• Frank's Lesson's Contest

    We want to see your skills! Post a video between now and November 1st showing what you've learned from Frank's lessons and 3 people will be selected to win a free shirt. Good luck everyone!

    Create a channel Learn more
  • Having trouble using the site?

    Contact support

Is abortion ok

It's not at all a secret that Sanger was a eugenicist.

Like the Bene Gesserit? She must have been a badass.

No claims about anything being a secret, just no personal familiarity with her, her work or her legacy.

I certainly have an appreciation for the importance of familiarity with historical failures when laying the framework for future disasters but, at some point, it inevitably derails any useful discussion about possible solutions.

Jefferson and Washington were "bad" people because they owned slaves and arguable were practitioners in "micro-eugenics" deciding which slaves bred to produce desirable traits just like any other farm animal.
 
Like the Bene Gesserit? She must have been a badass.

No claims about anything being a secret, just no personal familiarity with her, her work or her legacy.

I certainly have an appreciation for the importance of familiarity with historical failures when laying the framework for future disasters but, at some point, it inevitably derails any useful discussion about possible solutions.

Jefferson and Washington were "bad" people because they owned slaves and arguable were practitioners in "micro-eugenics" deciding which slaves bred to produce desirable traits just like any other farm animal.
You’re free to argue the utility and societal benefits of abortion all you want. As someone firmly opposed I don’t deny there are compelling arguments. But the genesis of Planned Parenthood and who its founder was is not in dispute. It was created as a purpose built tool of genocide. Kai

That any landed man owned slaves from the dawn of history through the 18th century is completely unremarkable. That a woman in the 20th century set up an industrial scale, baby murdering machine for the purpose of an eradicating a race, promoting genetic purity IS quite remarkable. That’s it persists to this day and has somehow avoided being associated with the other demonic progressive movement’s contemporary to it is even more remarkable.

You see no irony here in regards to how the left defends this and views the Pro Life movement?

While the Christian Right character of the Pro Life movement is undeniable (murdering the innocent has undeniable moral element), it is absolutely ancillary and unnecessary when simple Socratic method will lead you to virtually the same conclusions. I specifically avoid those kinds of arguments simply because most people who are pro abortion are openly anti-Christian bigots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quietmike
You’re free to argue the utility and societal benefits of abortion all you want.

I don't think I am, wasn't the intention. Only what is or is not "OK" regardless of "benefit". The term "OK" is highly subjective.

You see no irony here in regards to how the left

There is duplicity in many things the "left" does but the "right" isn't much better in many ways trading away individual independence for "security".

But your statements are just another rambling, circular diatribe on the supposed superiority of a particular brand of morals.
 
I think you are falling for what our current education system is selling. Your right not "everyone", but "most" did. And a great many still do, however we don't do it so much by skin pigment but by what you think.

My point with FDR is you can go back from there, and none of them had a "modern" attitude to the race issue, Wilson had screenings of Birth of a Nation in the white house.

And still I say you can't judge actions of the past by morals of today. The thing is a great many people have no idea what the truth of the past is. It like many other things are being rewritten, and when you correct someone you get a......ok boomer.
What did FDR and Wilson have in common?
Hint: starts with D.
 
If not, why are we importing millions of illegals to "do jobs Americans just won't do"?

Because folks here illegally will work for slave labour wages and put up with all kinds of abuse that any decent citizen wouldn't stand for.
And the corporate overlords want that bonus check more than anything else in the world.
 
Because folks here illegally will work for slave labour wages and put up with all kinds of abuse that any decent citizen wouldn't stand for.
And the corporate overlords want that bonus check more than anything else in the world.
If a person is unwilling to work to support their kids, they should be charged with child neglect and jailed. If that doesn't get their attention, terminate their parental rights and remove the children permanently.
 
If a person is unwilling to work to support their kids, they should be charged with child neglect and jailed. If that doesn't get their attention, terminate their parental rights and remove the children permanently.

Be careful what you wish for, it will NOT be used on the people you despise, it WILL be used on YOU!

