When I was a teenager, abortion was one of the big issues in politics and social policy. Bill Buckley used to say it was one of three issues that told you everything about a man’s politics. It turns out he was wrong about that, as so many of his tribe were pro-life for effect, as a part of the Frank Meyer “fusionism” strategy. Putting that aside, for normal people, abortion was the issue that defined you politically. Liberals were pro-abortion and non-liberals were pro-life. The latter emphasized the sanctity and uniqueness of each life while the former rejected that entirely.
Here we are 30 years later and abortion is not much of an issue for our politicians. There are some who make it a centerpiece of their politics, but they are rare exceptions. The so-called conservatives that we see in the commentariat wince when the topic is raised. You get the sense they look at it like public professions of faith, something the Dirt People still do, but unbecoming of a Cloud Person. They go through the motions, as we will see with the court nominee, but the result will be that a “conservative” judge will swear to never ever think about altering abortion law.
The thing that the pro-life people never could accept is that the pro-abortion people were never really pro-abortion, at least not as they advertised it. Sure, the barren spinsters protesting in the streets for a “woman’s right to choose” are pro-abortion, but they are the dull witted shock troops of the Cult of Modern Liberalism, organized around simple ideas in order to get them out in the streets making noise. The women who were running around dressed as vaginas last month had no idea why they were doing it. They just liked the drama and the attention.
The real core of the abortion movement is blank slate ideology, which has become a foundation item for the Left. Since all humans are the same at birth, the only thing society should care about is the number of live births and the social structures for shaping and forming these amorphous blobs as they come into the world. Babies born to mothers not “properly trained” to be good citizens will not get the proper training so the emphasis of the abortion movement has always been about making sure the woman is “ready to be a mother” as if it is just another job within the state.
Anyway, another example of how far and how fast we have moved away from the idea that human life is unique and precious is what we are seeing with gene editing.
An influential science advisory group formed by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine on Tuesday lent its support to a once-unthinkable proposition: clinical efforts to engineer humans with inheritable genetic traits.
In a report laden with caveats and notes of caution, the group endorsed the alteration of human eggs, sperm and embryos — but only to prevent babies from being born with genes known to cause serious diseases and disability, only when no “reasonable alternative” exists, and only when a plan is in place to track the effects of the procedure through multiple generations.
“Once unthinkable” basically means last week. In the Bush years, we had big fights about the use of embryonic stem cells for use in experiments. Now, we’re about to start experimenting on actual humans, without really knowing the result. This is, of course, eugenics. The Cloud People will not use the word, because they believe they killed that word and the bad juju that comes with it, but that’s just the nature of magical thinking. Once you step onto the path of designing humans, you are in the world of eugenics.
The counter argument will be that this is not really human experimentation. That embryo they are editing is not a person. It’s not like they will be pulling kids out of school and zapping they with the CRISPR gun to “fix” their defects. That sort of argument is a dodge and a common one used by our betters. Left unmentioned is the reason to edit the embryo, which is so that the resulting human comports with what the editors set out to create as a finished product. It’s designer babies and that’s eugenics.
There’s another aspect to it. Mistakes will be made. In fact, dig around in the literature and that is the assumption. The process will involve multiple embryos and the correct one will be used and the rest discarded. This assumes human error. But then, maybe the human error is not detected until six months into pregnancy or six years into life. Like any other manufacturing process, recalling defects will have to be a part of the discussion at some point. If you are buying a designer baby, you will want to get what you paid for, which means sending back the lemon, if it comes to it.
For the politicians of both parties, there are not many issues that are “the gift that keeps giving” like abortion. Year after year, it is a issue to campaign upon, and an issue that generates buckets of donations
It will be quite interesting to witness the debate when the baby designer asks the prospective parents “Would you prefer a homosexual or heterosexual child, or would you like, perhaps, a trans or ‘questioning’ one?” If it is the woman’s right to choose how will progressives and liberals respond?
Most people practice eugenics. Would you select a mentally deficient mate to create babies?
OT–Trump buried the poseurs today. I bring that up because the I follow the Red Sox, and the Boston Glob Red Sox beat reporter and SJW Pete Abraham took time out from spring training to tweet that Trump was embarrassing himself and the press should get up and walk out. The left lives in a world that is intensely separated from different experiences, and is incredibly rigid and unapproachable. Trumps good humor may win over other people.
