|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Striking down Roe v. Wade reversed an unconstitutional abomination and sent the issue back to the states. And, despite various hysterical leftist claims that it would prevent women from getting abortions who really need them, it doesn’t seem to have done much to reduce the number of abortions. And that’s not surprising. Anyone who really wanted an abortion could get on a bus or plane, and pro-abortion groups began funding such trips. So the numbers are in and, assuming you trust them, not all that much has changed.
Legal abortions most likely increased in the United States in the first six months of the year compared with 2020, an analysis of new estimates shows, as states with more permissive abortion laws absorbed patients traveling from those with bans and access to abortion pills via telemedicine continued to expand.
2020 is not the best baseline for comparison, and the Guttmacher numbers don’t match the CDC ones, but crucially the CDC numbers don’t show a massive drop between 2019 and 2020. Whether or not the number of abortions rose, it’s probably reasonable to assume that there weren’t major changes in the big picture.
In Illinois, for example, where abortion is legal, abortions rose an estimated 69 percent in 2023 compared with the same period in 2020, to about 45,000 from 26,000. Other states with restrictive neighbors, like Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and South Carolina, also had jumps in estimated counts of abortions.
Whatever data you use, abortions overall have been falling over time. But that has less to do with growing morality than changing demographics and decreased relationships in general. There’s a decline in pregnancies, marriage rates, socialization, sex, and abortions.
Once Roe v. Wade was struck down, a political battle broke out. The data here shoots down the Left’s claim that no one can get abortions anymore. People in red states are just traveling a bit. On the other hand, it strengthens the argument by some on the pro-life side that a national abortion ban is needed. And that’s a debate that has shown up in the GOP primary campaign. A lot of Republicans claimed that striking down Roe v. Wade cost Republicans the midterms. It probably didn’t help, but statistics showed that people actually identify now as more socially conservative. Roe v. Wade helped turn out a fanatical part of the base, but I doubt it was the deciding factor.
The trouble, as with most issues, is where does the line get drawn? There are those on the pro-life side who would also like to ban all forms of contraception, many kinds of fertility treatments, and a whole lot of other things. They don’t represent the majority of the pro-life movement, but they are pretty vocal.
My own thought was that sending the issue back to the states would discredit the pro-abortion movement as hysterical alarmists. Nothing has fundamentally changed. And from there, it becomes possible to discuss a moderate nationwide abortion ban that is more akin to what Europe has and make the pro-abortion left defend partial-birth abortion. When the alarmism has exhausted itself again, slice the onion a little more.
That said the best policy is still fighting this battle on a state-by-state level. There may be a more nuanced federal role in defunding Planned Parenthood and passing medical regulations that make it difficult to actually run an abortion clinic. That may be the smarter and more effective way to do it.
Those aren’t terms that sound popular, but they get past the false choices being offered between backing away from the issue or fully embracing it being offered in internal debates within the GOP.
I count myself fortunate and blessed to live in a state where it’s leaders were ready and waiting for the issue to be returned to them, with triggers in place to adopt one of the most strict abortion bans in the country. As satisfying as it was to watch overweight, blue-haired “ghouls” melt down nightly on my local news, knowing full well that these particular trolls would never need abortion services, those that simply must take an innocent life need only spend a little more on gas to venture to a neighboring bastion of liberal lunacy. It is my hope that their perpetual travel expenses give them the idea to ultimately move there.
And after t heir Abortion they go to the stores pour out the Miks to protests what they c all Animal Abuse since these people are totally Brian-Dead from the Dope & Boose and PETA stupidity
“The trouble, as with most issues, is where does the line get drawn? There are those on the pro-life side who would also like to ban all forms of contraception, many kinds of fertility treatments, and a whole lot of other things. They don’t represent the majority of the pro-life movement, but they are pretty vocal.”
The religious chickens will come home to roost. Contraception and fertility clinics WILL be made illegal eventually. Homosexuals get in the closet or go to prison. And we’ll get you in your closet too. You asked for it, religious conservatives. History is made by minorities not by majorities, by those who are the most intransigent and consistent. And fundamental principles, even when not articulated or defined, in fact better for those fighting for totalitarian principles when they are implicit and not explicit, when they are hidden and evaded, sensed but not understood, have a way of working themselves out inexorably to their logical conclusion.