You mistake being willing to work with being willing to be a slave and be abused and misused and injured and such.
I understand corporate propaganda is widely pushed and folks are told to be happy to work themselves to death for the glory of some corporation who doesn't care about them.

BUT long ago in this country we realized that was a BAD thing and we put in lots of laws about how much you could not pay your workers and a minimum level of treatment.

Corporations didn't like that because it cut into their mega profits and volcanic island getaway spots.

What you are actually demanding is that the government use someone's children as blackmail to make them work at basically gunpoint for any scrap some corporation would throw their way.

But that's all academic & no longer important.

For awhile corporations were behind wanting illegals in this country to boost their profits (Walmart for example saved so much money using illegals as cleaners the multi million dollar fines were worth it).

But then the Democrats got in on needing a new stream of votes and the "african americans" were a bit too likely to think for themselves.

So now they are pouring in the dregs from all over the world that have no intention of working at all and are giving them instant benefits that better many times what a hard working man can earn at the lower rungs.

Don't worry you might get your wish, it will be your family that is forced to work for anything no matter how little no matter how brutal no matter how dangerous, or the Uniform hangers will take your kids at gunpoint and kill you. Meanwhile all the "illegals" will get more benefits than ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armorpl8chikn
Be careful what you wish for, it will NOT be used on the people you despise, it WILL be used on YOU!

You mistake being willing to work with being willing to be a slave and be abused and misused and injured and such.
I understand corporate propaganda is widely pushed and folks are told to be happy to work themselves to death for the glory of some corporation who doesn't care about them.

BUT long ago in this country we realized that was a BAD thing and we put in lots of laws about how much you could not pay your workers and a minimum level of treatment.

Corporations didn't like that because it cut into their mega profits and volcanic island getaway spots.

What you are actually demanding is that the government use someone's children as blackmail to make them work at basically gunpoint for any scrap some corporation would throw their way.

But that's all academic & no longer important.

For awhile corporations were behind wanting illegals in this country to boost their profits (Walmart for example saved so much money using illegals as cleaners the multi million dollar fines were worth it).

But then the Democrats got in on needing a new stream of votes and the "african americans" were a bit too likely to think for themselves.

So now they are pouring in the dregs from all over the world that have no intention of working at all and are giving them instant benefits that better many times what a hard working man can earn at the lower rungs.

Don't worry you might get your wish, it will be your family that is forced to work for anything no matter how little no matter how brutal no matter how dangerous, or the Uniform hangers will take your kids at gunpoint and kill you. Meanwhile all the "illegals" will get more benefits than ever.
Get rid of entitlement spending and taxes drop by 66%. That would let lots of families go back to one working family member, and it would make it much easier on single parents.

Nevermind government overspending is the single largest driver of inflation.

I love it when folks whine about corporations, not realizing that is just another example of government overreach. Corps are a legal fiction that only exist b/c of government.
 
I'll tell you this about abortion.

Someone I know well and his wife lost a baby at 14 weeks.

The wife delivered it at home and they buried it in a sacred undisclosed location on their farm.

Seeing little hands and arms on that 3 inch tall body and hearing the mother speak of the precious loving connection with the child made it 100% undeniably obvious that 14 week old child was every bit as image-of-god human as you and I.

If you do your research and confront the actual facts, look at pictures, and know what's in the womb and you still deny the humanity of the unborn, I truly pray for your soul because your conscience is so fully seared by sin you're almost irreconcilably damned.
Boring and sentimental ... also irrelevant.
 
1713317540233.png
 
i'm done. there is no point in discussing this any longer.
Because they can regurgitate the talking points the talking heads told them to believe, but past that, they vapor lock. It's obvious they haven't thought the matter out for themselves, and are only behaving like good little automatons.

If you supposedly believe in something so deeply, you should be able to defend it.
 
So you can actually see the logic in a stack of papers being granted legal personhood by the government via corporations, but not unborn babies?


