of The Life Of An Undesirable Child?

Written By Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn de Graham

Copyright © 2021 Marvin Thomas Cox

DBA: Flynn de Graham

All Rights Reserved

In sincere attempt of accurately projecting an honest, frank, and candid view of the ongoing controversy that exists, here, in America, as a double standard, wherein there are actively those who profess support of unalienable Human Rights, while negating the reality that such Human Rights must also apply to that of Equal Rights for both men and women, alike -- and such equal rights pursued, vehemently, to fruition's realization without loopholes of bias, discrimination, or differential treatment betwixt the two sexes.

Before continuing, please allow me to share the following in regards to myself, and, exactly that which I believe: I do not support or advocate Organized Religion of any shape, form, or fashion, though I do respect the fact that you may. The preceding fact stated, I consider myself a bit of an oddity's conundrum: I am An Intelligent Design Free Thinking Agnostic-Minded Atheist. I am also, strange as it may sound, a Pro-Life Women's Rights Advocate, as one who defends a Woman's right to choose abortion¹, though, I also believe that adoption is a far better option than abortion if, and only if, a woman so chooses. Matters such a woman's decision as to that which takes place within her own body, are none of my business, none of any man's business, none of anyone's business, but that of an individual woman, alone. Having shared the preceding, let's attempt to answer the question which I have posed within the title of this piece.

To begin our discussion, there are passages within the Old Testament's book of Genesis which Organized Religion makes use of in claiming that the God of Israel twice uttered words commanding men and women, as man and wife, to procreate, in producing children as a result of their marital relationship. To candidly state reality: As an EX-Preacher, I must attest and proclaim that the claims of Organized-Religion -- in regards any and all claimed commandments said to be that of requiring Man, as men and women entering into marriage, to procreate in producing children -- are the totally false teachings and doctrines of men, and are not the commandments of any God(s).

Albeit, it is traditionally taught -- who really knows 3,000 plus years down the road? -- that in those anciently primal days of history, the more children that a man's wife could bear (male chauvinist pig reasoning existing even back then), the more mouths he (poor sexist sap?) had to provide for -- not a single empathetic word said in regards all a woman endures in bearing and rearing children, as though spitting out human puppies is a-not-worth-the-mentioning-cinch.

But, it is also traditionally taught that sons were Biblically considered as, metaphorical, arrows filling their father's quiver, meaning that raising a great many sons made for a stronger defense against attack in times of trouble, more hands to till the soil, more eyes, ears, and feet to tend flocks, and hunt in search of game. A man was head of his family, but his wife was tasked with the responsibilities and hard work of managing the household in preparing and cooking food, maintaining the home and local grounds, and rearing children, all at the same time -- as nothing has changed in 3,000 years for women as wives and mothers. Of course, wives were assisted and aided by as many daughters as she could also bear, aside from that of sons -- destined to the same life of toil in marrying as their mother.

At that time in most ancient history, any thoughts a wife, mother, or single woman might have entertained in consideration of the sheer and utter fantasy of any attempt to live, provide for herself, and survive on her own would have been but wildest thoughts of impossible pipe-dream's aspirations -- and as such, thousands of years before such a term was ever conceived by human hearts and minds.

A woman's survival was directly tied to a necessitated dependency upon a man as her husband as provider and protector. It was such necessity that served to ordain the practice of Polygamy, whereby a man who could provide for more than one wife would do so in order to (marriage-legally play a broader field of women duty bound to his every whim of wants, needs, and desires?) increase the strength of numbers of his given family or tribe, and as an act of providing women without means of providing for themselves the marital offer of, protection, and security of a new family or tribal home.

Any woman without the means to protect and provide for herself would be forced to, either, submit to the wiles of any man or men that happened along or, accept an offer of entering into a polygamous marriage out of pure instinct for her own dignity endowed survival -- most especially, if she already had children that would be brought into such a covenant of marriage, but only if her new husband was kind and merciful enough to allow them to live as an accepted part of his own family.

Thankfully, traditions, customs and necessity's of Human survival of ancient days and times have changed, and with those changes have come the need for equal rights' common sense adjustments and revisions as to how we all treat our fellow Human Beings over the face of this earth -- regardless of their given nationality, culture, religion, language, complexion, sex, or chosen lifestyle.

