Proving That the Royal Families of Seven Countries Are Related (and Inbred)

 

Click, open in new tab, and download

to view in full resolution

Created and published on April 16th, 2021

Edited on April 28th, 2021
Expanded on June 23rd, 2021

Prince Philip's Death Prompts Realization That He and Elizabeth Were Incestuous Imperialists

     Since Prince Philip died on April 9th, people have been talking about how Philip and Queen Elizabeth were related, and about how dozens of countries received their independence after Elizabeth became queen, meaning that she and her husband were incestuous colonizers.
     I want to confirm this, and add the following five details:

 

     1. Fifteen countries in the world are arguably not real countries, because they are not fully independent nor sovereign; but are actually still protectorates of the United Kingdom. These include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Jamaica, six other small island nations in the Caribbean, Belize, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

     2. Forty-eight countries have become independent from Britain since Elizabeth became Queen in 1952. Only thirty-two of these countries are fully independent; it’s arguable that twelve of them – twelve of the fifteen I mentioned above – are still under British control, because these realms are still British protectorates.

     3. It has been reported that Prince Philip was the third cousin of Queen Elizabeth, because they were both great-great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria. However, that is not accurate.
     That's because Prince Philip's father, Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, was the son of George I of Greece, son of Christian IX of Denmark; while Queen Elizabeth's father, George VI, is the son of George V, son of Alexandra of Denmark, daughter of Christian IX.
     This makes Queen Elizabeth and her late husband Prince Philip second cousins once removed (because she is the daughter of Philip's second cousin, George VI).

     Prince Philip’s mother was Princess Alice of Battenberg. Her brother was Louis Mountbatten, making him Prince Philip's uncle. Louis Mountbatten, formerly Battenberg, was a suspected child molester, and he was killed by the I.R.A. in the late 1970s. When he was a child, Louis Mountbatten wanted to marry his cousin Maria Romanov, the grandduchess of Russia whose younger sister was Anastasia.
     Here's how Maria and her siblings - "O.T.M.A.A." (standing for Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei) - are related to Uncle Dickie (i.e., Louis "Dickie" Mountbatten): Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, married Louis, Prince of Battenberg. That couple gave birth to Louis Mountbatten. This makes Maria Romanov and "cousin Dickie" (Louis Mountbatten) first cousins.
     If Maria Romanov had not been murdered, and she had gone on to marry Louis Mountbatten, then the English-born Louis Mountbatten would have become one of the dukes or princes of Russia.

     Tsar Nicholas and Alexandria, the parents of Maria and Anastasia, were closely related as well. They were third cousins; because both Nicky and Alix were the great-great-grandchildren of King George III of Britain and Ireland.
     Maria Romanov's father, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, was the son of Maria Feodorovna of Denmark, also known as Dagmar. Dagmar's mother was Louise of Hesse-Kassel, the daughter of Louise Charlotte of Denmark. Louise Charlotte's father was George III, and her brother was Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Stratheam.
     Prince Edward married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg and Salfield, and they had a daughter who became Queen Victoria. Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, her first cousin once removed. Their marriage begat Edward VII and Princess Alice. Princess Alice married Louis IV, Grand Duke of Hesse. Their marriage begat several daughters, including Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, and Alexandra (who married Tsar Nicholas II and gave birth to Maria).
     Thus, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei Romanov were descended from King George III of England through both their mother's and father's sides of the family.

     Queen Victoria had originally objected to the marriage of Nicholas to her granddaughter Alexandra, but the two married anyway, and had five children, none of them strong enough to be king.
     Probably owing to Nicky and Alix's third-cousins relationship, and to the high probability that the children of incest will inherit recessive genes, Queen Victoria passed hemophilia down to Prince Alexei, through Alexandria and her mother Alice. Alexei's hemophilia caused him to bleed non-stop whenever he was injured, which made the Russian royal family consider turning to Rasputin for help.
     See the link below to see the seven-family royal tree:
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/proving-that-royal-families-of-seven.html

     A marriage between Louis Mountbatten and Anastasia Romanov thus would have resulted in severely inbred offspring; even more severely inbred than Prince Charles is.