Future generations [assuming there are any] will likely look back at this era of 1960s to the 2020s with the same level of disdain that the people of this era look back at slave-owners with. The idea of "well we don't consider them human beings, they don't count as people" isn't going to wash with future generations.

Slavery was justified, in part, by the assertion that slaves were not actual human beings and thus didn't have any rights that were bound to be respected.

Unborn babies are aborted based in part on the explanation that "they don't count as a life."

It is highly unlikely that people in the 2060s, 2070s, 2080s, 2120s, will look fondly and favorably upon the ideological basis and twisted morality that this civilization contrived to try to justify mass abortion.

An unborn baby is quite clearly a human being, to insist otherwise is to advance an absurdity that is contrary to medicine, biology, philosophy, morality, and the like.

If Americans and Western Europeans were most honest they would openly admit, "unborn babies are people, this is murder, but we're going to allow women to engage in mass murder via abortion as a means to permit them to avoid the consequences of rampant unprotected promiscuous sex. Their supposed right to avoid the natural biological consequences of unprotected promiscuous sex is more important than the right of an unborn baby to be allowed to live."

Abortion as a national right is a societal policy of murder as a matter of convenience.
 
Future generations [assuming there are any] will likely look back at this era of 1960s to the 2020s with the same level of disdain that the people of this era look back at slave-owners with. The idea of "well we don't consider them human beings, they don't count as people" isn't going to wash with future generations.

Slavery was justified, in part, by the assertion that slaves were not actual human beings and thus didn't have any rights that were bound to be respected.

Unborn babies are aborted based in part on the explanation that "they don't count as a life."

It is highly unlikely that people in the 2060s, 2070s, 2080s, 2120s, will look fondly and favorably upon the ideological basis and twisted morality that this civilization contrived to try to justify mass abortion.

An unborn baby is quite clearly a human being, to insist otherwise is to advance an absurdity that is contrary to medicine, biology, philosophy, morality, and the like.
It's telling there has only one group who had a 9 year period of their history where they didn't claim some section of the population didn't really count as people and could be killed w/o consequence.
 
Can you cite a biblical verse where Jesus advocated killing babies to avoid the consequences of being a filthy road whore?


Matthew 18 involves children, but not in terms of being aborted.


And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Longshot231
Matthew 18 involves children, but not in terms of being aborted.


And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
That has nothing to do with killing babies to avoid the consequences of being a road whore.
The bible actually says not to sacrifice your children to Molech.

Try a bit harder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LawTalker
Now that I think about it, a strong argument could be made that any state allowing abortion on demand as an elective medical procedure, is violating the 13th Amendment, because an unborn child must necessarily be reduced to property and the status of a slave prior to being medically killed.

The 13th Amendment is the only Amendment that completely prohibits a particular activity/institution [slavery], on the part of the federal government, state governments, and all private actors.

It is not possible to perform an abortion unless one begins by negating the rights of the unborn baby, who presumably would want to live and to be born. Effectively the unborn baby is reduced to the status of a slave and then it is permitted for the master, holding the power of life and death over this human property, to exercise the power to kill the slave.

The initial presumption should be made that the unborn baby wishes to live, and the mother of this unborn child should not have the right to negate the [presumed] desire to live on the part of the unborn baby.

"Well parents have a right to decide for their children" we may hear as a retort from those advocating abortion. Perhaps they will point out [correctly], "an unborn baby cannot communicate anything" which is true. Well, a 4 month old, 11 month old, and often an 18 month old, cannot communicate much of anything, shall we allow a mother who tires of her new-born baby to engage in an act of infanticide? A 4 year old is usually capable of fairly coherent speech but is unlikely to be able to provide a philosophically profound basis for why they should be allowed to continue to live, does this mean a parent can have a child put to death as a toddler if the toddler cannot give a graduate level thesis explanation on their desire to live and their right to life?

The presumption should exist that all unborn babies wish to live and the state, barring some dire medical threat to the mother, should enforce this presumption and protect the right of the unborn to ultimately be born.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quietmike
That has nothing to do with killing babies to avoid the consequences of being a road whore.
The bible actually says not to sacrifice your children to Molech.