The fight to abolish the right to abortion is not about saving babies but about enslaving actual people. It is altruism, the individual has no right to exist for his own sake, he must sacrifice himself to the embryo.
“When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side….
In regard to the moral aspects of birth control, the primary right involved is not the “right” of an unborn child, nor of the family, nor of society, nor of God. The primary right is one which—in today’s public clamor on the subject—few, if any, voices have had the courage to uphold: the right of man and woman to their own life and happiness—the right not to be regarded as the means to any end.” – Ayn Rand
Now we know who will be the first one to turn cannibal on the lifeboat.
“The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: “Should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?” Consider the implications of that approach. If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance):
1. Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is
not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.
2. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of
doomed beggars crying for someone’s help.
3. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are
trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and
primary concern of their lives.
4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical
amorality—SINCE HIS QUESTIONS INVOLVE SITUATIONS WHICH HE IS NOT LIKELY EVER
TO ENCOUNTER, WHICH BEAR NO RELATION TO THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF HIS OWN LIFE [emphasis added] and thus leave to live without any moral principles whatever.” – Ayn Rand
I note you are a disciple of Ayn Rand (who was a Jew – at least, of Jewish descent – for she must have no doubt been an infidel Jew). Are you , THX 1138, also of natural Jewish descent?
Am I of Jewish descent? Are you serious? This is a discussion about the truth or falsehood of ideas not about anyone’s ancestors.
Infidel? Seriously? America is NOT a theocracy — not yet.
And have you noticed all those baby killer protesters are ugly dykes? Like they’re ever going to get abortions.
There’s this really cool black chick who wrote a self help book that made the same observation, right on live TV, Newsmax. I remember her face but not her name. I’m bad with names. She said they were all too ugly to get impregnated. Boy was she right. It was funny because I was thinking the same thing right before she said it.
I have lesbian friends in the Philippines and other places but the American ones all seem to be misandrist and butt ugly.
Whoever down voted me eats dyke pussy.
Eat that nasty tuna, bitch.
I was reading about cannibalism in East Africa in the 1850s. Apparently it is still going on, and some cannibals are immigrating illegally into USA.
Whoever down voted this comment cannibalizes corpses and sucks warthog balls.
I’ll be honest, I can’t really understand what this gibberish is actually saying. However, from your past posts, it’s probably nothing good.
One line reads: ‘The fight to abolish the right to abortion is not about saving babies but about enslaving actual people’.
Firstly, and I realise I might be casting pearls before swine here, God created woman out of man. The purpose of the two sexes was to reproduce – have babies. Unfortunately, many have fallen for the lie of the serpent which basically said that God was withholding something from the first couple (basically their freedom, right to choose for themselves what is good and what is bad).
What you have stated, while no doubt said in a more intellectual way, amounts to the same thing – you don’t want to have to answer to anyone for your behaviour and choices (particularly to God). So, if you fornicate and a baby is the result, you don’t want to be tied down (due to consequences of the few minutes of fleeting fleshly pleasure you experienced – in an unmarried state) for 18 – 20 years raising the child, and so want the right to slaughter the child before birth so you can continue fornicating with whomsoever you want, go on holidays, etc. Such evil, such selfishness.
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time… Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children… These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
(2 Peter 2:12-19)
“Such evil, such selfishness.”
Making love to the man or woman you love isn’t fornication, it’s making love, a celebration of romantic love. Is this what you call evil?
The fundamental purpose of sex is not procreation but the expression of admiration, respect, self-esteem and the esteem of your loved and cherished partner. If your wife were infertile would you call making love to her “fornication”? Is making love to an infertile wife a mortal sin too? Did God condemn infertile women to lifelong virginhood and the nunnery?
Either an individual is an end in himself and the primary purpose of his life is the pursuit of happiness or he is a sacrificial animal for others, pick one or the other, you can’t have both.
But, thank you for your revealing comment, it is true — Christianity has always been a profound enemy of romantic love.