And so, we must face the reality that times have changed. Today is not yesterday, nor is it ancient Israel, or the Garden of Eden. The necessitated requirements of those ancient days are not the necessities of the modern technological world of today.

In having shared the above thoughts, shall we continue?

First off, within the Old Testament, how does the wording of a truly stated Biblical, as God, declared commandment begin in providing proof of its Divine and God commanded authority?

A few easily recognized examples expressed in my own rendition of paraphrase? “Thus saith the Lord.” “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shall commit adultery.” And so on and so on, until the total is that of the Ten commandments which I am crudely exampling, the wording of which makes clear that they are, indeed, commandments, and not options.

Now, if we take a meticulously-astute and most careful look at the very passages, within Genesis, which Organized Religion claims are God uttered commandments -- commandments which, if they were actually true rather than false -- would, require men and women to procreate and produce children as a result of marriage -- we shall witness the enlightening reality that these passages are, but a few, among quite a number of Biblical passages which Organized Religion intentionally misconstrues, and, thus, which I have self-coined and do here share as the terminology I have, thus, chosen to call, “Twisted Scriptures.”

How can we be certain the following passages (as given and stated, directly below) are not, indeed of fact, commandments? The words, “Thus saith the Lord,” and, “Thou shalt not,” or “Thou shall,” are not -- not as never seen as duly expressed or viewed, as obviously NOT! up in one's face of plainly stated -- contained within the textual body of which we do speak as, therein concisely, viewable, recognizable, but are (damn sure have been, and are) simply presented as, “Twisted Scriptures,” by the high and mighty biased religious views of men -- interpreted and implied by those mortal men playing God as the proponents of none other than Organized Religion. Shall we have a good old fashion look see, take a gander, sneak a peak?

Please do know -- SEE!!! -- and understand: The English language was much more, primitively, different -- within its first beginning stages of arrival as that last to be developed newest language among men as Man of way back's when of 413 years ago -- in 1611 than it currently is of right now's today. In fact, in 1611, there did not exist a “J” sound in the English language, and, therefore, the name Jesus did not yet exist, but was rendered as, Iesus.

A fact of history that is quite an interestingly convenient, altogether coincidental tidbit's, intriguing morsel to be pondered upon? In full view's illuminating light, of evidenced fact: One of the many popularly worshiped (Trinity styled?: Father, Mother, and, Virgin-Born, Child) goddesses of ancient Egypt (prior to Israel's famous Exodus) was (just so happens) famously known as Isis the Great Virgin, as per exampled within the very photo I share just below, and before presenting the first scripture passages as evidence of that which I do speak and share.

And now, shall we examine the passages of the book of Genesis, which Organized Religion has magically transformed into pseudo-commandments?

Genesis 1:28 KJV 1611 -- And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth

Genesis 9:1 KJV 1611 -- And God blessed Noah, and his sonnes, and said vnto them, Bee fruitfull and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Once again: How can we be certain that the above passages are not commands? Because, quite simply, we do not witness (see with our own eyes) the words, “Thus saith the Lord,” nor the words, “Thou shalt not,” or, “Thou shalt,” do this or that. What do we actually see and witness with both of our two discerning eyes? Answer: We see, “And God Blessed.” Fact of Biblical reality? A Blessing is never a commandment to be obeyed, nor an obligatory requirement.

Now, within the Old Testament, God did, allegedly, command the speaking of blessings, or promises of blessings, but blessings, themselves, were never uttered as -- never of ever intended to be received or misconstrued as God spoken, declared, proclamations -- commandments, and ought not, ever, be received as such, by “We The People” -- as publicly educated and normal intelligence level members of our society of right now's today: Average Jane-n-Joe citizens, such as you and I, who damn sure ain't, stupid!