Try a bit harder.

Exactly my point.

I couldn't find anything where Jesus advocates killing unborn babies or born babies. The only time Jesus mentioned babies it was cautioning people that if they cause children/babies to stumble, they are in dire peril for their wickedness.

I think we can agree, if somebody seeks to use the Bible to justify abortion, they aren't going to succeed.

You could read the Bible six times over and still not find a basis to support a policy of abortion. It isn't there to be found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quietmike
Why do I keep seeing this bumped every few days? You guys really have nothing better to discuss?

That any of you think you're going to change hearts and minds is adorable.


I say we open abortions to 18 years, so I can have the choice to end an unfit life after it's had a chance to prove it's worth.
 
Now that I think about it, a strong argument could be made that any state allowing abortion on demand as an elective medical procedure, is violating the 13th Amendment, because an unborn child must necessarily be reduced to property and the status of a slave prior to being medically killed.

The 13th Amendment is the only Amendment that completely prohibits a particular activity/institution [slavery], on the part of the federal government, state governments, and all private actors.

It is not possible to perform an abortion unless one begins by negating the rights of the unborn baby, who presumably would want to live and to be born. Effectively the unborn baby is reduced to the status of a slave and then it is permitted for the master, holding the power of life and death over this human property, to exercise the power to kill the slave.

The initial presumption should be made that the unborn baby wishes to live, and the mother of this unborn child should not have the right to negate the [presumed] desire to live on the part of the unborn baby.

"Well parents have a right to decide for their children" we may hear as a retort from those advocating abortion. Perhaps they will point out [correctly], "an unborn baby cannot communicate anything" which is true. Well, a 4 month old, 11 month old, and often an 18 month old, cannot communicate much of anything, shall we allow a mother who tires of her new-born baby to engage in an act of infanticide? A 4 year old is usually capable of fairly coherent speech but is unlikely to be able to provide a philosophically profound basis for why they should be allowed to continue to live, does this mean a parent can have a child put to death as a toddler if the toddler cannot give a graduate level thesis explanation on their desire to live and their right to life?

The presumption should exist that all unborn babies wish to live and the state, barring some dire medical threat to the mother, should enforce this presumption and protect the right of the unborn to ultimately be born.
Now you're starting to get it. Virtually every argument for abortion was used to defend slavery.
 
Why do I keep seeing this bumped every few days? You guys really have nothing better to discuss?

That any of you think you're going to change hearts and minds is adorable.


I say we open abortions to 18 years, so I can have the choice to end an unfit life after it's had a chance to prove it's worth.


What happens when people decide that you're too old to contribute to society and that you're not sufficiently able to justify the resources you consume? So you decide you want a "right" to kill young people for convenience. What happens when young and middle age people decide they want a "right" to kill old people for convenience?
 
  • Like
Reactions: quietmike
Why do I keep seeing this bumped every few days? You guys really have nothing better to discuss?

That any of you think you're going to change hearts and minds is adorable.


I say we open abortions to 18 years, so I can have the choice to end an unfit life after it's had a chance to prove it's worth.
Most historians say Hitler was the most evil in modern history. They say he's responsible for 7-8 million deaths. When abortion has claimed over 63 million deaths, dems make Hitler look like a rank amateur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armorpl8chikn
Most historians say Hitler was the most evil in modern history. They say he's responsible for 7-8 million deaths. When abortion has claimed over 63 million deaths, dems make Hitler look like a rank amateur.


63,000,000 just in the USA.

This doesn't get into Western Europe.

In France most pregnancies since the 1970s ended in abortion. The typical French pregnancy is more likely to end in abortion than in being carried to term for a live birth.

This also doesn't get into Eastern Europe.

I recall reading that abortion was so common in the Soviet Union that the average Soviet woman had at least 6 abortions.