     4. The British royal family is related to the royal families of six other countries.
     The British Mountbatten-Windsor family and the Russian Romanov family are branches of the Glucksburg family (whose castle is in northern Germany, despite the fact that there is currently no king of Germany). In fact, of the ten European countries that still have royal families, seven of them are related. That’s right; the royals of seven European countries are actually one big happy family: the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, and Norway. Combined, this royal family owns or protects a whopping 58 countries and territories; seven European countries, fifteen countries that are protectorates of the U.K., and thirty-six other territories.
     The full list is available at the link below.
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/these-fifty-eight-countries-and.html

    

     5. In 2005, Prince Harry wore a Nazi armband to a party. It’s possible that it was a reference to his family’s Nazi and imperialist history.
     In 1936, Queen Elizabeth’s uncle, King Edward VIII, abdicated the throne, and married a commoner, Wallis Simpson, in 1937. After Edward VIII abdicated, the line of succession fell to his brother George, who became George VI. George VI was Queen Elizabeth's father.
     Queen Elizabeth's aunt, Wallis Simpson, was rumored to have had an affair with Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. It seems likely, based on history, that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer, and probably also a collaborator. It's possible that secret British fraternization with Nazi Germany weakened the U.K. in the years, and made them susceptible, before the war, to falling for Hitler's tentative dream of a British-German alliance and potential joint empire.
     If Wallis Simpson and Ribbentrop had had a child, and passed it off as Edward's, then the secret son of a high-level would be on the British throne today.

 

     History is brutal. It looks like Harry wanted to get out of the family before everybody found out just how bad and extensive its history with incest, imperialism, colonialism, and Nazism really is.

 

 

 

Written and Published on April 15th, 2021
Edited on April 21st and 28th, 2021

[Note: This article incorrectly reported, previously, that Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra of Hesse were not related by blood. They were related by blood, however; they were third cousins. This error was corrected on April 28th, 2021.] 

These Fifty-Eight Countries and Territories Are All Subject to the Same Royal Family

     In my opinion, the following list of fifty-eight countries and territories, should actually be considered the same country. I say this because they are all subservient to the same royal family.

     The British royal family is related to the royal families of six other countries: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, and Spain.
     The Windsors were formerly known as the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (or the House of Saxe, Coburg, and Gotha). The top ten people in line for the British throne are also Glucksburgs, a branch of the Oldenburg dynasty which has ruled Denmark since the 1400s. For all intents and purposes, these families are all the same family, because (with the exception of the Netherlands), they all descend from King Christian IX of Denmark (1818-1906).
     Still, the Dutch royal family is descended from Paul I of Russia, whose grandson Alexander II of Russia married Maria Feodorovna, also known as Dagmar. Her father was King Christian IX of Denmark. This means that the Dutch branch of the family is the least closely related, among the royal families of those seven countries, being that the Dutch branch is the only one of the seven that cannot claim direct descent from Christian IX.

     This means that all territories controlled by those countries, are part of an empire which owe their fealty to one or another member of the House of Windsor-Mountbatten / Saxe-Coburg-Gotha / Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. 

1. Anguilla (U.K.)

2. Antigua and Barbuda (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)

3. Aruba (Netherlands)
4. Ashmore and Cartier Islands (Australia)

5. Australia (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
6. Australian Antarctic Territory (Australia)
7. The Bahamas (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
8. Belgium
9. Belize (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
10. Bermuda (U.K.)

11. Bouvet Island (Norway)
12. British Antarctic Territory (U.K.)

13. British Indian Ocean Territory (U.K.)
14. British Virgin Islands (U.K.)
15. Canada (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
16. Cayman Islands (U.K.)

17. Channel island of Jersey (crown dependency of U.K.)
18. Channel island of Guernsey (crown dependency of U.K.)
19. Christmas Island (Australia)

20. Cocos (Keeling Islands) (Australia)

21. Cook Islands (New Zealand)
22. Coral Sea Islands (Australia)

23. Curacao (Netherlands)
24. Denmark

25. Falkland Islands (U.K.)
26. The Faroe Islands (Denmark)
27. Gibraltar (U.K.)
28. Greenland (Denmark)
29. Guyana (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
30. Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)