Are there, or do there exist, reliable examples of God uttering directly stated commands within the book of Genesis' Garden Scenario? Yes, there are, as follows, and as does make definitively clear, as per the following photo taken from the passages of the original King James 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible. Again, the reader will be viewing the ancient English language, wherein, at that time in the history of the English language, there did not exist a “J” is for Jesus sound, but that of Iesus:

Below, we witness, yet, another famous example of a blessing that was commanded to be given, while the blessing to be spoken, itself, was simply a statement of blessing's well wishing somewhat in similar fashion as Star Trek's Vulcan salutary greeting of, “Live long, and prosper”-- and never a command to be obeyed:

Numbers 6:22-27 KJV 1611 -- And the Lord spake vnto Moses, saying, Speake vnto Aaron, and vnto his sonnes, saying, On this wise ye shall blesse the children of Israel, saying vnto them: The Lord blesse thee, and keepe thee: The Lord make his face shine vpon thee, and be gracious vnto thee: The Lord lift vp his countenance vpon thee, and giue thee peace. And they shall put my Name vpon the children of Israel, and I will blesse them.

Please also take scrutinous note that God said, “I will bless them,” not I command them.

Having revealed and clarified a few of the “Twisted Scriptures,” deliberately misconstrued by Organized Religion, it is more than obvious that there is not, never was, any command in existence that required that a man and a woman to have children as a result of their marriage. Children, when desired, were treasured assets of increasing family and tribal numbers, for the sake of food, shelter, and protection from aggressors and adversaries. To have children in a marriage was, therefore, a blessing, a privilege (if and when children were desired), and never a commanded requirement that must be obeyed -- or else.

Having absorbed the above shared information, shall we move on towards answering that question which I have posed within the title of this article?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 KJV 1611 -- If a man haue a stubborne and rebellious sonne, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that when they haue chastened him, wil not hearken vnto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out vnto the Elders of his citie, and vnto the gate of his place: And they shall say vnto the Elders of his citie, This our sonne is stubborne, and rebellious, hee will not obey our voice: he is a glutton, & a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that hee die: so shalt thou put euill away from among you, and all Israel shall heare, & feare.

Deuternony 22:21 KJV 1611 -- Then they shall bring out the damosell to the doore of her fathers house, and the men of her city shal stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the w***e in her fathers house: so shalt thou put euill away from among you.

As we do witness above, within the Old Testament, God did, in fact, provide for what could easily be interpreted as postpartum (following birth) termination (abortion) of an undesirable child. Thus, in the eyes of the very God of Organized Religion, is abortion, termination of a child's life, at any point and time of pre-partum² or postpartum, Biblically legal? It does appear as more than, quite, possibly so -- though, be it known that, I would never endeavor to say as such, because, there are those damnable fools who would, who just might, who could still, as ignorantly-zealously-fervent, mind-sight-blinded, radicalism continues to reign (even right now of this now's today) far above that peaceful level of intelligence derived logic and sound reasoning.

But, in speaking of butts: Immediately, the Christian-religious right will exclaim, “That was then, this is now, and those passages could serve to make children virtual slaves of their parents, upon pain and fear of death! It was not right, then, and it is not right now, and, besides all that: Jesus ended the Law!”

I would not disagree, in nonreligious theory, to the above, metaphorically, proposed and very likely statement of the Christian religious right, except to add this valid point as well: If it is wrong to use the Law to enslave children to the will of their parents, if Jesus in fact ended the Law, then why does today's society continue to religiously attempt to use legalities of, “Twisted Scriptures,” to enslave Women, all around this world, in chains of alleged commands that do not exist -- and have never existed?

In fullest view of all of the above shared and stated facts: Why do women NOT HAVE! the same rights of right's-options as does a man? The popular banner of political correctness is that of touting Women's Rights, but the truth is, the whole thing is nothing but a sham, a farce, a total societal stage play's demonstration of blatant hypocrisy. How so?

In today's society, a man is, openly and freely, allowed to make use of birth control, a condom , opt to not impregnate a woman, even that of his own wife, and as such, even, at the risk of a possible divorce. And, if he so chooses, to not see he and his wife have children, have more children, or simply never have any children. In fact of common procedure's occurrence, a man is legally free and able to seek out a doctor of his own preferred choice, and undergo a procedure known as a vasectomy.

Yet, if a woman's female related health issues result in a needed hysterectomy, the man will joking tell her doctor, “Hey Doc, take the baby bed out, but leave the play pen.” Sheer and utter hypocrisy on the part of we men.

