TWO MOURNING DOVES -- IN EGG FORM

Ever wondered what a laid egg of a mourning dove looks like? Well, here are two.
      And they are indeed two mourning doves. A begun (a.k.a. conceived) in a female mourning dove's reproductive system is a mourning dove, & the said begun mourning dove is either a male or a female. Each here featured in this video is at a further stage of development after the beginning of each. Say what one will say, they are in fact doves.
      Even so a begun human being is a human being -- a basic reality that, although infanticide (a.k.a. abortion) supporters try fervently to resist & to deny it for the sake of their selfish cravings & barbaric ideological positions & policies, still stands.
      Those infanticidal who do their utmost to falsely characterize their utterly inhumane position as "women's healthcare," etc, fulfill the apostle Paul's Spirit-granted insightful prouncement in Romans 1:31, namely, "Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful," but, because of their choices to become the lying heartless they have become, they will undoubtedly see the fulfillment of other Scripture passages that promise wrongdoers will be held accountable by the Creator.
      Now, long before legislation such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, Yahweh laid down rules for His people regarding birds, their nests, & their young.  "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam [אֵם, em (ame) -- i.e. 'mother' (Strong's # 517)] sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days" (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). With this regulation, the Creator expressed how that, for one, He desires His own of humanity to be humane, benevolent, good-natured (rf. Matthew 10:16, for "...harmless as doves..."), &, for two, He desires for the normal parental inclination to protect one's young be honored as well as that, for three, an animal being found in such a predicament of being menaced while trying to shield the offspring be excused to go away & have opportunity to reproduce more offspring.
       This lattermost principle even somewhat pertains to human beings in similar plight, but more so with the spiritual aspect in mind, namely that the innocent ought not to be condemned along with the guilty due to a mere relationship, albeit this is not to suggest there is any matter of morality & moral failure on the part of the animals as there is entailed with human beings. Human beings know full well what they do, unless, of course, in cases of severe brain injury that impairs the injured's ability to think & to successfully perform decision-making from calculations of thought -- & this instinctual matter of knowing good from bad, & inherently possessing the power to select which of the two exactly we as humans individually want to identify with & uphold, pertains to the offender, the uninvolved in the commission of the offense, & he or she officially tasked with, or who takes it upon self to be tasked with, parsing through things to arrive at who is guilty from who is not; at who is to be held accountable from who is not to be; at what type & how much punishment to mete out; at who will be impacted by impactful decisions, & how much unimplicated kin or, for that matter, friends of the judged will be impacted by said decisions; etc.
      A baby in the womb of a pregnant woman ought not to be condemned to death because of the choices or circumstances of said woman, &, more to do with the lattermost reason posited as reason for the Deuteronomy 22:6-7 rule, a parent ought not to be condemned with his or her grownup child -- a grownup who chose to commit crime -- simply because the parent is parent to the criminal. Ezekiel 18:20, among others, declares, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
      Now, regarding the second reason posited for the Deuteronomy 22:6-7 regulation & how it relates to the human context, obviously the caveat is the moral restraint incumbent upon the parent to recognize, hold to, & exercise in order that, whereas he or she is indeed the parent of the child involved in transgressions &/or crimes, & loves the same child involved in transgressions & crimes, the parent must not ever condone the grownup child's unacceptable, injurious actions. So Titus 2:3-4's "The aged women...teach the young women...to love their children" & , but also Leviticus 19:15, Exodus 23:3 & 6-8, Deuteronomy 1:16-17, 10:17, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Acts 10:34-25, 1 Peter 1:17, James 2:1, Colossians 3:25, & Romans 2:1-11 with Deuteronomy 13:6-11 (note: under ancient Judaism's Law, but the principles are relevant, &, in these modern times, it is to be understood that judgment shall eventually come from the Righteous Judge upon the offender). (Consider also Proverbs 13:24 & Hebrews 12:5-11.)
      Consider also, for the human context of the honorable normal instinctive parental desire to protect one's own children, 1 Kings 3:26, Isaiah 49:15, Matthew 2:13-21, John 4:46-54, especially verse 49, & Mark 7:25-30. But it was prophesied thousands of years before in the Holy Bible that these matters would be incredibly topsy turvy in these last days -- rf. 2 Timothy 3:1-7 & Luke 12:51-53, albeit the latter of these two passages is about the division that occurs in a household when one or more of the household accepts the Lord Jesus' Gospel while one or more of the same household does not/do not, &, it should be noted that, the unyielding to the Lord Jesus' Gospel are the ones who fulfill the prophecy of 2 Timothy 3:1-7.
