“So Representative King, it’s our opinion that children are only born out of wedlock? Really?”
No. Read what he wrote and think about it. He is talking about one’s genealogy all way back to Adam and the probability that incest played a role somewhere along that genealogical chain.
It is kind of an academic argument as one has little info one way or the other what happened hundreds and thousands of years ago as it relates to their detailed genealogy.
I understand this point that several have made, but I do look at it a little differently.
If a woman intends to have “X” kids, she’ll have “X” kids.
If she was raped, there was incest, or she had kids out of wedlock, or she gets married, she’ll probably have those “X” number of kids.
Whether I was born or not, another kid would likely have been, and it really isn’t all that important that I specifically was born.
His point is that we shouldn’t abort. I think it’s a reasoned point. I don’t care for the rape incest inclusive argument.
Others do, and that’s fine.