Clearly a man having sexual relations with his wife is not ‘fornication’ (this act is usually done between two unmarried persons).
Furthermore, the Scriptures are quite plain that procreation was the purpose of the union between a husband and his wife. However, it is clearly Scriptural to enjoy relations with one’s wife without the end result producing children (St. Paul recommended that because of the prevalence of fornication each man should have his own wife (See 1 Cor. Chap. 7 for further details). In Proverbs the counsel is:
‘Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?’ (Proverbs 5:18-20)
A male with a male or a female with a female is a detestable thing in God’s sight – an abomination.
However, the point of my previous comment was to point out the evil, the selfishness of the argument you presented to justify the killing of the unborn.
Again, you don’t want to deal with the consequences of illicit sexual relations outside of the bounds of Scriptural marriage (which is fornication – because you say it isn’t doesn’t change the fact that it is) as defined by Almighty God (marriage between one man and one woman).
Furthermore, a married couple have no right to terminate the developing life in the womb as a result of their union.
As for your statement that you can’t have both (pursuit of happiness or being a sacrificial animal), I have no clue what you’re on about. Who told you this and set it in stone? As far as I am aware, people can, and do, do both – parents sacrifice much for their offspring; while, at the same time, deriving happiness from those acts of sacrifice. You see, it is written: It is more blessed to give than to receive.
A fetus can have no rights until it is born. A woman’s body belongs to the woman, that which exists within her body has no rights over her body, that’s the objective fact.
An UNMARRIED couple who has sex and are in love, are making love, they are not fornicating. And the government has no right prohibiting sex between consenting adults. This does not mean that anything goes just because it’s sex between consenting adults either. According to Objectivism it is IMMORAL to engage in any form of sex that is degrading, insulting, unhealthy, humiliating, or harmful to the body, or to the person.
Just as you don’t throw food on the floor and eat it off the floor because food is a sacred nourishment, you need your food to be clean and healthy, because its purpose is the furtherance of life, not the degradation of life, sex must also be treated with the same care, even more so, than food. Just as food should be nourishment for the body, sex should be nourishment for the soul.
There are married couples where there is no love and the husband humiliates, degrades. insults, harms, and even RAPES the wife. Just because a couple is legally married does not mean that that couple are making love.
Reply: THX 1138 (September 10, 2023 at 12:31 pm).
THX 1138,
The developing life within the womb is a precious thing. As you have decided for yourself (beguiled by the Serpent) what is right and wrong, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The Law of Moses (one example) demonstrates that the life of the unborn has value, and has ‘rights’ (Exodus 21:23)
Again, it is the divine Law (from which you are in rebellion) that stipulates that unmarried persons who engage in sexual intercourse are in sin and fornication. The opinions of men cannot change this fact just because they don’t like it. Fornication is harmful to the person, but you will refuse to recognise this, regardless of what is said.
It’s interesting to see that you attempt to make an argument about nourishment for the physical body, and also nourishment for the ‘soul’. Although, I’m sure your understanding of what a ‘soul’ is differs from mine.
Regardless of the arguments you present and the reasons for them (as related to sexual relations), anything outside of Scriptural marriage is sinful and harmful to the individual. Each person will answer to the Almighty for everything done in the flesh. Moreover, what is done in the flesh will go towards crystalising the character of a person – making future reform under God’s Kingdom more difficult, or even impossible.
As for your lineage, I asked merely because you comment frequently on a site run by those of Jewish descent, and quote frequently from an infidel Jew (seeking, no doubt, to warp the thinking of other Jews who may be trying, at least to some degree, to adhere to the Law of Moses).
Ayn Rand would no doubt have been put to death (probably with stones) in the Israel of old (and rightfully so). Jews today who profess to be under the Law of Moses should really try to practice *all* of the Law in Israel – instead of permitting deviancy in their midst. Jews should tolerate no rivalry before their God, Jehovah – including that of human philosophies.
Welcome to Peter’s Christian Theocracy.
I have a certain respect for Christians who are honest about the fact that Christianity ultimately means a theocracy. Thank you for being open about that fact Peter.
It’s the Christians on the Right who actually believe and insist that Christianity is the bedrock of individual freedom, individual liberty, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism that are profoundly mistaken.
I hope to see more such honest comments from you Peter so the Christians here on the Right can see that a consistent Christian, like you, is an advocate of theocracy. Theocracy being a form of tyranny means that religion is, in its consistent and pure form, a form of tyranny, not liberty.
Freedom and liberty, Peter, are based on OBJECTIVE law, not divine law or congressional law.
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.” – Ayn Rand
NO SURPRISE!
The Constitutional Republic’s financed provision for in utero infanticide will never be totally eliminated until Christians and patriots become courageous enough to address their genesis – that is, the 1787 cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka constitutional framers) and their biblically seditious Constitution.
The framers’ sins were of both commission and omission. The framers’ sins of commission are evidenced in that there’s hardly an Article or Amendment in the Constitution that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.
Their sins of commission aside, the framers’ sins of omission—that is, their failure to establish government and society based upon Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments—alone sent America to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction she presently teeters on.
Ask the millions of infants slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs if the constitutional framers’ failure to establish government on Exodus 21:22-23 and Deuteronomy 27:25 didn’t lead to their annihilation?
There’s not one national problem in America today—criminal civil “leaders,” government-financed in utero infanticide, sodomite “marriages,” Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples devoted to false gods dotting America’s landscape, international entanglements, America’s crumbling economy, runaway debt, and taxes on nearly everything, etc.—that cannot be traced back to the framers’ sins of omission.
“For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13)
For evidence, see free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Books page.
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”
Another honest Christian that realizes that serious and consistent Christianity demands theocracy, thank you for your honesty.
If you’d kindly refer to my previous response, you would no doubt discern that I am not advocating for a ‘Christian Theocracy’ involving any of the kingdoms of this world. America, and every other nation in the world, are non-Christian nations that will be removed by God’s true heavenly Kingdom.
Nevertheless, the time is approaching when an alliance of religions with the Papal system (supported by various kingdoms on the earth) will effectively bring in a new ‘Dark Age’ – a short period similar to the reign of the Popes during the Holy Roman empire and inquisition. At that time we can expect all who will not worship that system to be harshly treated and even killed.
The true Christian is, must be, NO PART OF THIS WORLD.
‘THX 1138’
Thanks for the further response. In some sense you are correct to say I support a Theocracy. However, if you think I’m advocating for some kind of worldly government to claim to be a ‘Theocracy’ (much like the Holy Roman Empire), then you are mistaken.
Christ’s Kingdom is no part of this world. The kingdoms of the world must be overthrown, removed, in a great Time of Trouble (worldwide anarchy) before Christ’s Kingdom is established over the earth. The USA, Europe and even the State of Israel will not be spared.
The problem many have (including you) is that they recognise no greater authority than themselves. Of course, the Christian recognises Almighty God as the supreme Sovereign of the Universe, and recognises that He, as the font of life , the Grand Creator, has the right to set boundaries to the limits of His creation’s freedoms.
You are also right to say that the Kingdom of God will be a tyranny (of sorts) – a righteous tyranny where sin, murders, fornications, and all manner of evils, shall no longer be permitted (God has winked at the times of such ignorance, telling all now to repent – Acts 17:30). Christ will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 19:15). Those who shall not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed (in second death) from among the people. (Acts 3:20 – 23: Deuteronomy 18:18, 19).
Needless to say, abortion and selfishness, at that time, will not be permitted. The Royal Law of the Christ – the Law of Love – will be in full operation (as will the New Law Covenant with the cleansed nation of Israel).
At any rate, I thank you for taking the time to respond and sharing your opinions – despite the fact that, like the Rich man (the nation of Israel to whom were entrusted the oracles of God) and Lazarus (the Gentiles, sinners, outcasts) – which is symbolic of the great gulf between the Gentile who recognises Christ as Messiah being adopted into God’s family as Sons; and the Jewish nation who rejected Messiah and were cast off for a time (until the full number of the Gentiles comes in – Romans 11:25) – there is a great gulf between us (Luke 16:19 – 31).