      Now, returning to the earlier Deuteronomy 22:6-7 quotation & its teaching, I note that Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament helpfully points to Leviticus 22:28 & the lattermost part of Exodus 23:19 as pertaining to the same divine principles taught in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. Humanness must abide in & be exhibited by the life of he or she who professes to being one belonging to the Creator-Savior's adoption number. Humanness shall be in the life of a genuine child of God who is allowing "the Spirit whereby we cry, 'Abba, Father'" (rf. Romans 8:15 & Galatians 4:6) to nurture & school him or her into spiritual maturity.
      A product of the Spirit's sanctification process in the child of the Almighty, a product that comes out of the product "love," is χρηστότης, chréstotés (khray-stot'-ace), rendered "gentleness" in the KJV's Galatians 5:22, &, the original thought being a bit more complex, to be understood as intending "an assistive benevolence" (Strong's # 5544 & HELPS Word-studies via Bible Hub); moreover, there is ἀγαθωσύνη, agathosune (ag-ath-o-soo'-nay), meaning "goodness" (Strong's # 19) & also πρᾳΰτης, prautés (prah-oo'-tace), "meekness," "mildness" (Strong's # 4240). (Consult Galatians 5:22-23.)
      It should seem strange that it would need to be indicated that if the Almighty expects a mindset holding to the sanctity even of wild animals' lives that causes the right-minded to refrain from cruelty & unnecessary slaughtering of them then the same considerations surely are expected by Him of those who have domesticated animals & pets. However, again, the nature of humankind became so marred by the notorious stray away from the Creator & His order & related commands that occurred in Eden in our incipient progenitors that it is unfortunately not an uncommon thing for there to be incredibly astounding inconsistencies of thought & behaviors. (Hey, there are even some persons who claim to be "Christian" & yet support the infanticide that is somewhat euphemistically called "abortion" & support political parties that fundamentally champion the slaughter of the tiny innocents!)
      A wild beast species one is fascinated by may be honored by the one as much as it is because there is no need for a compassionate & involved commitment to its survival as is necessary in the case of an animal directly under one's own care. And because of the privacy of the situation in the case of pet ownership, individuals devoid of humaneness shall be more inclined to be deliberately heartless & sadistic towards animals under their care.
Or it may be in some cases that it is not so much that there is a nefarious bent in a particular person, a bent stemming from a psychological condition warped by entertaining evil thoughts & desires, but it is rather a matter of insufficient or totally collapsed mentation due to a genuine brain dysfunction or damage that a person is incapable of properly tending to the life of an animal under his or her care. Or it may be that one's situation has become one of impoverishment & therefore providing food & water, hygienic amenities, grooming, shelter & interaction becomes negatively impacted.
      In any event, Solomon spoke to this matter of having domesticated animal's under one's care when he articulated, "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10).
      Earlier we saw "eggs" in the context of Deuteronomy 22:6, right? Well, incidentally, the Hebrew noun בֵּיצָה, betsah (bay-tsaw') is what is Anglicized in that said Deuteronomy passage as "eggs," &, intriguingly, & quite fittingly, betsah is said to be related linguistically to בּוּץ, buts (pronounced boots), which is the ancient cloth "byssus," a thing translated as "fine linen" or "fine white linen" in certain OT passages. Moreover, buts (boots) & thus betsah are derived from a Hebrew root word denoting "to bleach." (Strong's # 1000 & # 948.) This certainly describes the shell of a mourning dove's egg.
      One of my reasons for writing this text to accompany this video "TWO MOURNING DOVES -- IN EGG FORM" is to celebrate the long overdue decision (ruled on Friday, June 24rd, 2022) of the USA's highest (human) court's judges with a conscience & courage to overturn the barbaric practice of killing human babies in the womb, a devilish practice that even the original plaintiff in the "Roe versus Wade" case eventually herself condemned.
       A human being is a human being from the conception of said human being, as noted earlier, & to terminate the life of that unborn child is as much murder as is the killing of a child born. Their little souls go to Him when they are slain, but the Creator-Savior will most definitely judge & sentence to destruction those adults who agree to have them killed & those who do the killing.
      Protect bird's eggs but not developing human babies? And then hypocritical propaganda media personalities ask at homicide scenes, "Were any children among the injured or the dead"? Everybody is not asleep, however, & the awake see through the lies.
       The One who said, "Allow the little children to come unto Me," & who created the doves bless the children! Amen.