Yeah sounds like a good argument, I don’t know if it’s really true or not.
All I do know is that restricting abortion will likely increase the amount of unwanted babies which means increased opportunity for adoptions by gay people.
So I’m not really sure why any gay people are against anti-abortion laws.
The really great thing for people worried about population control is that children who are adopted by gay parents and programmed to be gay are less likely to reproduce. So I guess everything works out in the end, huh…
I have read many women’s stories and actually many women are happy with their child even under the circumstances of rape. They have an innocent child to love and be loved by. They didn’t need added shame by murdering their child. Instead they get to focus on something positive out of their pain and redirect their focus. It happened to someone close to me as well. Her daughter is now happily married and has a nice job. The pain of that experience is there, but she loves her daughter more and feels blessed.
In regards to health issues with the mother, the fetus can survive outside the body at 29-22 weeks gestational age. If unwanted, there are plenty people wanting to adopt babies. If the health of the mother is in question, deliver at 20-22 weeks. So why not give the baby a chance? It certainly would be less painful than abortion to the fetus.
One more thing: freedom of choice extends to all people. That includes those who add the choice of ending a pregnancy within the first 13 weeks. And I say this as a man who has had to suffer this choice being made twice. And it was not paid for by the government with public funds, but by the lady in casu.
Since during this period natural abortive action is possible, you understand why the 13 is a lucky number.
Within this time frame, the choice has always been the woman's without any problems, at least in our western society.
I did not miss it. You are talking in essence utilitarian arguments.
Do your own investigation on this matter. Yesterday, I posted a link to the first edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or you could look into common law. There has never been an issue with this subject. Not until puritans(religious idiots) and money(power idiots) came together.
From a moral point of view, it is incumbent on each and everyone of us to understand Natural Law. I am not talking about religious books. These are perversions, because it tells you how someone else understands it and because most people are lazy, it will tell them what to do. Most people will call that moral. It is not.
It does not mean that some items in these proscriptions might reverberate with Natural Law.
When someone claims: thou shalt not steal, it is quite apparent why: Natural law dictates to respect the property of other people. So, consciousness about your own rights to the undisturbed joy of your property, moves you to act in accordance with it.
But appealing to an external authority to define your own morality is evil. Plain and simple. First you are missing the actual reason, namely, being in harmony with natural law. Second, the consequence is the setup of an "authority" structure, interjecting itself between you and the rest.
It is impossible to legislate morality, lest society incurs not only the monetary costs but also the social and emotional costs. Personal choices are just that. Personal choices.
Neither the State nor any other person has any RIGHT to meddle in private affairs, unless called upon to do so! Everyone has the right, in order to protect his property, to call upon others to help him. Insisting that everybody is OBLIGED to run to the government for help, is counter Natural Law, an hence, evil.
What is the difference between a person and a natural person?
Black's defines a person as a man inbued with all his rights according to his station in society, and only his rights give rise to his duties and obligations. A careful consideration of your rights, will cause a determination, which will cause a movement in the now, which is called: an act.
A Natural Person suffers the Rights of others and is called a law subject. **A thing. **
Is a woman a thing? Are you a thing? Are you comporting yourself as a thing?
So, I am not disagreeing with your moral views. Those are pretty ok with me. What I am pointing to is that while you clothe yourself in moral justification, you are impeding the NATURAL RIGHT of a woman to make up her own mind and make a choice to have a baby with a man, whatever the cause of the pregnancy.
If you were to go into that particular item, it would devolve into utilitarian arguments. I am talking principle. If the principle is liberty, and this is what Scotus in Roe v Wade argued, then it also follows that choice should be left where the choice should be (albeit under common law, let alone under Natural Law)
The problem with this ruling is, that a pregnant woman is made into a ward of the State, by magically interjecting something called State Interest. Mind you, not State Rights. State Interest. The States only function is to guard the individual rights of the people. This leads to facilitation, instead of proscribing or prohibiting within the paradime of Liberty and Natural Law. And it does not mean wasting public funds.
So, Scotus basically, by trying to "protect" the unborn after 13 weeks, trampled on the Liberty of a free woman, elevating the State to the administrator position in a trust where they were not before.
