The most divisive subject in the history of humanity

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,042
Reaction score
2,042
This Oped has some things right, and some things wrong.

WALSH: People Are Mad That I Called Chelsea Clinton A Satanist. I'd Like To Issue No Apology.

This part is correct.

Pro-abortion "Christians" like to say that the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit abortion. Yes, it does: "Thou shalt not murder" is clear enough. Must Scripture go into specifics about every possible form of murder? There's nothing in the Ten Commandments specifically saying that I can't beat my neighbor to death with a shovel. But I think that scenario fits under the "don't murder" umbrella, as does the direct killing of humans in the womb.

Let us remember, also, that Jesus Christ was Incarnate as an unborn child. He was a "fetus," to use our modern term. A stage of human development cannot be anything less than sacred after the Lord Himself lived through that stage. Christianity is the only religion in the world that believes God Himself was once unborn. For this reason, no religion on Earth is less compatible with abortion than Christianity. You cannot be a pro-abortion Christian. It's like trying to square a circle. It just doesn't work.

This part is only partially right. At least they tried to represent Satanist properly.

Satanism, on the other hand, is deeply compatible with the pro-abortion view. The two go hand-in-hand, a match made in Hell. After all, satanism is not the worship of a diabolical spirit known as Satan. That sort of theological satanism doesn't really exist, or barely exists, in modern society. Even the Church of Satan will tell you they neither believe in, nor worship, the Devil. Rather, they worship what Satan worshiped: the self. Satanism is the deification of the self. It is the belief that the world really does revolve around you, at least as far as you are concerned.

But this next section is just nonsense, at least when it comes to the original Church Of Satan as founded by Anton LeVey. He's been dead a long time so they might be twisting things, but the Satanic Bible clearly stated to do no harm to children.

It's not hard to see why satanists not only support abortion but consider it sacramental. Through abortion, a woman places her own comfort and convenience above the life of her child. She declares that her child's very humanity is contingent upon, and subordinate to, her desires. Pro-aborts are quite explicit about this. If you ask them when life begins, they'll tell you it begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. They ascribe Godlike power and authority to the individual. What else can we call this but the deification of the self? It is textbook satanism.

If you read the Satanic Bible, you will see it has nothing to do with what some current day SJW claim it does. This Oped gets it partially wrong too. The Satanic Bible is clear that you do no harm to children.

To be clear I am not a Satanist, just like I am not a Christian, I am agnostic. Anton LeVey was also a charlatan mostly interested in money. That said, the foundation of the formal Satanic Bible does not support abortion.
 
Last edited:
redrumloa said:
Pro-abortion "Christians" like to say that the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit abortion. Yes, it does: "Thou shalt not murder" is clear enough.
Click to expand...
And murder means killing in contravention of the law, but abortion is not against the law so it isn't murder.

but maybe the writer is thinking of "God's law" instead of the law of the US. In that case, it is not murder if you beat your slave but he lives for a few days after the beating before dying. It's also clearly not murder if you promise to sacrifice the first living thing that comes out of your house after a victorious adventure spent slaying (but not murdering) a bunch of foreigners and it happens to be your daughter.
It is also a good thing if you demonstrate the clear willingness to kill your son if you think God is telling you to do it. and then there's etc, and etc, and also etc.
 
Twitter Approves Ads in Favor of Female Genital Mutilation After Blacklisting Pro-Lifers

The tweet, which was made by Dawoodi Bohra Women for Religious Freedom (DBWRF), attempted to make FGM, named “khafz” by the group, look like a normal and safe practice.

“My daughters have also undergone khafz, and they’re growing up as perfectly as other children of their age,” declared the post, which included video testimony of the mother. “As a mother, I can never do anything to harm them.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1038689276471521280
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And murder means killing in contravention of the law, but abortion is not against the law so it isn't murder.
Click to expand...

In a legal sense, yes. Abortion is sadly the legal killing of a human being. Just like the institute of slavery is on the wrong side of history, one day abortion will also be on the wrong side of history. "A clump of cells" is simply a complete lie. Technology and mass communication will eventually change people's opinion. Pregnancy is also nearly 100% preventable for people who don't want to be parents.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153498426207492
 
redrumloa said:
In a legal sense, yes. Abortion is sadly the legal killing of a human being. Just like the institute of slavery is on the wrong side of history, one day abortion will also be on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...
And throwing stones at people until they are dead if they pick up sticks on the sabbath too thankfully.
 