31. Isle of Man (crown dependency of U.K.)

32. Jamaica (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)

33. Jan Mayen (Norway)
34. Luxembourg

35. Montserrat (U.K.)
36. The Netherlands

37. Netherlands Antilles (Netherlands)
38. New Zealand (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)

39. New Zealand's Antarctic Territory (New Zealand)

40. Niue (New Zealand)
41. Norfolk Island (Australia)

42. Norway

43. Norway's Antarctic Territory (Norway)
44. Papua New Guinea (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
45. Pitcairn, Ducie, Henderson, and Oeno Islands (U.K.)
46. The Solomon Islands (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
47. Southern Base Territories of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (U.K.)
48. St. Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha (U.K.)
49. St. Kitts and Nevis (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)
50. Saint Lucia (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)

51. Sint Maarten (Netherlands)
52. St. Vincent and the Grenadines (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)

53. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

54. Svalbard (Norway)

55. Tokelau (New Zealand)
56. Turks and Caicos Islands (U.K.)
57. Tuvalu (ostensibly independent, but under protection of U.K.)

58. Spain

Note:

     I have previously written about this topic; in my April 2019 article "Regarding the Surviving Royal Families in Europe", which can be read at the following link:
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/04/regarding-remaining-european-royal.html

     See the link below to see the seven-family royal tree:
     http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/proving-that-royal-families-of-seven.html

Compiled and Published on April 16th, 2021

Is This Ashley Biden's Diary?: Document Leaked in October 2020 Details Sex and Drug Abuse

     Ashley Blazer Biden's supposed diary leaked in October 2020. It was supposedly written during Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign. The diary came to my attention in early February 2021.

     It is worth noting that the leaks of Hunter Biden's private photographs - which appear to show him having sex with an underage girl - went public in October 2020, and then again in January 2021, when I became aware of them.

     Summaries of the diary state that the author of the diary - which is signed "Ashley Blazer Biden" - details the compulsive sexual behavior, and drug abuse, which she had endured in the past, as the result of Joe Biden's inappropriate behavior. These behaviors apparently included having Ashley shower with him, and possibly other sorts of inappropriate touching, which the author does not describe in detail.

     The diary also claims that someone named "Caroline" - presumably Ashley's cousin Caroline Biden (whose father is James Biden) - was also abused in some way.

     According to NationalFile.com, which released the diary, Ashley Biden's drug addiction was well-publicized in 2009. The people at NationalFile claim that they are in contact with a whistleblower who knows the location of the diary, and they claim that there exists audio tape of Ashley Biden admitting that this is her diary.

     However, none of that has, thus far, been verified.

     The three links below lead to a document which appears to be the diary of Ashley Blazer Biden, the daughter of President Joe Biden.

     http://nationalfile.com/exclusive-source-biden-daughters-diary-details-not-appropriate-showers-with-joe-as-child/

     http://nationalfile.com/full-release-ashley-biden-diary-reveals-child-sex-trauma-drug-abuse-resentment-for-joe-whistleblower/

     http://vimeo.com/496000358

A sample of the diary

Note: Caption added by theNationalFile.com

     The next four links lead articles and blogs speculating about the veracity of the diary.

     Lenora Thompson's article is thoughtful. While reading it, keep in mind that compulsive sexual behavior and drug use and abuse are common symptoms of child sexual abuse.

     http://www.independentsentinel.com/diary-of-joe-bidens-daughter-showers-with-my-dad-probably-not-appropriate/

     http://thejewishvoice.com/2020/10/ashley-bidens-alleged-journal-circulates-online-is-it-real/

     http://www.lenorathompsonwriter.com/beyondnarcissism/ashley-biden-disturbing-memories-of-creepy-handsy-father-joe-biden-where-was-mother-jill-biden

     http://misbar.com/en/factcheck/2020/10/31/suspicious-ashley-biden%E2%80%99s-diary

     If you wish to study Ashley Biden's demeanor, and/or the dynamics of the family, this is a great clip with which to start. Joe Biden is very involved in his granddaughters' lives, and apparently calls all five of them every day.
     Ashley Biden does not look uncomfortable in this clip, but Joe Biden does come off as unusually affectionate. This, after he was seen forcing his grandson to give him a kiss at Beau Biden's funeral, and kissed a granddaughter on top of her head while that grandson sneered at him in confusion.
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MHpeCMIHkz

     Joe Biden may not have raped or molested Ashley, but it's not hard to understand why someone would think this diary is real.