How YOU understand Natural Law, dictates YOUR morality, because your morality it evidenced by your choices. Choices have consequences on the Natural Law plane. It is NOT your place to meddle in these. If you do, you are transgressing against Natural Law, and that will cause consequences in your life, in your society.
So, if Liberty is your basic principle, you should by definition apply that principle across the board. Cherry picking is immoral, and only serves to give you a good feeling, and adds to the "see me being holy" (virtue signalling + emotional appeal) hypocrisy, and makes you just another iteration of lefty TDS sufferers.
As long as we treat the consequences, we will be impotent and cause more suffering. Once we start to think about the causes and direct our attention and focus on that plane, we become powerful.
So, yes, I do partly agree with you as you rightly point our that morals and logical thinking is missing quite often. But the principle this country was founded on is individual liberty. And exactly the reason why the articles of confederation were made. The Constitution was made to collect taxes, breathing life into the practice of taking away rights under color of law.
I know these words are harsh and without any sugar coating. I simply despise hypocrisy and ploys that are geared to trick people.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I come at pro-life from a religious standpoint.
No. I just mentioned it for completeness. There may be more people reading this. Whether you do or not, or whether it is influenced by it, is a different matter. This is the reason I showed how the horse is tied behind the cart instead of in front of it.
I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle.
common ground.
When you understand that a new life in the womb IS a human being,
This is where you are wrong. Of course, I do not dispute your understanding of it. That is your choice.
During the embryonic stage, as we develop into humans, it all begins with the reading of the recipe. One single cell, the fertilized egg, divides itself again and again. When the dividing cells reach a certain number, they coordinate their decisions as to which cells are going to turn into what: skin, bone marrow, liver, nervous system, etc. This is done in a highly organized way that lays out the embryo in exactly three layers of cells, as found in very primitive organisms such as jellyfish. Later, a regular fish embryo emerges with gill arches, etc. As the embryo develops, we see features from toads, mammals, and, finally, humans.A billion years of evolution played through in just 3 months. More than anything else, what living cells know is how to communicate.
We are talking the development into a vessel that finally can be inhibited by a human. The structure over these first 3 months is conscious alright, but on a lower level than considered human, as cells are self organizing according to a recipe, brought together with the sperm and egg.
And I am still not saying, slash it all, I am saying, do not interfere with the choice. It is none of your business.
I seek to do away with the societal norm of "you can murder the unborn for no reason beyond convenience (in 99% of the cases)."
I also stated, it depends on the morality of the woman in question. And whether you sanction that morality or not, is not your business. All you can do is provide insight into the Law of Nature and it's 8 forces. Conclusions should be left to the individual, as that is the determination stage based on knowledge, that leads to action.
So this is where your action should focus: on providing the knowledge of the mechanics of Natural Law, instead of your understanding (opinion)
She made that choice when she had sex with him
Not necessarily. Since the fertile period is rather limited, and sperm's survival rate is abysmal, chances of getting it right in one go is a lucky accident. On top, it also does not mean that the fertilized egg is fertilized in the right spot, or can successfully nest. It simply flushes out into that napkin during those beautiful few days she has.
And when it is able to nest, it does not mean it develops right. The first 13 weeks are simply a waiting period. Hence my remark: 13 as a lucky number.
In terms of utilitarian arguments like: decreasing sperm counts, decreasing fertility, and the limited number of babies born ( usually 2-3) would also lead to the question of propagating our race. And in the face of these mandated and coerced transfections that deliberately also target the testes and the ovaries, there are some real existential questions to be answered.
...you are deliberately not acknowledging the natural rights of the unborn
No, I am acknowledging the rights of the unborn AFTER 13 weeks. So, let's see: who is going to claim injury? If it was an agreement between consenting adults to have children, but she decided not to deliver, that is a grounds for an action. In all other circumstances .... there is no remedy.
After the 13 weeks, it is a different situation. See above. And especially after 26 weeks.
We do not value our young
How do you know that? Better fitting and more precise would have been: you are not valuing the young as I do.
Trafficking grows from a different perspective, though related. Those who do traffick do value the young, but not as we would do. Had these traffickers understood Natural Law, it would have been impossible for them to traffick, and hurt these poor kids.
The same goes for our society in which both father and mother are forced to work to keep things going, which is a consequence of the birthcertificate - banking system we are still dealing with. And this then feeds into the trafficking issue.