If men are so, overly, concerned in regards a woman's business, then, perhaps -- in the not too distant future -- technology will be developed that will allow the concerned man to carry his wife's fetus within his own body for a full nine months -- to bring new life into this world via C-Section, a simple procedure that, albeit, cuts like a knife. And, let us not forget that such a man, beside himself in tear stained heart-wrenching concern of taking on that role a woman endures, would also be duty bound to go to work each day, providing for the needs of his family, just as working wives do for most of the duration of their pregnancies.

I do believe that such a possibility, as theorized above, would aptly serve to stop the mouths of men who are utterly clueless to all which women suffer and endure for the sake of a man that they love. A woman's love for her man expressed in carrying his future child, while continuing her duties as a wife and mother -- an obligatory sacrifice offered by women out of sheer necessity in those most ancient of days, a sacrifice which went largely unnoticed and ignored in those times of way back when, just as they continue to go largely unnoticed and ignored in that here and now of our modern, technological wonders, society of today.

Do the wonders of a man's callously self-centered insensitivity and inattentiveness -- to the daily sacrifices which women make for the sake of their men, for the sake of Mankind's Humanity-- ever cease? Tragically, it appears not.

But, if Humanity is to survive -- if Humanity is to avoid self annihilation and resultant extinction (predominantly it is men who wage war, rather than women) -- there must be realized that change which is true change for all. Those touted and praised United Nations Declarations of Human Rights -- patterned, in part, after the majestic words of America's Declaration of Independence as supporting the equanimity's reality that, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” -- must arrive at the real life's equality doorstep for all, both male and female.

It is paramount that we, as Human Beings, are correctly understanding: That when speaking of “Man,” in speaking of “Mankind,” such terminologies are in fact the literal encompassing of both men and women as one Humanity possessing the identically self-same and essential unalienable Human Rights. Anything else is tantamount to signing Man's death warrant. Our Human survival must be cooperatively and jointly derived by means of fair and impartially applied logic and sound reasoning.

If Mankind is to survive, Human Rights must also apply to that of Equal Rights for both men and women, alike -- and such equal right pursued vehemently to fruition's realization without loopholes of bias, discrimination, or differential treatment betwixt the two sexes.

In drawing this Poetical Prose Poetry Article towards its close:

Consider this twofold fact of reality: If your mother's husband had made a willful choice to insure that he did not impregnate your mother, as per his unalienable Human Rights not to do so, then, her husband would have never become your father, and you would not be here today. You, as you, would simply not exist. The Choice was his, just as it is rightfully yours today.

Likewise, if your father's wife had made a willful choice -- as per her unalienable Human Rights -- to not carry the fetus within her to term, to not give birth, and, thus, to not bring a newborn child into this world -- you would not be here today. You, as you, would simply not exist. The Choice was his or hers, just as it is rightfully yours, be you a him or a her -- today.

Please! Do not allow the -- mind-bending, alienating-whilst-maligning, Americans-Polarizing, Down-Dumbing, Brainwashing-Its-Own-Citizens-Establishment's -- ongoing program, of transforming Human Beings into nothing more than mere Sheeple-People Cattle, to control your thinking and, thus, control your life.

It is more than possible to be Pro-Life and, at the same time, be Pro Women's Rights: Simply mind your own business, leave a woman's business to a woman, leave a man's business to a man, and tend to your own affairs …

An all too surreal, closing point of, our common reality? We men tend to view our wives as property possessed as owned: Been there, done that, in my foolish thinking having resulted in Divorce, and a blessed as lucky's second chance opportunity of remarrying the one and same woman as that light and love of my life that I failed to appreciate that very first time around. Don't let it happen to you, because that which is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Take an honest gander: We men have no desire to be owned by anything or anyone -- and demand to be Free … It is more than high time to set Women Free, and as such of all around the globe of this planet we, self-centered men choose to call Earth ... Think upon that ...

(Written January 22^th, 2024)

1 A woman's right to abortion and to all the facts pertaining to abortion -- The Insidiously Nefarious Hydra Entity That Is The Abortion Industry: https://allpoetry.com/column/16053294-The-Insidiously-Nefarious-Hydra-Entity-That-Is-The-Abortion-Indus-by-CoxFlynndeGraham-noguest )

2 Pre-partum -- from the Latin phrase post partum "after childbirth," from post "after" + partum, accusative of partus "act of giving birth, childbirth," from parere "to give birth to, bring into being" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postpartum