     For more information about Joe and Hunter Biden's pedophilia and other related scandals, please see the following link, which leads to all the articles and videos that I have produced on those subjects:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/links-to-all-of-my-articles-and-videos.html

Written and published on February 8th, 2021

If You Support Fully Banning Abortion, Here Are Eleven Things You Don't Know You Support

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. List
III. Post-Script on Sexual Ethics
IV. Post-Script on Planned Parenthood
V. Conclusion

Content

I. Introduction

     If you support a total ban on abortion, and/or support treating abortion as if it were murder, then here are eleven things that you also support, by implication. You may not be aware of it, but these are problems which are almost certain to result from the full legal prohibition of abortions.

     In my opinion, any extreme pro-life position, supporting a total ban on abortion, ought to have a general abortion policy which at least attempts to solve each one of these problems, if it is to be taken seriously.

II. List

     1. Dangerous back-alley abortions, and attempts at auto-abortion, including by intentional drug overdose.

     2. Putting abortion doctors in prison (i.e., next to rapists, child traffickers, and murderers of human beings whose mothers have already given birth to them).

     3. Forcing adult women who are the victims of rape, to give birth against their will. (Reminder: Telling a woman that she should have kept her legs closed, does not solve this problem. Not only can pregnancy, male orgasm, and implantation of the embryo, occur without the woman's orgasm; they can all also occur without the woman's consent.)

     4. Putting would-be mothers in prison, next to murderers, and (ironically) rapists.

     5. Treating women who seek abortions as if they were murderers, in the fullest sense possible; i.e, charging them with murder with malice of forethought, and potentially even executing women for seeking (or maybe even simply wanting) abortions.

     6. Forcing female children who have been raped, to give birth against their will. (Reminder: Telling an underage girl that she should have saved herself for marriage, does not solve this problem. Especially if the girl was taken advantage of by a significantly older male partner who ought to be mature enough to consider himself a supervisor of girls in his presence, rather than their potential sex partner).

     7. Executing children for aborting their rapists' fetus. (I consider this tantamount to executing children for the "crime" of getting raped - that is, with several important caveats - provided that the child is female, gets pregnant as the result of that rape, and seeks an abortion to remedy the problem).

     8. Child marriage, and having no punishment for adult men who impregnate underage girls and then intimidate and/or manipulate them into getting married in order to make their relationship acceptable to the law.

     9. Forcing children who were conceived in rape, to be near the father who raped their mother. As of 2017, seven states require a parent to share custody, even if the other parent is a convicted rapist. Allowing a child to grow up near a rapist, and learn their life lessons from that rapist - whether it's their biological father or not - could not only damage the child's ability to acquire a keen sense of ethical judgment, it could even expose the child to the risks of being physically or even sexually abused while in that parent's custody.

     10. The excommunication of women and children who seek abortions, as well as the excommunication of abortion doctors, by the Catholic Church. (That is, if you are a Catholic, and agree with the Church's extreme pro-life position that anyone who gets an abortion should be excommunicated.)

     11. Forcing mothers to give birth in states and regions in which the material conditions supporting childbirth-giving and life are sub-par, and thus not hospitable to the survival of either the mother or the child. These include locations with statistically low survival rates for babies and mothers who have recently given birth, as well as locations plagued by pollution and ongoing environmental catastrophes.

     I should also note that it would be especially absurd to support consequences #7 through #10 of banning abortion, considering the high death rate of women who give birth at especially young ages,  as compared to older mothers.

III. Post-Script on Sexual Ethics:

     Many extreme pro-life Christians, and other conservative groups who tend to oppose abortion, will argue that "not all cultures are equal". The implication of this slogan, to put it tactfully, is to assert that Christian ethics are superior to Islamic ethics. To put it less tactfully, it's to say that Christians are civilized, while Muslims are savages.

     While much of the notion that "Muslims are savages" are based on political and military relations with the Islamic world (especially with the U.S. and Israel), the notion is also motivated by the religions' compared sexual ethics, especially as it pertains to the treatment of women, and adult-child relationships.