Is it any wonder America is the biggest consumer of trafficked children?
Yeah, this is horrible. The Netherlands is traffick/ DS HQ, a de facto narco state. Fortunately people are waking up!
Do you wanna blow extreme left wing and right wing people’s minds. Simply tell them this.
“The more unaborted children are born, the more children that will be available for gay people to adopt.”
It’s just a fact, how you react to it is your problem.
Yeah sounds like a good argument, I don’t know if it’s really true or not.
All I do know is that restricting abortion will likely increase the amount of unwanted babies which means increased opportunity for adoptions by gay people.
So I’m not really sure why any gay people are against anti-abortion laws.
The really great thing for people worried about population control is that children who are adopted by gay parents and programmed to be gay are less likely to reproduce. So I guess everything works out in the end, huh…
Great post 👍🏻
I have read many women’s stories and actually many women are happy with their child even under the circumstances of rape. They have an innocent child to love and be loved by. They didn’t need added shame by murdering their child. Instead they get to focus on something positive out of their pain and redirect their focus. It happened to someone close to me as well. Her daughter is now happily married and has a nice job. The pain of that experience is there, but she loves her daughter more and feels blessed.
In regards to health issues with the mother, the fetus can survive outside the body at 29-22 weeks gestational age. If unwanted, there are plenty people wanting to adopt babies. If the health of the mother is in question, deliver at 20-22 weeks. So why not give the baby a chance? It certainly would be less painful than abortion to the fetus.
Good considerations I can agree with.
One more thing: freedom of choice extends to all people. That includes those who add the choice of ending a pregnancy within the first 13 weeks. And I say this as a man who has had to suffer this choice being made twice. And it was not paid for by the government with public funds, but by the lady in casu.
Since during this period natural abortive action is possible, you understand why the 13 is a lucky number.
Within this time frame, the choice has always been the woman's without any problems, at least in our western society.
I did not miss it. You are talking in essence utilitarian arguments.
Do your own investigation on this matter. Yesterday, I posted a link to the first edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Or you could look into common law. There has never been an issue with this subject. Not until puritans(religious idiots) and money(power idiots) came together.
From a moral point of view, it is incumbent on each and everyone of us to understand Natural Law. I am not talking about religious books. These are perversions, because it tells you how someone else understands it and because most people are lazy, it will tell them what to do. Most people will call that moral. It is not.
It does not mean that some items in these proscriptions might reverberate with Natural Law.
When someone claims: thou shalt not steal, it is quite apparent why: Natural law dictates to respect the property of other people. So, consciousness about your own rights to the undisturbed joy of your property, moves you to act in accordance with it.
But appealing to an external authority to define your own morality is evil. Plain and simple. First you are missing the actual reason, namely, being in harmony with natural law. Second, the consequence is the setup of an "authority" structure, interjecting itself between you and the rest.
It is impossible to legislate morality, lest society incurs not only the monetary costs but also the social and emotional costs. Personal choices are just that. Personal choices.
Neither the State nor any other person has any RIGHT to meddle in private affairs, unless called upon to do so! Everyone has the right, in order to protect his property, to call upon others to help him. Insisting that everybody is OBLIGED to run to the government for help, is counter Natural Law, an hence, evil.
What is the difference between a person and a natural person?
Black's defines a person as a man inbued with all his rights according to his station in society, and only his rights give rise to his duties and obligations. A careful consideration of your rights, will cause a determination, which will cause a movement in the now, which is called: an act.
A Natural Person suffers the Rights of others and is called a law subject. **A thing. **
Is a woman a thing? Are you a thing? Are you comporting yourself as a thing?
So, I am not disagreeing with your moral views. Those are pretty ok with me. What I am pointing to is that while you clothe yourself in moral justification, you are impeding the NATURAL RIGHT of a woman to make up her own mind and make a choice to have a baby with a man, whatever the cause of the pregnancy.