Canada Eyes Euthanasia For Children, And Without Parental Consent

Canada isn’t alone with regard to assisted suicide in general or the potential execution of kids. The slippery-slope-ready debate on euthanasia rages in Australia (here); the Netherlands permits extinguishing children over 12. In 2014, Belgium changed its law to allow the medical destruction of a child at any age, if he or she requests it; two months ago, that directive killed a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old — the planet’s youngest lives to be snuffed out by “medical care.”

The world is a scary place. Though many liberals point to Canada as a model for medical reform, such macabre legislation and its potential (if not likely) future — which has allowed for even the discussion of killing children — is something not seen to this degree (including the evil of the other countries mentioned), to my knowledge, since 1940’s Germany. Not, that is, unless you count a galvanizing issue in the U.S. which — just two years ago — put upon the stage Hillary Clinton, who defended partial birth abortion.
 
redrumloa said:
Canada Eyes Euthanasia For Children, And Without Parental Consent

Canada isn’t alone with regard to assisted suicide in general or the potential execution of kids. The slippery-slope-ready debate on euthanasia rages in Australia (here); the Netherlands permits extinguishing children over 12. In 2014, Belgium changed its law to allow the medical destruction of a child at any age, if he or she requests it; two months ago, that directive killed a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old — the planet’s youngest lives to be snuffed out by “medical care.”
Click to expand...

Yeah. They should have just cured that Muscular Dystrophy, they should have just cured that brain tumour, they should have just cured that cystic fibrosis.

Sometimes life is complicated and what is right isn't so clear. If you were Canadian you would probably be familiar with the Latimer case. A more recent and interesting case is that of Adam Maier-Clayton.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Yeah. They should have just cured that Muscular Dystrophy, they should have just cured that brain tumour, they should have just cured that cystic fibrosis.
Click to expand...

Yeah! How dare parents of young children with depression want a say in euthanasia?
 
This is all connected.

Terminally Ill Woman’s Insurance Company Will Pay for Her Assisted Suicide, But Not for Chemo

The Washington Times reported that the California Assisted-suicide law prompted an insurance company to deny coverage to a terminally ill California woman.

Bradford Richardson, from the Washington Times reported that Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said that her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug based on the recommendation of her doctors but shortly after the California assisted suicide law went into effect, her insurance company denied her
 
redrumloa said:
This is all connected.

Terminally Ill Woman’s Insurance Company Will Pay for Her Assisted Suicide, But Not for Chemo

The Washington Times reported that the California Assisted-suicide law prompted an insurance company to deny coverage to a terminally ill California woman.

Bradford Richardson, from the Washington Times reported that Stephanie Packer, a wife and mother of four who was diagnosed with a terminal form of scleroderma, said that her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug based on the recommendation of her doctors but shortly after the California assisted suicide law went into effect, her insurance company denied her
Click to expand...

Hmm. What could the connection be? Is it that these are all private insurers? Must be Obama death panels.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Hmm. What could the connection be? Is it that these are all private insurers? Must be Obama death panels.
Click to expand...

the California Assisted-suicide law prompted an insurance company to deny coverage

her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug based on the recommendation of her doctors but shortly after the California assisted suicide law went into effect, her insurance company denied her

The connection is Democrats, abortion was the slippery slope. If killing babies is OK, killing ill adults is not much different.
 
redrumloa said:
the California Assisted-suicide law prompted an insurance company to deny coverage

her insurance company initially indicated it would pay for her to switch to a different chemotherapy drug based on the recommendation of her doctors but shortly after the California assisted suicide law went into effect, her insurance company denied her
Click to expand...

Yup. Just private companies trying to offer the best care in the world (and maximize their profits).
 
memba the "safe but rare" line we were promised?

Abortion Was the Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2018, Killing 42 Million People

As of December 31, 2018, there have been some 41.9 million abortions performed in the course of the year, Worldometers revealed. By contrast, 8.2 million people died from cancer in 2018, 5 million from smoking, and 1.7 million died of HIV/AIDS. …

It also records the total number of abortions in the world, based on the latest statistics on abortions published by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Globally, just under a quarter of all pregnancies (23 percent) were ended by abortion in 2018, and for every 33 live births, ten infants were aborted.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top