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!
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!