So, do you think that Big Papi became the very personification of clutch “because he is a genetic mutant”?
Do you think that Big Papi being a far better player in his 30s and at age 40 than he was in his 20s was “because he is a genetic mutant”?
no, it’s because he is taking ‘roids.
and you are still a pathetic douche nozzle. you sound like a fat kid who just had his lunch money taken away…again.
Solomon, why would you want to align yourself with alt-right intellectual stiffs like Z-man who irrationally asseverate that Lebron James’ is a star “because he is genetic mutant”?
Why do want to present yourself as an alt-right loser?
Pathetic is arguing that Lebron James is the best basketball player in the world because he is tall.
Note how the Z-man dodged my point: In a public debate with 5,000 random people, he would get owned by any person who knows basketball if he argued in favor of the proposition that Lebron is the best basketball player in the world because he is “a genetic mutant”.
As Lebron functions in a peer group in which almost all his peers share the “tall” genetic mutation, this whole argument seems strange. Lebron is a singular presence among his mutated peer group–that’s on him–but having the tall gene is an almost required element of his success–that’s on biology. Some people are talking past each other here.
6″2″ does not qualify as mutant. Obviously. Baseball is a sport that favors talent and application, but penalizes mutant height. The last great mutant, and the only one, was Randy Johnson. Soccer is even less forgiving of mutants. There are none. Basketball is mutant employment, like dwarf tossing. Troll on.
First, Big Papi is not 6’2, he is 6’3 of 6’4 – significantly above the average height of a man.
Second, you are right, baseball does favor talent and application. Surely, you would agree that basketball also favors talent and application.
Jimmy, simply asseverating “troll on” just does not cut the intellectual mustard.
How do you think you would do in a public debate, with 5,000 random judges, against a person who knows basketball well with you arguing in favor of the proposition that Lebron James is the best basketball player in the world “because he is a mutant?”
Like your alt-right hero, you would get your ass handed to you because, in debate, you get penalized for name calling, changing the goal posts, and not being able to ratiocinate.
great movie (maybe the best) on this subject is “Gattica”
The cost of the multiple embryo procedure will be prohibitive for everyone except the very wealthy. But I don’t see them volunteering their posterity for an experiment. The practicality of all this seems minimal…It will be interesting to see the design of the actual trials, and who they get to volunteer.
haven’t seen it mentioned yet, but abortion is all about the negro problem. if a few white ladies make use of it too, that’s just noise.
If 15 million blackish babies have been aborted since Roe, the fundamental error is in thinking that without abortion there would be 15 million more blacks in the US, or any large fraction of that number.
What about the Caucasian gals who, after having been impregnated by Tyrone, decide its better to abort?
that counts as 3/5 of an abortion
Tony you owe me part of a beer and a keyboard.
Solomon, you just touched on one of the very few things that we all are still not allowed to talk about. Abortion is the Dems way to stick it to the black community while they pretend to care about people. Keeping their overall American population firmly in the minority and all.
Great connection of not-so-obvious dots in the arbitration debate as related to genetic modification. After having it pointed out, the connection of abortion to the progressive blank slate theory is now much more obvious.
But what also needs emphasis is characterizing what a human being is. Are we uniques souls created by God in his (metaphorical) image_? If so, given that we are actually not ‘viable’ zoologically (able to function completely autonomously in our natural environment) much before the age of puberty, and since it is undeniable that children are human beings, then human life must begin at conception. Else there must be an invisible ‘soul injection’ or invisible genetically directed ‘soul creation’ (for those favoring purely materialistic explanations) at some point along the development pathway between conception and puberty.
OTOH, if we are just material ‘meat robots, then any genetic tinkering for the convenience of the collective is apparently fine, may be even commendable, up to and including termination at any time for those found defective. A new light on Lenin & Stalin: They were just adjusting the genome_!
But normal humans recoil from this idea, and for good reason. We instinctively have a non-material sense that the deliberate taking of human life is wrong. And we know that God forbids it.
HATE your site’s spell checker: It’s supposed to be ‘abortion’ in the 1st line, not ‘arbitration’.
Planned Parenthood: “Annual revenues in 2015 (measured through June 30, 2015) dipped only ever so slightly from their all-time high of $1.3 billion ($1,303,400,000) last year, dropping to $1,296,100,000, essentially a rounding error when you’re dealing with figures that large.”
Follow the money.
Let’s assume there is a God. According to one of God’s Handbooks, when mankind became “enlightened” and joined together in a place called Babel, men began to build a tower to the Heavens. Supposedly, this annoyed, even frightened God. Because now “diversity” was jammed together in close proximity, there is a subtext that they would eventually breed together and form one homogenous, brown/gray human. This was the real reason for The Flood. Noah and his family were the last pure bred descendants of Adam. Eliminating this genetic code by breeding with non-Adamic individuals resulted in the destruction of a large section of the Earth (not all of it, of course, but that is another study). If there is a God, which there is, and he reacts this way about potentially eliminating his seed on earth, how much more would he react to manipulating the genetic code itself? To cull attributes and insert others that may or may not exist in Nature. I personally would not want to go down that path. I have no problem with Eugenics. I don’t agree with slaughtering those that are not desired, but we do practice Eugenics with animals and it seems BS to object to society protecting the Posterity from quarantining that which will be in conflict with a healthy, homogenous society. And if society doesn’t want you for some trait or traits that are in conflict with its well-being, well, tough titty. Quarantining is Segregating. Certain people pompously stand for “Freedom of Association” but ignore that “Freedom of non-Association” is a much more useful and important right.
How is freedom of non-association different from freedom of association? Or let us call it freedom to associate; the freedom to spend time with whom I please. The freedom to associate is the freedom not to associate. The ability to pick with whom I mingle means making a judgement, making a determination. One cannot pick A without setting B aside. And association is quite different from culling the herd.
You don’t agree with slaughtering those undesired, yet say it is acceptable for society to eliminate those unproductive traits which hold us back. But it won’t stop with diseases or conditions. Who decides? You? Zman? Dutch? Me?
( random choices; not suggesting anything ) We know how that goes. No thank you. I’ll take humanity with its flaws.
“How is freedom of non-association different from freedom of association?”
There is no difference in the Founding Fathers view. However, it is different in the present day MSM, Democratic Party member, SJW world. You have freedom by being able to associate with Dindus and Islamic terrorists. You are a racist hater that killed 6 million if you don’t want to associate with Dindus and Islamic terrorists. And if you don’t want to associate with homos you are a “homophobe”, even though you find them too pathetic to be afraid of. If you don’t want to associate with feminists that wear vaginas on their heads you are a member of the White Patriarchy that has stifled womyn’s natural tendency to make life as unnecessarily difficult as possible. Do you see how they are different now? And yet, the idiots that stand against a strong, functioning society don’t see the hypocrisy of their position.
Sorry, I didn’t read all your comment:
“You don’t agree with slaughtering those undesired, yet say it is acceptable for society to eliminate those unproductive traits which hold us back”
You completely misunderstood. I never said anything about eliminating anything. I mentioned Quarantining and Segregating. By limiting your country to the homogenous group that created this country (i.e., White people), you “eliminate” the noxious presence of those “diverse” elements that have been inflicted on the Posterity since 1965. And no, diversity does not equal strength. You don’t need Mexicans to cook Mexican food. Funny how foods are the only positive “diverse” elements that those that promulgate diversity.
Diversity + proximity =
(b) Hell on earth; or
(c) A source of never ending fundraising for alt-right carnival barkers
Eugenics is what every man and woman is doing when they try to find the best mate for themselves. It is what nature does for us, when it kills off the weak and unfit. And it is absolutely necessary, as it is the only way to keep our gene-pool from degrading due to the constant dysgenic effect of mutation.
We modern men have done everything we can think of to keep nature at bay: we don’t let it take its traditional tithe of the weakest infants (or the mothers who couldn’t deliver them), we save those with the weakest immune systems with our miracle drugs, we banish any predator who dares covet our halt and lame. We’ve burned up most of our genetic capital at this point, and will either vanish from the earth or change our ways. We could relent, and let nature keep our gene-pool pruned with her cruel methods (though surviving this would require a birthrate that seems beyond our reach), or we can tinker with artificial methods. I don’t know as they will work, but at least those proposing them are trying to do something.
Yes, and, eugenics is also what we are doing when we pay women to raise babies without functional relationships with men. At that intersection of pleasure and sperm donation women prefer gangsters to providers, and we in turn get talent for the NBA and work for the corrections industry.
perhaps just remove all the warning labels from stuff, and remove seatbelts from cars, and let the kids smoke in middle school… seriously the dumb ones will sort themselves out and while they are at it i’ll open a crematoreum
“…human error is not detected until six months into pregnancy or six years into life.”
Or after six generations of natural procreation by the created being? And who will own these ‘humans’? I assume there will be patents.
And another thing; your genes don’t make you sick and kill you. In some instances they can leave somebody more susceptible to disease. That’s all. This is the classic and standard misrepresentation by all major scientific efforts that require government approval. If everybody knew that nothing was actually wrong with these DNA types, and that it was external factors that make you sick, then programs like this would never get approved. DNA doesn’t always predict disease because it’s not the actual cause.
Instead of finding and eliminating disease causing elements from our environment the desire is to continue to ingest poisons and not get sick. After all, how will all the manufacturers of poison food and other products make money if we don’t use them. And, how will doctors put there sons through med school if we stop making ourselves sick with chemicals and other elements. We are their ATM. They’ve caught on to this government run game, of using you as a piggy bank, pretty quick.
There was a story recently about the plan to eradicate a certain kind of mosquito recently because of malaria, I think. I don’t get how people can feel so bold about “science” and their own scientific knowledge that they can cavalierly decide to make a certain species extinct. No human being can possibly know all the unintended consequences of doing something like that. The issue of genetic engineering is similar in my mind.
Eradicate the mosquito? Sign me up! Hate those bloodsuckers!
“your genes don’t make you sick and kill you. In some instances they can leave somebody more susceptible to disease”
The first half of that statement is a weird idea, and I don’t see any evidence for it to be true. Human beings are *by far* the most highly variable species of wild animal on earth. We have many more defectives born than any other species – it’s not even close. This has been true for as far back as history goes. We have more defectives, and more geniuses. Our genetic range has been our evolutionary trump card – but it comes with a price.
In olden times, most defectives simply didn’t survive. Now that we are wealthy and learned enough to have advanced medical care, we are struggling with the moral question of how to care for/dispose of our defectives. It’s never going to be easy.
I do agree that we’ve introduced many metals and chemicals into our surroundings which could affect our health – but that’s only a subset of our genetic qualities, good and bad. We can still be born with weak eyes, or weak kidneys, or weak immune systems.
Organized religion, as broadly understood in the West, laid the foundation for people to marry, raise children, and be fruitful and multiply. We are so far from that now. Western religion now appears to largely consist of reading the cultural entrails, to best determine who to ostracize or to reeducate. History will not treat us kindly, most likely. There are historical moments of “WTF!?” and we appear to be in the middle of one of them.
One big issue is the gays. I have no problem with them as people, but the idea that some churches support normalization of that lifestyle is bizarre. Haven’t these people heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Don’t these people even know the history of Christianity and how it took root because of the demonstrably better results it got for people who followed its teachings when compared to the debauchery of living the pagan lifestyle?
Of course for every gay couple, two potential deadbeat dads/moms are out of the picture. So what’s it going to be?
Abortions or homos? Six of one or half a dozen of the other?
Actually, I think internet porn is the final solution to both problems
I’m really in a bind with a part of issue and has caused me much angst in my darker, quieter times.
For much of my early career I worked with the mentally retarded (including the severely autistic) of all ages in home, school and institutional settings. I have seen the “lives” these people live and the horrific pain and damage (emotional and physical) they cause on their families, teachers, caregivers and even the courts and social services. I see, pragmatically, a huge net loss for society writ small and large. (My God, could I tell you some horror stories that would shake you guys to the core.)
On the other hand, I despise abortion as a matter of principle and ethics.
Many are, indeed, “useless eaters” but they are also human beings with eternal souls.
I gave been out of the game for some time now but I still wrestle with the question. If push came to shove would I be able to stand on principle or would I cave?
I don’t know.
As far as “designer babies”, that’s a no-brainer as easy as sex-selective abortion. My answer would be an unequivocal NO. Who in their right mind wants to follow the lead of the ChiComs or NORKS (or Gatticca)?
Some questions have no “good” answers, only “less bad” ones. The abortion issue is one of those. I argue that the Left has used the issue to exploit the consciences of the rest of us, to divide us against ourselves. I “win”, or maybe better stated “not lose”, by not playing this one.
If people are not averse, if woman are willing to murder their own babies inside them, they are capable of doing anything. Once I was old enough to understand such a heinous act, I looked at Roe verses Wade as the ultimate social engineering tool. If you can get millions of women, and men by associated to commit genocide, murder their own flesh and blood babies, you have a society with no morals, then they are like putting in your hands and you can do anything with them to further destroy whats left of that moral society hence control it.
OTOH, my dad helped start a company that exists to train and employ the mentally and physically handicapped. http://www.serveincpa.org/history.html
Not saying your experience is wrong or invalid. Only that it’s not a total loss for people or completely hopeless. There are good roles that government can play that make things better and serve a legitimate need.
Every morning at 7am, the mother of his secretary would bring her daughter to our house. She had polio. Dad would carry her to his car, so they could carpool to work. All weather, every day, for over a decade.
They started off doing janitorial services from a 1500sq ft shack. By the time he left, they had grown into the facility you see in the link above doing light manufacturing.
There are some pretty hopeless cases, and that’s a tough problem. It would be an easier problem if we stopped letting healthy people lay in bed strung out all day.
One of my crazier theories is that WWII can be viewed as a struggle between elites who wanted to use Mendelian genetics to improve the human stock (Nazis), Lamarckian genetics to do the same (Reds), and a third group that had just figured out where in the cell the genes were located and were willing to wait a few generations to begin the hardcore engineering (the Anglo-Americans, look up the Phage Course, etc).
I have for several years seen the ongoing cultural insanity as prep (most likely subconscious, people steeling themselves for or deluding themselves about) what is coming.
I tend to think of WW2 as a great war within the Western Left. The Bolsheviks, Nazis and Roundhead/Puritans represent certain facets of the utopianism that has defined the Left since Robespierre. The Great war finished off the Old Order while WW2 established the New Order. The Bolsheviks got the bits no one wanted and the Anglo-Saxon Alliance got the heart of the West.
My whacky theory is just that, a whacky theory. I think there are three valid critiques of the immense changes that took place during the first half of the 20th century, all three looking through different lenses:
The Hayekian (economic lens)
The Burnhamian (managerial lens)
The Orwellian (artistic lens)
All three come to pretty much the same conclusions. Depending on how much information makes it through the next few decades, someone will someday write with amazement of how the rather mild Fabian (there’s the real inheritors of your puritans) strain of Utopianism defeated the more virulent Communist and National Socialist strains. Whole academic disciplines will arise just to examine how Fabianism merged with Gramscianism and became the postmodernist freak show polluting everything we see and hear.
Bottom line, Z, you’re right. But my whacky theory helps illustrate that all three strains were Utopianist. Belief in the perfectibility of man the the foolishness to attempt it are definitional to Utopianism.
More professional historiography should be done along similar lines. Maybe in seventy five years.
Abortion has often been frowned upon at various points throughout history, but legal from ancient times through about the late-1800’s. Starting in the late 1800’s, various do-gooders and people with the prohibitionist mindset started sticking their nose in other people’s business. Roe v. Wade, even though it uses some bad legal reasoning, merely returns things to the status quo as it existed before the late-1800’s.
I’m a reasonably observant Catholic, so abortion is a no-no for me. But I couldn’t care less what someone else does. I would prefer that women kept their legs together, but if they abort, it really isn’t something I’m going to lose a lot of sleep over.
Honestly, I am at the point where I would rather give them a $500 abortion voucher than to support their bhastard baby on the taxpayer dole for a good chunk of his life (if not his entire life).
You also have to remember that the law always represents the lowest common denominator–the minimal standard of acceptable behavior. Even if prostitution is legal in Nevada, that doesn’t mean that you should partake in it or that it should be encouraged. Likewise with legalized marijuana. Christians shouldn’t impose their beliefs on others who may either not be Christians or don’t want to get stuck with a bhastard baby. (No offense to any illegitimate children out there.)
I used to be strongly pro-life. I simply don’t care anymore.
If you’re going to have 50,000,000 abortions over 40 years, and be okay with it, then you lose your right to complain about massive levels of immigration into the country because that has become the solution to the resulting demographic collapse.
Why would I prefer 50,000,000 fatherless bhastards running around instead of immigrants with intact families? Women should keep their legs together and cultural Marxism ideas about sex need to be rooted out of the system. Period. End of discussion.
Lol, “period, end of discussion”. First day on the internet for ya?
The answer is: because you’re not interested in a banana republic. Which of those illegals is voting against the welfare state? 70% vote Democrat. So, you’ve replaced what in this country would be a 50/50 split to 70/30 against what you want.
Is that irony?
I didn’t say I wanted those third-worlders here, at least not the muzzies. I’m just saying that it is not good for society to have illegitimacy normalized! At least 50% of those abortions are due to illegitimacy. A certain percentage is going to be retarded, crippled or otherwise defective, too. I’m not for euthanizing the retarded and I understand the joy this child brings to the family, but that’s a real life issue people have to deal with.
Outlaw abortion and women will change their behavior. We have over a million abortions per year because it’s legal. If women face the actual risk of having to bear their children, even if only to put them up for adoption, lots of legs will find their way closed.
Maybe if more young men and women got to see the outcomes of the occasional out of wedlock pregnancy (instead of disposing of them as medical waste) more young women would keep their knees together and more young men would keep their peckers in their trousers. Just a thought.
Maybe Americans would be more willing to have children if they didn’t have to spend so much money for homes and school districts away from the helots we’re importing.
Maybe they would be more willing to have children if the fruits of their labor were not forcibly taken for the purpose of funding Leviathan and its empire building and maintenance.
I think you are mixing two different issues. One is the Abortion “Industry” which has become a mega business. It takes the “individual” situation Temp talks about and makes it into a mass market mechanism for short circuiting the long term consequences of irresponsible actions. Many people lack the moral strength to “do the right thing” and given a cheap and easy, convenient way to get rid of a problem, they’ll take it. While I personally, do not like abortion, I won’t stop anyone from doing what they want. However, why should the taxpayer fund it? That to me is the real issue behind Roe v. Wade. Why does Planned Parenthood get Federal money? That needs to stop. It is a business and they should live or die based on their ability to provide a quality service at a reasonable price to their market. They should not be subsidized.
The second issue is mass immigration into the country. With so many Americans out of work, I do not buy that immigration is a strategy to “fill” the ranks of workers who were aborted in the past years. Yes, right about now, a few million young people would be hitting the streets looking for employment but the game is all about “cheap” labor. Hence, when Trump talks about America First and hiring Americans, he also means paying a living wage which puts the onus on business to stop hiring cheap “illegal” immigrants. And the issue of “minimum wage” is another completely different issue which gets taken all out of proportion for political sake.
“I don’t mind if people are burning in Hell for all eternity, so long as they didn’t think poorly of me while they were alive.”
No skin off my nose. However, the taxes I pay to raise the fatherless little munchkins are skin off my nose.
But I’m more concerned about the degradation of the concept of family, normalization of bhastardy and the effects on society in general than I am with the $100 of my taxes or whatever it is I have to chip in every year to pay for their safety net. It simply is no good for ANYBODY when whites have a 25% bhastardy rate, llllllatinos are at 49% and blacks are at 73%.
Bhastardy should be the exception, not the rule.
Keep your legs together before marriage and it won’t be a problem.
You have a unique solution to the disintegration of the family: just kill them.
Cause and effect, my friend. My solution is for women to forget the warped Jews who taught them to seek out all the sexual pleasure they want, and to instead keep their legs together. As Rush said, the most effective form of birth control is aspirin … held tightly between both knees.