     The pro-life, anti-Islamic Christian will often claim that Muslims are not only savages, but child rapists, because the prophet Muhammad married his wife Aisha when she was nine years old, took her virginity at 12, and commanded his followers to do something similar. Christians in the West will also criticize the Islamic world for the prevalence of F.G.M. (female genital mutilation) within it.

     These practices are appalling, as well they should be. But they do not necessarily prove that Christian sexual ethics are superior to Islamic sexual ethics; nor to Jewish sexual ethics for that matter.

     As a reminder, Jews and Christians practice male circumcision (Jews routinely, Christians less often), while eschewing female circumcision (a more radical procedure than male circumcision); while in most majority-Muslim countries, the opposite is true. Moreover, the Jewish coming-of-age ceremonies of Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah are celebrated at the age of thirteen, and there is a passage in the Talmud that says a man has not taken a girl's virginity if he has intercourse with her before she turns three.

     Additionally, Christian sects such as Catholicism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism), Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, have acquired a reputation over the last few decades as being plagued with child sexual abuse. Mormon sect leader and polygamist Warren Jeffs, for example, took brides as young as twelve, while his adult and older teenage brides were slowly manipulated and intimidated into accepting these new wives as their "sister-wives among equals" (although Jeffs' favoritism for his youngest brides nevertheless showed).

     Moreover, there are still states in the majority-Christian U.S. which are plagued with legal and illegal child marriage, as well as low thresholds in age of consent laws. Texas currently prohibits child marriage, but it has more legally married minors than any other state. New Hampshire recently raised its marriage age to 16, while New Jersey and New York still allow the marriage of children between 14 and 16 provided that a parent and/or a judge has given permission.

     Colorado was the most recent state that enforced an age of consent below 16 (it was 15). Many states used to set that age much lower, and some states even went years at a time without such laws in their early histories. Although "Romeo and Juliet laws" allowing teen relationships, are well-meaning, new federal laws establishing a range of ages of consent, is not necessarily a buffer against states having low ages of consent as intended; there's a federal law that accidentally lowered the age of consent laws of twenty states, and accidentally provided young child traffickers a loophole and legal incentive to take their victims over state lines. (And I use the word "accidentally" loosely; it's hard to tell whether these legislators indeed know what they're doing sometimes.)

     Granted, many "hippies" and left-wing groups have too, so it should not be discounted that leftist and liberal cultures experience these abuses too. But that should not figure into the issue of which of the major three Abrahamic faiths are the most attentive to the rights of women and children to be free from men's attempts to force them into sex, marriage, and ritual cutting of the genitals.

     In my opinion, on that issue, the jury is out. Especially if these American state and federal laws providing unreasonably low ages for consent to sex and marriage, are in any way inspired by Christian ethics. And the statement of Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie concerning why he opposed efforts to raise the age of legal marriage in that state - predicated on "respecting the liberty of religious groups" there - leads me to conclude that these laws on sexual ethics are motivated by a desire to stay true to Christian principles.
     And my observation that most of the people who support a low age for legal marriage, also oppose abortion, lead me to wonder whether some of these people simply want to keep child marriage legal for the purpose of raping and impregnating a child, whom they can then use as a brood mare to create children (and maybe even child brides) for them.


IV. Post-Script on Planned Parenthood:

     Finally, I have to comment about several issues related to abortion, which have been raised to me by pro-life libertarian-conservative activist Merissa Hamilton, with whom I've recently exchanged some tweets concerning the role of Planned Parenthood in all of this.
     I do not dispute the allegation that Planned Parenthood overlooks, and fails to report, underage mothers who come into their facilities in order to abort their fetuses, whether conceived in rape or not. While it is a tragedy that people rape children and get children pregnant, it is not the business of Planned Parenthood to act as if it were a law enforcement agency.
     Granted, there are some legal barriers to children, and women in general, reporting rape (because there are statutes of limitations on reporting sexual abuse and sexual assault in many states), but New York and Illinois have recently begun to dismantle such laws, a movement to do the same is underfoot elsewhere in the country, and turning Planned Parenthood employees into police officers is not going to help solve the problem of children suffering from unwanted pregnancies.
     A child who goes into Planned Parenthood is already pregnant, and has already been raped. Going after the child's rapist with criminal charges will undoubtedly make the child safer (if successful), but arresting the rapist does not make the child no longer pregnant. And terminating pregnancies is the business of Planned Parenthood; making arrests is not.

     Lastly, I cannot agree with Merissa Hamilton's assertion that it would be wrong for Planned Parenthood to give an abortion to an underage child because it would be tantamount to destroying the evidence that a rape has occurred. I say this for several reasons.
     First, because a fetus is not evidence that a rape has occurred, any more than it is evidence that a rape has not occurred. You cannot tell, by looking at a fetus - nor by examining its genetics - whether it was conceived in rape. Plenty of pro-lifers, in fact, will try to convince you that the fact that the baby exists, is evidence that the mother consented! This is rubbish, of course, as I explained in my defense of point #3.
     Second, because even if a fetus can be evidence that a rape has occurred, it is far from the only evidence that a rape has occurred. Rape usually leaves plenty of evidence, both physical and emotional. Ripped and bloody clothing and underwear. Torn and bruised genitalia. Emotional and mental scars that can be testified about in open court and sworn to. Aborting a fetus conceived in rape, by no means, gets rid of all the evidence that a rape has occurred.
     Third and last, it is patently ridiculous to describe a fetus as "evidence that a rape has occurred". Pro-lifers spend plenty of time explaining how "every fetus is a unique, innocent gift from God with the potential to do good", etc.. It's quite a leap from praising the holiness of the innocent fetus, to describing it as a mere piece of evidence in a criminal case, no different from any other piece, such as a piece of clothing, a murder weapon, a brick containing a bullet fragment, etc..


V. Conclusion

     To make a play on the popular pro-choice slogan, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child", Merissa Hamilton's absurd assertion that a fetus is criminal evidence, prompts me to make up a new slogan, and that is this:
      "If you can't trust me with a choice, then how can you trust me with physical evidence that a crime has been committed?"
     If a fetus is simply "evidence that a crime has been committed", then shouldn't it be removed from its mother's womb as soon as possible, because it belongs in a police evidence locker?
     Yes, I am joking, and yes, I am serious.

     Pro-lifers are the reason why people abort their children. I don't want children to have to grow up in a world in which they're forced to submit to and marry much older men, and produce more child servants and child brides for them without the chance of legal repercussions.
     In my opinion, anyone who proposes banning abortion, yet doesn't have a solution to at least a few of the eleven problems I've enumerated herein, should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be entertained.

    Even televangelist Pat Robertson recently commented that an outright ban on abortion, without exceptions for rape and incest, is "going too far", especially in terms of its (ahem) viability in court.
     However, I still take a strong anti-government stance that abortions should not be publicly funded, even if the fetus was conceived in rape or incest, but I still think that those procedures should be legal (while funded privately or charitably).
     And when speaking about abortion laws (especially the Hyde Amendment), we should be careful to distinguish between motivations for abortion which are banned from receiving public funding, versus motivations for abortion which would be criminalized outright.

     While it is desirable to "lower the number of abortions", restricting access to abortion is not necessarily the solution to these problems, even if it does achieve that single objective.
     There are other things that can lower the number of abortions, without interfering with mothers' freedoms (freedoms, not positive rights) to get abortions. Namely, 1) keeping abortion legal while encouraging mothers to give their children up for adoption; 2) building a safer, cleaner world that treats children less harshly; and 3) continue to research and develop medical technology which will allow people to choose surrogacy, fetal transplants, and external incubation of extracted embryos, as alternatives to abortion.

To learn more about topic #9, please visit this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/in-7-us-states-rape-victims-can-be-legally-forced-to-share-custody-of-their-children-with-their-rapist-fathers

To learn more about topic #10, please visit this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case

Thanks to Justin Addeo for contributing point #11.

To learn more about the federal age of consent law I mentioned in the post-script on sexual ethics, please visit:

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12

To learn more about the realistic and practical applications of "surrogacy, fetal transplants, and external incubation of extracted embryos" as alternatives to abortion, and the reasoning behind this idea, please visit the following links:
http://www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-to-transplant-a-fetus-from-one-womb-to-another

http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/FetalAdoption.htm
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39693851

http://liberty.me/live/abortion-and-evictionism-with-walter-block/

Based on notes taken on June 4th, 2019

Article (including post-script) written and published on June 5th, 2019
Edited and Expanded on June 26th, 2019