These days, the average Ukrainian woman has had at least 7 abortions and the average Russian woman around 4 abortions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quietmike
What happens when people decide that you're too old to contribute to society and that you're not sufficiently able to justify the resources you consume? So you decide you want a "right" to kill young people for convenience. What happens when young and middle age people decide they want a "right" to kill old people for convenience?

Sounds good. I don't want to be a burden, and I sure as hell don't want the diaper changing years.
 
Can you cite a biblical verse where Jesus advocated killing babies to avoid the consequences of being a filthy road whore?
i meant feeding the poor.

'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. '

of course, they didn't have welfare queens back then, or have to talk about puberty blockers and child mutilation either.
 
What did FDR and Wilson have in common?
Hint: starts with D.
Yup, they have the same thing in common this current guy does, and if they can ever get him off script it will be a very fun show. You could say he is old school, and has the same ideas those two do. When he had all his marbles he said as much.
 
Get rid of entitlement spending and taxes drop by 66%. That would let lots of families go back to one working family member, and it would make it much easier on single parents.

Nevermind government overspending is the single largest driver of inflation.

I love it when folks whine about corporations, not realizing that is just another example of government overreach. Corps are a legal fiction that only exist b/c of government.

Exactly.

Charity should NEVER be a "right" that someone has to receive.

Back before income taxes back before the government going crazy, back when a lot of big business were actually run by "someone" there was a wealth of "charities" that people could turn to for help. Most based on either a religious or social organization.

That is how it should be done.

Our Church for example has a very good social assistance program for members that we contribute to voluntarily each month.

BUT you can understand WHY it became as it is now. Power and control for the government.
Government gets the power to go rob the productive on behalf of the non-productive and then gets the power over the non productive to make them do what they are told and live how they are told or they don't get any of that sweet money.

It keeps the "poor" folks from getting ahead, as if you stay in the gutter you can get your up to almost $70k per year in benefits / payments for you family, so long as you are NOT responsible, don't save up, don't try to get ahead and don't try to better your station. You try to do any of the "good, stuff" the government will jerk the rug out from under you so fast and then hit you with fees and charges and such.

As far as Corporations go, they pretty much run the world so it will take pretty much a complete downfall and rebuilding of civilization to get rid of them. Maybe the strong Men that rebuild after the bad times will be smart enough to wash away all the evil from the past...
 
Exactly.

Charity should NEVER be a "right" that someone has to receive.

Back before income taxes back before the government going crazy, back when a lot of big business were actually run by "someone" there was a wealth of "charities" that people could turn to for help. Most based on either a religious or social organization.

That is how it should be done.

Our Church for example has a very good social assistance program for members that we contribute to voluntarily each month.

BUT you can understand WHY it became as it is now. Power and control for the government.
Government gets the power to go rob the productive on behalf of the non-productive and then gets the power over the non productive to make them do what they are told and live how they are told or they don't get any of that sweet money.

It keeps the "poor" folks from getting ahead, as if you stay in the gutter you can get your up to almost $70k per year in benefits / payments for you family, so long as you are NOT responsible, don't save up, don't try to get ahead and don't try to better your station. You try to do any of the "good, stuff" the government will jerk the rug out from under you so fast and then hit you with fees and charges and such.

As far as Corporations go, they pretty much run the world so it will take pretty much a complete downfall and rebuilding of civilization to get rid of them. Maybe the strong Men that rebuild after the bad times will be smart enough to wash away all the evil from the past...
20190409_171053.jpg
 
63,000,000 just in the USA.

This doesn't get into Western Europe.

Close ... sorta ... but facts aren't always part of a solution ... about 2.2M in the U.S.

In the U.S. in 2022, according to one source, there were approximately 65M women between the ages of 15-44, the principal portion of women considered to be of child bearing age. My your estimate ~97% of women had one abortion and if we say the average number of abortions per woman in the U.S. is two then it's still nearly 50% of the child bearing women ... maths

World Health Organization:

Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year.

97% take place in developing countries

45% of all abortions are unsafe

Unsafe abortion is a leading – but preventable – cause of maternal deaths and morbidities




 
Last edited: