[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Eugenics and Abortion
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 27, 2017
Author: sneakypete
Post Date: 2017-06-27 07:20:01 by sneakypete
Keywords: None
Views: 9220
Comments: 42

I see and have seen passionate as well as sometimes intelligent discussions about these issues for years,but NEVER see any pros to oppose the cons.

So I am going to state some in order to start a discussion where the OTHER side of the arguments is also stated.

We all know the anti-eugenics and anti-abortion points,and they ALL seem to be based entirely on emotions and religious beliefs.

The Eugenics people base their argument on some pretty solid facts,namely that there is a finite amount of resources available on the planet,and the sick,the lame,the stupid,and the lazy use up more than their fair share and contribute nothing in return in a modern world where grunt labor has very little value to societies,and has less value with each passing year.

In addition there are birth rates to consider,and no one can argue that the most productive and educated societies produce fewer babies than the ignorant and backwards societies,therefore creating a situation where unless things change radically there will be a tiny minority of the world population that will essentially be working and denying themselves the joys of larger families and more productive nations in order to provide food,shelter,clothing,medical care,comfort,and entertainment for a massive population of people who are little more advanced than cave men,and who have no interest in advancing any further or even taking care of themselves because the advanced and industrious people's and nations will take care of them.

The planet Earth is a closed system and there can be no question about there being a finite amount of resources available,regardless of how many people need or demand those resources for themselves. The abortion and eugenics people don't seem to want to say this out loud,but you don't have to have a Doctorate in Sociology to understand that at some point the needy will outnumber the providers by a massive percentage of the world's population because they are breeding like rabbits while the providers are limiting their family sizes in order to provide more comfort and stability.

IF you accept this projection as an indisputable truth,and given human nature it sure seems to be an indisputable truth,we will eventually arrive at a point where the necessities of life as well as the luxuries are running out,and the mobs will revolt and demand ALL the necessities as well as the luxuries be given to them instead of kept for themselves by the people responsible for creating and producing them,and that is when the violent revolution will happen that will virtually take the planet back to the Stone Age as the humans that are little more than animals murder off the productive people in order to get the luxuries they want.


Poster Comment:

I am not real sure how well I have stated the POV of the Eugenics and Abortion people because they never seem to interested in discussing the WHY's of their POV. They just state what they think needs to be done,and even then they don't go into details. Mostly because they CAN'T without appearing to be cold and selfish,and having their opponents scream "NAZI!" at them and demand they be killed or put into prison for suggesting people need to be responsible. I am basing what I wrote on what SEEMS TO ME to be the basis of their logic and efforts.

If you are an Eugenics and Abortion supporter and think I have misstated your positions,PLEASE speak up and correct me.

We all know the basis of the anti-Eugenics and Anti-Abortion crowds are religious beliefs,and organized religions NEED huge masses of followers for political power as well as a base to build their wealth on.

I see no possible basis for a middle-ground where the two opposing groups can meet and agree on any sort of compromise at all. One side wants to limit population so there are more resources and power for fewer people,and the other side wants to increase population because that is where their power base lies.

I am not sure most of the people on either side have taken the time to try to understand WHY they take the stands they take because both sides seem to me to focus more on screaming insults at each other than facts. For different reasons maybe,but the end results are still the same,division,jealousy, and hatred. ALL eventually leading to war.

IF we can,let's try to limit the hatred to a slow boil,and see if we can have a discussion where ideas are presented where maybe both sides can meet and agree on something.

Yeah,I know,but it's worth trying.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: rlk, redleghunter, Anthem, TooConservative, Liberator, misterwhite, all (#0)

PING!

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-06-27   7:26:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: sneakypete (#0) (Edited)

We all know the anti-eugenics and anti-abortion points,and they ALL seem to be based entirely on emotions and religious beliefs.

Basing an 'argument' with a presupposed assertion is a non starter Pete.

Abortion takes a human life and that is murder. We can start there...meaning why you don't think a human being in the womb is a human being.

The abortion 'debate' boils down to just that. People either ignore basic scientific evidence human life begins at conception or they accept established biology.

Let's start there. Give me your scientific evidence that at conception we are not human beings of the species homo sapiens.

I'm all about looking at this scientifically. I will show you that your approach is philosophical and has no basis on science.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-06-27   9:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#0)

I see and have seen passionate as well as sometimes intelligent discussions about these issues for years,but NEVER see any pros to oppose the cons. So I am going to state some in order to start a discussion where the OTHER side of the arguments is also stated. We all know the anti-eugenics and anti-abortion points,and they ALL seem to be based entirely on emotions and religious beliefs. The Eugenics people base their argument on some pretty solid facts,namely that there is a finite amount of resources available on the planet,and the sick,the lame,the stupid,and the lazy use up more than their fair share and contribute nothing in return in a modern world where grunt labor has very little value to societies,and has less value with each passing year. In addition there are birth rates to consider,and no one can argue that the most productive and educated societies produce fewer babies than the ignorant and backwards societies,therefore creating a situation where unless things change radically there will be a tiny minority of the world population that will essentially be working and denying themselves the joys of larger families and more productive nations in order to provide food,shelter,clothing,medical care,comfort,and entertainment for a massive population of people who are little more advanced than cave men,and who have no interest in advancing any further or even taking care of themselves because the advanced and industrious people's and nations will take care of them. The planet Earth is a closed system and there can be no question about there being a finite amount of resources available,regardless of how many people need or demand those resources for themselves. The abortion and eugenics people don't seem to want to say this out loud,but you don't have to have a Doctorate in Sociology to understand that at some point the needy will outnumber the providers by a massive percentage of the world's population because they are breeding like rabbits while the providers are limiting their family sizes in order to provide more comfort and stability. IF you accept this projection as an indisputable truth,and given human nature it sure seems to be an indisputable truth,we will eventually arrive at a point where the necessities of life as well as the luxuries are running out,and the mobs will revolt and demand ALL the necessities as well as the luxuries be given to them instead of kept for themselves by the people responsible for creating and producing them,and that is when the violent revolution will happen that will virtually take the planet back to the Stone Age as the humans that are little more than animals murder off the productive people in order to get the luxuries they want.