If you were to go into that particular item, it would devolve into utilitarian arguments. I am talking principle. If the principle is liberty, and this is what Scotus in Roe v Wade argued, then it also follows that choice should be left where the choice should be (albeit under common law, let alone under Natural Law)
The problem with this ruling is, that a pregnant woman is made into a ward of the State, by magically interjecting something called State Interest. Mind you, not State Rights. State Interest. The States only function is to guard the individual rights of the people. This leads to facilitation, instead of proscribing or prohibiting within the paradime of Liberty and Natural Law. And it does not mean wasting public funds.
So, Scotus basically, by trying to "protect" the unborn after 13 weeks, trampled on the Liberty of a free woman, elevating the State to the administrator position in a trust where they were not before.
How YOU understand Natural Law, dictates YOUR morality, because your morality it evidenced by your choices. Choices have consequences on the Natural Law plane. It is NOT your place to meddle in these. If you do, you are transgressing against Natural Law, and that will cause consequences in your life, in your society.
So, if Liberty is your basic principle, you should by definition apply that principle across the board. Cherry picking is immoral, and only serves to give you a good feeling, and adds to the "see me being holy" (virtue signalling + emotional appeal) hypocrisy, and makes you just another iteration of lefty TDS sufferers.
As long as we treat the consequences, we will be impotent and cause more suffering. Once we start to think about the causes and direct our attention and focus on that plane, we become powerful.
So, yes, I do partly agree with you as you rightly point our that morals and logical thinking is missing quite often. But the principle this country was founded on is individual liberty. And exactly the reason why the articles of confederation were made. The Constitution was made to collect taxes, breathing life into the practice of taking away rights under color of law.
I know these words are harsh and without any sugar coating. I simply despise hypocrisy and ploys that are geared to trick people.
No. I just mentioned it for completeness. There may be more people reading this. Whether you do or not, or whether it is influenced by it, is a different matter. This is the reason I showed how the horse is tied behind the cart instead of in front of it.
common ground.
This is where you are wrong. Of course, I do not dispute your understanding of it. That is your choice.
A couple of weeks ago I posted this: https://greatawakening.win/p/12j03kmXsU/genocide--a-different-view-out-o/
This is taken from a series of papers written by Danish scientists: https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2003/616710.pdf
We are talking the development into a vessel that finally can be inhibited by a human. The structure over these first 3 months is conscious alright, but on a lower level than considered human, as cells are self organizing according to a recipe, brought together with the sperm and egg.
And I am still not saying, slash it all, I am saying, do not interfere with the choice. It is none of your business.
I also stated, it depends on the morality of the woman in question. And whether you sanction that morality or not, is not your business. All you can do is provide insight into the Law of Nature and it's 8 forces. Conclusions should be left to the individual, as that is the determination stage based on knowledge, that leads to action.
So this is where your action should focus: on providing the knowledge of the mechanics of Natural Law, instead of your understanding (opinion)
Not necessarily. Since the fertile period is rather limited, and sperm's survival rate is abysmal, chances of getting it right in one go is a lucky accident. On top, it also does not mean that the fertilized egg is fertilized in the right spot, or can successfully nest. It simply flushes out into that napkin during those beautiful few days she has.
And when it is able to nest, it does not mean it develops right. The first 13 weeks are simply a waiting period. Hence my remark: 13 as a lucky number.
In terms of utilitarian arguments like: decreasing sperm counts, decreasing fertility, and the limited number of babies born ( usually 2-3) would also lead to the question of propagating our race. And in the face of these mandated and coerced transfections that deliberately also target the testes and the ovaries, there are some real existential questions to be answered.
No, I am acknowledging the rights of the unborn AFTER 13 weeks. So, let's see: who is going to claim injury? If it was an agreement between consenting adults to have children, but she decided not to deliver, that is a grounds for an action. In all other circumstances .... there is no remedy.
After the 13 weeks, it is a different situation. See above. And especially after 26 weeks.
How do you know that? Better fitting and more precise would have been: you are not valuing the young as I do.
Trafficking grows from a different perspective, though related. Those who do traffick do value the young, but not as we would do. Had these traffickers understood Natural Law, it would have been impossible for them to traffick, and hurt these poor kids.
The same goes for our society in which both father and mother are forced to work to keep things going, which is a consequence of the birthcertificate - banking system we are still dealing with. And this then feeds into the trafficking issue.
Yeah, this is horrible. The Netherlands is traffick/ DS HQ, a de facto narco state. Fortunately people are waking up!