Poster Comment: I am not real sure how well I have stated the POV of the Eugenics and Abortion people because they never seem to interested in discussing the WHY's of their POV. They just state what they think needs to be done,and even then they don't go into details. Mostly because they CAN'T without appearing to be cold and selfish,and having their opponents scream "NAZI!" at them and demand they be killed or put into prison for suggesting people need to be responsible. I am basing what I wrote on what SEEMS TO ME to be the basis of their logic and efforts. If you are an Eugenics and Abortion supporter and think I have misstated your positions,PLEASE speak up and correct me. We all know the basis of the anti-Eugenics and Anti-Abortion crowds are religious beliefs,and organized religions NEED huge masses of followers for political power as well as a base to build their wealth on. I see no possible basis for a middle-ground where the two opposing groups can meet and agree on any sort of compromise at all. One side wants to limit population so there are more resources and power for fewer people,and the other side wants to increase population because that is where their power base lies. I am not sure most of the people on either side have taken the time to try to understand WHY they take the stands they take because both sides seem to me to focus more on screaming insults at each other than facts. For different reasons maybe,but the end results are still the same,division,jealousy, and hatred. ALL eventually leading to war. IF we can,let's try to limit the hatred to a slow boil,and see if we can have a discussion where ideas are presented where maybe both sides can meet and agree on something. Yeah,I know,but it's worth trying.

You left out Vicomte13

redleghunter  posted on  2017-06-27   9:19:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: sneakypete (#0)

The planet Earth is a closed system and there can be no question about there being a finite amount of resources

Is there a finite amount of corn?

Is there a finite amound of beans?

Is there a finite amount of beef?

If the entire world population lived in Texas how much space would each person live on?

If the entire population of the earth lived in the United States how many square feet would each person have if evenly divided?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-27   9:49:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: sneakypete (#0)

I see no possible basis for a middle-ground where the two opposing groups can meet and agree on any sort of compromise at all.

You are correct. There is no middle ground to negotiate with someone who is a murderer.

Are you really that stupid?

Ok you support abortion.

Should we get rid of the disabled too? You for example.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-27   9:52:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: sneakypete (#0)

Ok, let me try my hand at presenting the Eugenicist side of things.

Imagine Paradise, if you could design it. Not some off-the-rack Paradise designed by some faraway God full of trees and fruit (and dirt and bugs and sweat), but that which would be paradisical to a modern human.

First, there would be no disease or want or need to work, and no fear. This would mean that everybody would be at leisure all the time. Aimless leisure gets boring pretty quickly (who really wants to sit around on a cloud with a harp all day). If we have leisure, we want to fill it with pleasure. What is pleasurable? Well, there is contemplation of the arts and sciences, and there are sports. Some degree of physical activity is fun and playful (picking beans is neither). And of course there is sex. Secular paradise is not paradise unless there is easy sex on demand without fear and without consequences.

Now, the traditional and religious moralists might retort that that is impossible, but so is their boring halo-and-harp heaven. The secular person recognizes that there is no hope at all of attaining paradise in the afterlife, because there is no afterlife. All there is is here. We come out of oblivion. We live for a span. We die and go into oblivion.

The ancient Roman materialists got it right when they put on their tombstones: NON FUI. FUI. NON SUM. NON CURO. - I was not. I was. I am not. I care not.

The materialist, then, turns his attention to this world, for it is all we have. It is possible to envision this world in which we live as a far better place than it is. Indeed, while heaven on a cloud, or crawling back into the Eden of dreams is not possible, the Secular Paradise described above IS possible.

One could get there by automating production to the greatest extent possible, reducing the amount of time that anybody need spend working (but increasing the need for highly-educated people to design, build and maintain the machines that remove most of the labor burden from mankind).

One can't quite get to zero work, but one can get to a very moderate amount of it, with all of the heavy lifting done by machines.

Of course, the more people there are, the more production one has to have, and a side effect of production is, inevitably, pollution. Pollution makes things ugly, and rules that area out of bounds for pleasure. The more people, the more pollution.

Also, inevitably, the more people, the more resources have to be harvested to provide for them. And that means, inevitably, more mines, more forests hacked down for wood, farmland, housing space. Land in a natural state, or gardens, is beautiful and pleasant - a source of esthetic pleasure and clean air. Forests and parks, and even orchards and vineyards or well-tended horse farms are beautiful to behold. Sprawling tenements of lower class housing are never beautiful. They blight the land. Thew spew pollution.

And then there is the matter of human suffering. The underclass in that housing groans under its burdens, and always will. They lack the resources for education and for happy living. Their lot is to grind and suffer, and in their despair, to anesthetize their pain with drugs and alcohol, worsening their lot. Under terrible and unrelievable suffering, they live and die. Many go mad and attack their fellow men. It would be better if such people did not exist at all than that they exist in order to suffer tortured, ugly lives without hope, only to die anyway.

Now, obviously it would be wrong to massacre such people - that would increase the fear and misery quotient of the world and leave everybody traumatized.

But that element of society CAN be eliminated peacefully, without suffering, and even with a great deal of pleasure, simply through the practice of effective birth control.

The world is already overpopulated, with all of the misery that entails for billions, with all of the pollution and destruction of nature, with all of the ugliness. Population is the inevitable result of natural sexual activity, but we have not lived in a state of nature for millennia. Indeed, much of the focus of religious and secular law over the ages has been to constrain the human sex drive by various rules, controls and punishments, simply because allowing people to express themselves sexually across the ages would have resulted in the breakdown of the fundamental economic and social units.

Religion and fear are very old technology. Today, thanks to our modern science, we are capable of enjoying sex freely without the consequences of unwanted pregnancy. So instead of living in frustration and fear, even the lower classes can indulge in the greatest of all simple pleasures: sex, without having the economic consequences of childbearing. And it is precisely in this way that the excess population of the world can be gradually diminished, taking pressure off the environment and restoring the beauty of the world for future generations. The poor and miserable do not need to be shot or starved. Let them fornicate away their time on earth, dulling their pain considerably. Just make sure they don't procreate.

Now, there is still the problem of sexually transmitted disease, as promiscuity spreads it. The control and eradication of these diseases must be a top medical priority, and it is. HIV was once a death sentence. But thanks to billions in research, today it can be controlled on an ongoing basis for a lifetime by the proper drugs. A person afflicted with HIV today, if he is religious about taking his medicines and being checked regularly, can go on indefinitely without developing AIDS, and reduce the virus load to the level that it is not detectable, and not be contagious. Likewise, women afflicted with HIV, who are on the antiviral regime, are capable of bearing children that do not have HIV. We have come a long way, and with continued research and a full-court press, we will be able to cure or routinely manage all STDs (HIV and Herpes, both viruses, are the current "incurables", but both are treatable.)

So, then, the pathological impediment to paradise - disease - is controllable and moving towards fully curable, even as birth control is highly effective.

We are on the cusp - and indeed have already passed over into - a world in which pansexualism is a reasonable lifestyle choice in the sense that it need not lead to childbearing or fatal disease. Our moral views and laws have not yet fully evolved to embrace this brave new world, but we are well on our way. We see this in the stubborn advance of sexual freedom against the resistance of traditional and religious society.

A paradaisical future would not be one in which people could marry whom they will, but in which people need not marry at all. The financial necessities that drive marriage would be eliminated in a world without want.

In a world with billions fewer people there would be an exceeding abundance of resources, driving the prices of everything down dramatically, moving us into a no-scarcity economy the likes of which has never before been seen. Human beings would be mostly free from the fetters of work, and have leisure, and pleasure, as their primary activities.

Abortion would remain as an option, in those cases where birth control failed or, more importantly, where medical detection indicated that a child was going to be born deformed or with debilitating diseases. In such cases, secular values would hold that it is much better to have never come into consciousness at all than to be born and experience a lifetime of agony and sorrow.

Obviously the religious, who believe there is a God and that God is the source of sexual morality laws, must oppose this entire vision on the grounds that it is contrary to the will of God.

More sophisticated religious people might also argue that human happiness is not found in being able to indulge the sexual appetites as much as one could in a secular paradise. They might point out that a hallmark of Communist Russia and Communist Cuba was the immediate adoption of abortion on demand and free birth control, and the general relaxation of all traditional rules of heterosexual (but not homosexual) morality - and that those societies were not happy.

Because of their fear of God, the religious can never come onto the same page as the Secular Utopian, but those who do not live in fear of God could very well do so.

The danger on the secular side is not the religious fears of God, but that there are darker aspects of human character that also find pleasure in watching human suffering, and in having power over other people, to command them and use them.

Within the seculars, one can envision two versions of the advance towards paradise.

One would be one in which the ideal is to strive towards a paradise in which the people who remain live in leisure and relative equality. The other is one in which paradise includes the pleasure that the powerful derive from dominating the weak.

The paths to paradise differ between the two visions.

Egalitarians would rely upon birth control, abortion and automation and allow the brighter future come through the inevitable natural decrease. Their ideal would be to reduce the population to the level that there is enough for all of the remaining people to live in ease and leisure, and in which eugenics skews the population to good health and pleasant appearance.

Hierarchalists would be willing to accelerate the process of depopulation through forced birth control, abortion and sterilization, one-child policies and other coercive means designed to bring about the population reduction FASTER. They would reject the ideal of the remaining population all living in ease and leisure, but believe that the existing hierarchy of power and wealth that pre-existed the population reduction should remain, with the less wealthy and powerful elements of the population maintained (and beautified through eugenics) to serve the wealthy and powerful.

The first vision of secular Utopia might be called the Democratic Progressive vision. The second might be called the Fascist or Dr. Strangelovian vision.

The division between those two is as strong as the division between either and the religionists.

So, there's as fair and balanced view of the whys and wherefores of secular utopianism, with contraception and abortion as primary, necessary vehicles to get there.

There is a version with the sword, and a version without it.

The most pleasant one to my contemplation is the one WITH the sword, because I will always be part of the upper, ruling class and I like having power, subordinates and servants - especially if they are attractive.

But I recognize that the trauma inherent in getting to the Utopia QUICKLY would end up scarring even the victorious survivors in a way that would very much mar Utopia, so I would settle for the egalitarian version. After all, where there is no material scarcity we end up equal anyway.

I follow the Catholic version, which doesn't allow these things, because it's TRUE, but if it weren't true, then I would be with Dr. Strangelove.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-27   10:46:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: sneakypete (#0)

The Eugenics people base their argument on some pretty solid facts,namely that there is a finite amount of resources available on the planet

This is a false premise; you have no foundation. If mankind had only the resources our primitive ancestors had we would still be a minute population, if we had only the resources available when Thomas Malthus wrote the seminal work on this topic we would still be plodding behind plows.

Mankind is the only species that creates its own resources. It is that creative ability that will produce food in high rise buildings using low power LED grow lights, or perhaps 3D manufacture of food from elements. We create uses for "useless" resources like sand and silica, and may soon be using resources from asteroids or the moon. One conversation I had with a NASA engineer was about the hydroxyl formations in caves on the moon that he and his peers think can be used to produce oxygen and water, making long term habitation of the moon possible. This would primarily support mining operations.

In short, we have no shortage of creativity, and we don't know whose child is going to be the next breakthroght genius, as the story of Ludwig Beethoven illustrates.

and the sick,the lame,the stupid,and the lazy use up more than their fair share and contribute nothing in return

So you've never learned kindness. It's a small step from here to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any other priest practicing human sacrifice.

Anthem  posted on  2017-06-27   11:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: A K A Stone (#4)

If the entire world population lived in Texas how much space would each person live on?

An older article which assume a population of 6 billion. Current estimates are 7.5B people so that would be very close to 1000 square feet per human.

If the entire population of the earth lived in the United States how many square feet would each person have if evenly divided?

9,450,000 square miles in America = 263,450,880,000,000 square feet.

So: a bit over 35,000 square feet per person if you divided America up between all 7.5 billion humans on the planet.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-27   12:35:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#5)

Should we get rid of the disabled too? You for example.

A disabled person might be able to work 20-30 hours a week at a low-level job in fast food or in a factory.

What does pete produce except high medical bills and a drain on the Treasury for welfare payments via SS/Medicare/Medicaid/TriCare?

The disabled person would be less of a liability and more of an asset than pete by that measure. And also likely to die young without 20 years or more of sucking from the public teat through "entitlements".

We should be considering terminating the geezers, not the disabled.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-27   12:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)

9,450,000 square miles in America = 263,450,880,000,000 square feet.

Bad source for this.

3,796,742 sq mi * 27,878,400 = 105,847,092,172,800 square feet in America.

So that is 14,112 square feet for each of 7.5 billion humans.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-27   13:47:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)

We should be considering terminating the geezers, not the disabled.

That's the hard form of it, the Fascist form, where you actively liquidate the sick and the old. But that's not Utopia at all, because we all get old, and we all could get sick, so then we'd all have to live in fear.

The softer, Democratic Progressive form is to just rely on contraception and abortion, and euthanasia for those in irreversible comas or who want it, to thin the herd. In this way, nobody is born with signficant birth defects (all are aborted instead), but those who get hurt and become crippled have nothing to fear. With fewer people overall, there will be considerable excess production to be able to take care of the unfortunate, but we won't be vegetatively generating more and more of them.

If there were no God, the Democratic Progressive form of Utopia is the one towards which rational men of goodwill should strive.

The well off and well-placed, of course, prefer the more Fascistic approach because the power to command, and to mete out death, is a real rush.

Which is more appealing, a society where there is little crime and where murderers spend years in rehabilitation and are eventually reinserted into society, under careful supervision, to do the less desirable jobs, or a society where, once proven guilty and all appeals are exhausted, they are tortured to death on pay-per-view?

Easy: in a blind ballot, 80% of humans would vote for the second.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-27   14:56:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: redleghunter (#2)

Basing an 'argument' with a presupposed assertion is a non starter Pete.

Abortion takes a human life and that is murder.

Pure BS dogma. Is self-defense murder? Killing in time of war?

You don't want to discus this issue. You want to parrot dogma and preach.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-06-27   16:51:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#4)

Is there a finite amount of corn?

Is there a finite amound of beans?

Is there a finite amount of beef?

Yes.

If the entire world population lived in Texas how much space would each person live on?

Hard to say because it's not possible. Just how freaking big do you think Texas is?

If the entire population of the earth lived in the United States how many square feet would each person have if evenly divided?

How many angels can break dance on the head of a pin?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-06-27   16:55:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: A K A Stone (#5) (Edited)

You are correct. There is no middle ground to negotiate with someone who is a murderer.

Are you really that stupid?

No,but you are.

Ok you support abortion.

In some specific cases,yes.In general,no.

Then again,I'm not one of those loons that thinks life begins at erection.

Should we get rid of the disabled too? You for example.

Eat UP with the dumbass today,ain't ya,Stone?

Fallen off the wagon again?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-06-27   16:58:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: All (#14)

I should have known better than to try to post this on LF. The religious loons lunge on discussions like this like wolves on red meat,and start braying at the moon.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-06-27   17:04:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: sneakypete (#15)

I should have known better than to try to post this on LF. The religious loons lunge on discussions like this like wolves on red meat,and start braying at the moon.

Gosh. I thought my presentation of the Eugenicist side - ignoring religion - was pretty evenhanded.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-27   20:00:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: sneakypete (#13)

If the entire world population lived in Texas how much space would each person live on?

Hard to say because it's not possible. Just how freaking big do you think Texas is?

If the entire population of the earth lived in the United States how many square feet would each person have if evenly divided?

Not enough room to furnish food, water, or make necessary implements. They'd get to know each other well because if one of them would fart, two others would suffocate.

rlk  posted on  2017-06-27   21:13:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative (#9)

What does pete produce except high medical bills and a drain on the Treasury for welfare payments via SS/Medicare/Medicaid/TriCare?

You sound like Obama and Hillary.

rlk  posted on  2017-06-27   21:19:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: sneakypete (#12) (Edited)

Pure BS dogma. Is self-defense murder? Killing in time of war?

You don't want to discus this issue. You want to parrot dogma and preach.

I challenged you to prove human life does not begin at conception. I'm appealing to science and not philosophy as you are. Only dogma is your own.

I will show you settled biology. Can you defend your position without appealing to philosophy or sociology? That is where your argument lies and makes your OP opinion.

Let's see the science Pete.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-06-27   22:20:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: rlk, sneakyfreak (#17)

Not enough room to furnish food, water, or make necessary implements. They'd get to know each other well because if one of them would fart, two others would suffocate.

The point simpleton is we have more land than Texas.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-27   22:54:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

I think your contribution is excellent! I enjoyed it.

I note, also, that your Strangelovian identification betrays a bitter impulse to exact revenge on the unfaithful which I've seen before among trads.

Anthem  posted on  2017-06-27   23:55:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Anthem (#21)

I note, also, that your Strangelovian identification betrays a bitter impulse to exact revenge on the unfaithful which I've seen before among trads.

I am not interested in exacting revenge. I am interested in wielding power so that things are done exactly my way, which is the best way. I am also interested in the 5:1 female to male ratio that he said "Vould be required" to repopulate the earth after the holocaust. Forget "Mr. President" or "Your Highness", I'm shooting for "Pharaoh".

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-28   7:57:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22) (Edited)

You're in luck. It's easier than ever to join the Pharaohs. While they still swagger around picking on little guys, they have yet to be seen in the company of a female other than their mothers. There are four of them and, having got the ratio thing a little mixed up, they are looking for a fifth member so they can help with the repopulatin' and stuff.

They swagger around on foot now because they can't cruise like they used to, since Deputy Frank "Whitey" Burns confiscated their ride. That happened right after the patrol car broke down when Whitey was patrolling the parking lot accompanied by "Hotlips" Hougatlin. It was a warm summer's eve and Whitey could be heard through the open window, begging, "ahh, come on, pleeeeeease."

To which Hotlips replied, "Now Whitey, we must obey the rules."

"I've been obeying the rules", he whined. So she promptly rattled off seven more. "Ohhhh", he moaned, "you broke the rules with that other guy."

"I did not", she admonished indignantly. "Besides, he's a high ranking... man", she said, almost moaning out the last word.

"That's not fair", Whitey whined.

"Oh, Whitey, you just don't get it."

"That's what I'm afraid of", he mumbled.

Just then the Pharaohs roared past, giving Whitey the raspberry. Seeing a chance to impress Hotlips, Whitey cranked up the patrol car, dropped it in gear and stomped the gas. That's when it inexplicably lost its rear axle.

Later, Whitey's frustration running at a fever pitch, he was walking a beat with Barney and found the Pharaohs lounging on the sidewalk near their car. Whitey suggested to Barney that they confiscate the Pharaoh's car, to which Barney did a bugeyed double-take and squeaked, "are you crazy!"

But Whitey had a plan and conferred it upon Barney who very tentatively agreed. Whitey distracted the Pharaohs by getting beat up by them while Barney crept around to the driver's side, got in and took off, eyes a-goggle with disbelief at his success. When the Pharaohs saw their ride roar off they were stunned to inaction, giving Whitey a chance to gloat as best he could through a swollen face.

The Pharaohs were disconsolate. "Man, how are we going to get chicks and repopulate the world now", grumbled Squiggy.

"I got an idee", said the skinny leader. "I'll play my gitah and..."

"Sing outch yo nose sideways", finished Lenny, sarcastically.

"Let's do something nice for the town", spoke up the normally quiet one they called "Sneaky".

"Like whut?"

"Let's put in a garden", Sneaky beamed.

So, led by Sneaky, they all started to work on a garden. But the other Pharaohs weren't doing it the way Sneaky wanted, so he took his peat and went home.

Anthem  posted on  2017-06-28   10:20:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Anthem (#23)

Iiiiiiit's a beautiful day in the neighbourhood, the neighbourhood, the neighborhood. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

Would you be my... Could you be my... Won't you be my neighbor?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-28   10:26:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: sneakypete (#0)

Uh, Pete -- the POV of the Eugenics and Abortion people IS FASCIST. What don't you get about, "Get in the cattle car!" Or, "This unborn baby is JUST a blob of 'Tissue'!"?

ONLY narcissistic or selfish Darwinists take this Devil's Advocate position and cite "logic". You're NOT on a boat at sea with 6 people and one bag of Doritos. What got into you??

Red China's "ONE CHILD PER COUPLE" decree worked out real well, eh?

I see no possible basis for a middle-ground where the two opposing groups can meet and agree on any sort of compromise at all. One side wants to limit population so there are more resources and power for fewer people,and the other side wants to increase population because that is where their power base lies.

The "Middle Ground" is as has ALWAYS been the case: COMMON SENSE ETHICS: Those responsible for bearing children MUST SUPPORT them. Relying on socialist coercion and tax-confiscaton to STEAL from some to subsidize others is the position most of us take. Charity begins in the home.

It's NWO using socialist-Commies policies (via fascist, un-supported gubmint mandates) who are to blame for the confusion of ethics.

Liberator  posted on  2017-06-28   14:37:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: sneakypete (#0)

We all know the basis of the anti-Eugenics and Anti-Abortion crowds are religious beliefs,and organized religions NEED huge masses of followers for political power as well as a base to build their wealth on.

In a mostly well-articulated essay, as usual, you hemorrhage points for your usual blind, wrong-headed obsession with "organized religion," making NO differentiation between the various sects and Death Cults.

I don't see many Atheist/Secular Humanist charities coming to the rescue of hurt/dying people after disaster, do you?? They are comprised of 99% CHRISTIAN. Always has been the case. Christians are manning thousands of food shelter and food banks...WITHOUT PAY, without ANY "political power" considerations. Sure, there are some scam artists out there using "God" as their meal-ticket. Bu why indict ALL the "religious" because of a few??

And yes, there are "charities" in which people are salaried or compensated. They have to earn a living too, don't they? Why can't they do something useful and in the spirit of love -- while earning a living?? Your cynicism and hatred of "Gawd" is again so very much clouding your perception of reality. Btw, were the HELL do you get your data on the "basis of the anti-Eugenics and Anti-Abortion crowds"??

WHAT "we all know" here is that you are making crap up again and pulling your own insane bias and hatred out of your azz.

Let me help clarify: When the goob steps in and "helps", it's a coerced "charity" as they steal tax-payers, skimming the top, the middle, and 90% of the bottom. AND at that, their "charity" is ALWAYS based on political pay-offs.

(You're welcome.)

Liberator  posted on  2017-06-28   14:53:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Liberator (#25)

Uh, Pete -- the POV of the Eugenics and Abortion people IS FASCIST. What don't you get about, "Get in the cattle car!" Or, "This unborn baby is JUST a blob of 'Tissue'!"?

ONLY narcissistic or selfish Darwinists take this Devil's Advocate position and cite "logic". You're NOT on a boat at sea with 6 people and one bag of Doritos. What got into you??

First of all,not everybody concerned about depletion of the Earth's assets and overpopulation is a fascist. Those ARE legitimate concerns that should be taken into account.

Just like the opinions of many on the anti-abortion side should be taken into account and given consideration.

I was HOPING to be able to start an open discussion of these issues without people storming onto the thread with hob-nailed boots and pitchforks.

I should have known better. I guess it's probably due to being tired from posting so often for so long. I guess I am just tired emotionally,and should probably just leave political boards and be done with it. Nothing changes,so why bother?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-06-28   22:52:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: sneakypete, rlk (#27)

First of all,not everybody concerned about depletion of the Earth's assets and overpopulation is a fascist. Those ARE legitimate concerns that should be taken into account...

...Just like the opinions of many on the anti-abortion side should be taken into account and given consideration.

Taken into account and given consideration. MY conclusion:

It's NOT the "concern" with the "depletion of the Earth's assets and overpopulation" that's fascist; that argument has been made since the beginning of time and starting many a war over, "I NEED THAT LAST GRAPE!!"

It's the Darwinist-based *solution* (which is ALWAYS Fascist, Elite-Run, and a matter of discarding those deemed "unproductive." Or "Obsolete.")

This has been the same argument from those who say that the USA is just 3% of the world's population, but are "disproportionately stealing" 40% of the Earth's resources. This whole narrative smacks of an obvious socialist, Elite-Class agenda.

Can't this issue be considered political malarkey, financed by the Elite Class who pay professional operatives -- like fake scientists, fake data, backed by a fake media, corrupt politicians and the subversive Academe to promote their agenda?

As to "solutions," exactly what would be *yours*?

According to WHOM are the earth assets and natural resources dwindling to dangerously low levels??

As I suggested, the PTB are subsidizing irresponsibility and over-population in places like Africa and elsewhere for their own subversive purpose: To confiscate the wealth of OTHERS (the West). And while doing so, they DRAIN WESTERN STANDARDS OF LIVING as well as the Middle's Class capability to support and re-populate ITSELF.

With abortion on demand, narcissistic Western society, and the unwanted, un-sanctioned importation of Third World parasites who rely on Western gubmints to support THEIR off-spring, the PTB have easily calculated a demo that will eliminate their REAL Enemy.

More importantly, Pete, this so-called crisis of "depletion of earth's assets" and GW is merely a ruse to bury and neutralize the ONLY force intelligent and with enough conviction who can take down the PTB/NWO. The West's White Middle Class. And Christians. Or do you disagree?

...The PTB/NWO/Elites have ALREADY somehow legalized and legitimized baby-killing in the womb; They've ALREADY established Statist precedence on, "Hey -- we'll even HELP you kill yourself!" "Oh -- and we'll help you change you gender! (you'll kill yourself in a few years.")

When the State MANDATES and ALLOCATES control over resources -- instead of individuals -- we have a Red China, a USSR, a Cuba, a....Venezuela.

I was HOPING to be able to start an open discussion of these issues without people storming onto the thread with hob-nailed boots and pitchforks.

I should have known better. I guess it's probably due to being tired from posting so often for so long. I guess I am just tired emotionally,and should probably just leave political boards and be done with it. Nothing changes,so why bother?

Mission Accomplished. We are discussing the matter, aren't we?

Hey, we argue hard here and are passionate about our respective opinion -- always have.

Your position is that the PTB and Darwinists may have legit points; that we have some kind of crisis of finite resources. But DO we??

And isn't it true that those who have been multiplying the most lack the values and ethics that can support their off-spring? Isn't this merely a matter of personal and local responsibility?

As to your weariness at these forums, yes, we are ALL tired of posting and battling. Just because we occasionally bump heads doesn't mean I don't find your posts interesting or provocative.

We're all aging, some of us in not-so-good-shape. It's still a great mental exercise though, isn't it? And sometime we even learn what's shared from others...and even learn things about ourselves.

I happen to believe it's NOT all been for naught; That means things and opinions DO indeed change.

Pertinent Twilight Zone episode here at YouTube, Pete. 'The Obsolete Man'. Please check it out and lemme know what you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYrxaQIiuE

Liberator  posted on  2017-06-29   13:02:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

Well articulated post. I appreciate the effort you pour into your responses -- even when we disagree. Andyour candor and truthfulness (even if a bit disturbing.)

Vic, your brain is unbelievably fertile. I've seen very few posters who have ever matched your energy and macro-analyses at any forum...

...You are also one of the most enigmatic.

The most pleasant one to my contemplation is the one WITH the sword, because I will always be part of the upper, ruling class and I like having power, subordinates and servants - especially if they are attractive.

A true self-entitled Elitist. On what exactly is your position and alleged "power" as "Royalty" or "Elite" status based? Your birth? Your heritage? Your brain?

Do you see any conflict with The Almighty? Or concede a personal hypocrisy (we are ALL "hypocrites," btw IMO) for claiming an Elite status, yet supporting and promoting socialism? How do you rationalize that Pope Frankie is in ANY way a Rep of Jesus Christ as well as a Vatican and hierarchy that are clearly subversive and anti-Christ?

But I recognize that the trauma inherent in getting to the Utopia QUICKLY would end up scarring even the victorious survivors in a way that would very much mar Utopia, so I would settle for the egalitarian version. After all, where there is no material scarcity we end up equal anyway.

Surely you understand any "Utopia" here on earth is merely one more satanic deception implanted within our spirit. Problem: At what eternal price does one pay for enforcement and coercion of ideas that are anathema to the Founder's? Wouldn't any "Utopian" society require stomping on personal rights and liberty -- the same ones given at birth from The Almighty?

I follow the Catholic version, which doesn't allow these things, because it's TRUE, but if it weren't true, then I would be with Dr. Strangelove.

Sure -- we are all selfish anarchists at heart who'd bomb o neighbor's house for the last Ring-Ding without the Holy Spirit/God's hardwired compassion and His laws stamped on our heart.

Do you mean to say tat Vatican and RCC is your inspiration for setting moral and ethics "guidelines"? Help me understand something -- WHY hasn't Pope Frankie and the RCC been promoting and advancing the Gospel? Jesus NEVER advanced socialism via coercion. Just liberty, and charity for those who need help and can not help themselves.

Btw -- what "credentials" does the current Pope hold s a man who is an elected "spiritual-President" of the Vatican as "Vicar of Christ"? Does he speak for you as well?

Liberator  posted on  2017-06-29   13:38:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Liberator (#29)

I'm not great with the cut-andpaste feature, so I'll try to answer your key questions in one essay.

As far as the "alleged" power and its bases: ancestry, educatiom, socioeconomic position, Good looks, brains, charisma, charm and humor round out the set.

Of course there are conflicts with God in the naturalist's Utopia. I made that point at the beginning: the naturalist/scientist does not believe in the Christian God. I was not writing a hedged thing, that attempted to square the circle. I wrote from the perspective of somebody who looks at religion as pure superstition and fairy tale, and whose focus is on the rational, scientifically verified world.

The theological position cannot be squared with the secular scientific view, because the theologian believes that life is eternal, while the secular knows that life ends at death. The decisions that the theologian takes in life are partly based on reasoning about an eternal afterlife. The secular scientific has no afterlife in his equation. Obviously this leads to very different end points, and means.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-30   19:18:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: sneakypete (#12)

Pure BS dogma. Is self-defense murder? Killing in time of war?

You don't want to discus this issue. You want to parrot dogma and preach.

Pete you're stuck on stupid again. Or evil.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-01   9:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#19)

I challenged you to prove human life does not begin at conception. I'm appealing to science and not philosophy as you are. Only dogma is your own.

I will show you settled biology. Can you defend your position without appealing to philosophy or sociology? That is where your argument lies and makes your OP opinion.

Let's see the science Pete.

I will answer you this one time,and then I am done.

YOU are the one that needs to prove life begins at conception. Requiring someone to prove a negative is trying to send them off on a fools errand,and I am not a fool.

Your "Settled biology" is nothing but pure Bullshit.It might be "settled" in the alleged mind of religious loons,but that's about it.

A fetus isn't a child until it has developed enough to be born and live on it's own.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-07-01   14:59:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: sneakypete (#32)

A fetus isn't a child until it has developed enough to be born and live on it's own.

And a child isn't an adult until it can provide for itself and live on its own.

But it's been a life since the two gametes combined and made one growing organism. In this case, human.

Anthem  posted on  2017-07-01   15:17:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: sneakypete (#32)

YOU are the one that needs to prove life begins at conception.

Pete it's called biology. Even the kids in high school know the following:

The Developing Human Being By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud 7th edition, 2003

From an introductory definition section:

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte(ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)

“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. Theembryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)

From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”

First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)

“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)

“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)

“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]

And more:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQo dVZINSA

The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

redleghunter  posted on  2017-07-01   22:21:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Anthem, sneakypete, redleghunter (#33)

(Pete: " A fetus isn't a child until it has developed enough to be born and live on it's own.")

Anthem: "And a child isn't an adult until it can provide for itself and live on its own."

+100. Well done, without engaging in ridicule or what would be deemed "inflammatory."

The argument that if one cannot provide for themselves, their humanity is negated is an argument that is crushed on the basis you cited, Anthem.

Same as in the case of older/infirmed people who require others to care/provide for (or else THEY will die almost immediately as well.)

There is NO logic and reasonable rationale for one who supports abortion -- ESPECIALLY in the biological sense, once the heart begins beating. Only self-denial of the truth.

Pete -- you used to be pro-like, right? What changed your mind?

Liberator  posted on  2017-07-02   17:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, Anthem, Vicomte13 (#34)

REALLY interest stuff.

Even the kids in high school know the following...

I doubt it very much. Maybe what -- HS kids 40 years ago??

Only PRIVATE schools would teach what you've posted; Public schools and even many colleges avoid REAL biology and the genesis of life like the plague. IF they DO get into it, the lesson is quick, and doubt cast on the definition of "life". Otherwise, the young sheeple might actually rebel and doubt the Pavlov's Dog-like secular-humanist/political-left skewed instruction found in Public School...

AND for good reason: Public School biology teachers, science teaches, social studies teachers (actually most are more like "indoctrinaires," aren't they?) and counselors. The goal: TEACHING plausible deniability.

Sexually-active students can then easily claim ignorance by the time ONE of them is preggo. YET...they all know by HS how to slip a condom around a banana. OR, are instructed on where the nearest Planned Parenthood Abortion Slaughterhouse is that kills, and disposes of the so-called "blob" of "non-living" tissue.

For THIS kind of wanton murder of the unborn, it can easily be construed scriptural that a nation that condones this satanic practice IS indeed "cursed," that is, left to spiritually demonic devices and NOT "blessed," nor given to Godly spiritual protection AS A NATION.

Liberator  posted on  2017-07-02   17:46:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Liberator (#36)

What nations are left that prohibit abortion? The Catholic nations of Latin America, Poland and most of the Muslim nations. So, the Catholic nations (mostly), and the Muslim ones, get it right. The rest are evil by definition. Right?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-07-02   23:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Liberator, sneakypete, redleghunter, TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#36) (Edited)

"I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious", a phrase I've heard more than a few times from the women I've dated. Once it was, "I'm Christian, but I'm not religious", which was a head scratch moment. I don't ask for explanations, but I do wonder, watch and see, what is guiding their spirit.

I mention this because I think that abortion is one of those things that affects us all, individually and culturally, at a spiritual level. The concept of "spiritual affect" may itself be as foreign as dark matter to some people, so there is a sort of language hurdle impeding communication on the subject. So, to establish some basis, let me take a run at removing that barrier.

At the individual level our spirit is really how we feel about our life and our connection to things that are not really tangible. When you look up at the stars at night do you feel connected or nothing? Is life a miracle or a random accident that has no meaning? Does love exist or are humans merely driven by biological imperatives. Is there joy and wonder in things that you will never possess or is existential pleasure measured by the sum of acquisitions and losses. Do you have a spirit or just appetites of the flesh?

If, from those questions, you conclude that you don't have a spirit, then stop reading, we're done. If, like most people, you recognize something of the nature of a spirit within you, even if you assign it a different label, like emotions, or conscience, or connection to the universe, etc., then the next thing is how it interacts with your actions and reactions, and how it affects other people and is affected by others and their actions and reactions. The influence of your spirit on your decisions determines your behavior.

The sum total of your decisions and the decisions of others forms what the Germans call Zeitgeist, or the spirit of the times, which is not superficial – it is the root cause of the culture that surrounds us; the root cause of what the arts are like; what sciences we pursue; how we interact with each other; our expectations and what is expected of us by society. If lying, cheating, stealing and other depredations are the norm, then it is a “low trust” society where security measures are a priority and contracts must be monitored closely. If honesty, integrity, and commitment are the norm then it is a “high trust” society where doors can be left unlocked and business done on a handshake.

Sex is either a fraud or a commitment.

Fraudulent sex is anything from a drive-by hookup to a pretend commitment until it is no longer convenient. The spirit is the same – no commitment. Pretense is, of course, a lie. But even the “honest” hookup where both parties acknowledge its temporary basis, is cheating. Cheating millions of years of evolution which developed the “chemistry” of human pair bonding that proved successful for our species, or cheating the God given nature of human sexuality which combines complimentary physical abilities and emotional needs to form the family that sustains us physically and spiritually. Rape is stealing.

All the above are symptoms of a low trust society, where other people are merely objects in a deadly game of lying, cheating, stealing, and killing. Abortion is characteristic of such a society. Like a vicious cycle it is both cause and effect. It causes spiritual numbness, callousness, or depression. Its effect is the social decay that allows it to happen to the point where it becomes normal expected behavior (and birth the exception). In such a society life has less value, predators are common, eat or be eaten is the Zeitgeist, art is haphazard, music is dulling, science is devoid of conscience, and business is done through the barrel of a gun.

Welcome to hell.

Anthem  posted on  2017-07-03   1:02:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Anthem (#38)

Excellent post. I am not in total agreement with it,but you do make some excellent and well thought-out points.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-07-03   3:15:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Anthem (#38)

The sum total of your decisions and the decisions of others forms what the Germans call Zeitgeist, or the spirit of the times, which is not superficial – it is the root cause of the culture that surrounds us; the root cause of what the arts are like; what sciences we pursue; how we interact with each other; our expectations and what is expected of us by society. If lying, cheating, stealing and other depredations are the norm, then it is a “low trust” society where security measures are a priority and contracts must be monitored closely. If honesty, integrity, and commitment are the norm then it is a “high trust” society where doors can be left unlocked and business done on a handshake. Sex is either a fraud or a commitment. Fraudulent sex is anything from a drive-by hookup to a pretend commitment until it is no longer convenient. The spirit is the same – no commitment. Pretense is, of course, a lie. But even the “honest” hookup where both parties acknowledge its temporary basis, is cheating. Cheating millions of years of evolution which developed the “chemistry” of human pair bonding that proved successful for our species, or cheating the God given nature of human sexuality which combines complimentary physical abilities and emotional needs to form the family that sustains us physically and spiritually. Rape is stealing. All the above are symptoms of a low trust society, where other people are merely objects in a deadly game of lying, cheating, stealing, and killing. Abortion is characteristic of such a society. Like a vicious cycle it is both cause and effect. It causes spiritual numbness, callousness, or depression. Its effect is the social decay that allows it to happen to the point where it becomes normal expected behavior (and birth the exception). In such a society life has less value, predators are common, eat or be eaten is the Zeitgeist, art is haphazard, music is dulling, science is devoid of conscience, and business is done through the barrel of a gun. Welcome to hell.

A most enlightening philosophical indictment of our Western society. Thank you for that.

Have you read any of Francis Schaffer's works? Of note, if you have not, is "How Should We Then Live." I think you would like the read as he goes from Pentecost to his own time at publishing (early 80s) to show the various philosophical influences on Western society.

redleghunter  posted on  2017-07-03   12:07:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 42) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com