I believe the realization of which group aborts at the highest levels has taken the “edge” off the debate. I became an active supporter of abortion when I realized the positive effects of abortion. We would have been completely over run by the dusky hordes if not for abortion. I recall the “era of the superpredator” never materialized due to abortion. I’ll have more, sir.
A very Sangerian way of looking at things, as in Margaret Sanger, but I’m no better. I agree.
Good to read that you have the humility to acknowledge that like ole Maggie, you, too, have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
As a Catholic, you should know that Christ did not advocate that we genuflect at the altar of the alt-right and its pseudo-intellectual riff-raff.
Yes, I am a Catholic and I think a pretty decent one too. But first of all, the Eastern Orthodox (Catholics) such as myself tend to not be anti-abortion fanatics. That is more of a pet issue for Roman Catholics.
So God says it’s not okay to kill a baby? I’m okay with that even though I don’t think he explicitly says that anywhere in the Bible. (I’m not a Bible expert, so I apologize if that is not correct.) But God does say you shouldn’t have sex before marriage. Traditionally, that is a HUGE no-no in Christianity, yet people still do it.
They have to answer to God for their own actions, not me.
And who knows? God may be more angry at her for having premarital sex than he is about the abortion. If God was going to get mad about abortions, why isn’t it explicitly stated in the Bible? (“Thou shalt not take advantage of the family planning services at Planned Parenthood.” LOL) They did have abortions back then, you know. We just won’t know how God prioritizes this issue until we get there, will we?
Show me where any Christian in ancient Rome had abortions. Ovid wrote poems about a woman aborting his child (Corinna), so you can’t say it wasn’t discussed. Since Christians were going around saving babies that had been abandoned in garbage pits, I somehow doubt that they killed their own.
By the way, the Hippocratic oath called for physicians to swear never to give a woman a pessary to produce abortion. Yes, it was practiced, but it was universally thought evil. The penalty in Rome, rarely used, was the pillory.
Tempo, you are full of contradictions. You are a good Catholic but you don’t know the Bible? How about the Ten Commandments? Ever hear of “Thou shalt not kill.” I don’t know how God can say more explicitly not to kill babies, unless you are parsing the definition of baby and embryo like liberals do.
And you seem to be stuck on this “the Bible doesn’t state explicitly” thing. You are supposed to use your brain since much of the Bible is not an explicit “rule” book but is filled with examples/stories to illustrate both good and bad in man. Then “free will” is the critical difference between man and the rest of His creation.
We do know, because He tells us there will be a reckoning. The rest is up to Him. It is up to each to bend a knee to His will or ignore His and supplant it with our own as if we were god.
The old bat did have a valid point.
Unless you were the target of her insanity.
There was a time when abortion was clearly about morality, ethics, and religion – or lack of same.
But this battle has become more narrow since it’s beginning in the late 70’s. It is only about money and power.
For the politicians of both parties, there are not many issues that are “the gift that keeps giving” like abortion. Year after year, it is a issue to campaign upon, and an issue that generates buckets of donations. At this point, why would members of either party consider actually changing anything?
Money and power – no way will any politician kill this golden calf.
Helicopter parenting is tiring, inconvenient, and expensive. Better to grow the perfect one in a factory. It frees up time better spent organizing for action, and speaking truth to power.
The world of the not too distant future needs fewer people. We will need the best people possible to control things. That they are singularly focused on world domination and have an appetite for roasted human flesh on Ritz crackers with melted Camembert is a tolerable side effect on the road to Utopia.
Pro-abortion has always been the provenance of Jewish women (women in general are majority pro-life, non-orthodox Jewish women are 90+% pro-abort).
The reason is that their Eastern society is far more patriarchal than our Western society. What this means to them is that in their minds, male things are the better things so they try to be like the men as much as possible. Being a mother or defining yourself by your relationships is a bad thing, it’s second rate, you have to get a job blah blah blah. Of course they can’t deny biology altogether, which makes them miserable. This is the poisoned well of American feminism.
Abortion is a way for a woman to act like a man in the sense of not having consequences from intercourse. It allows them a mechanism to deny their biology.
Their view has become less popular as it is obvious that abortion is in actual society a way to control women, not to free them. In addition to the fact that it’s obviously killing innocent people of course. More people are pro-life now, certainly in the sense that more want severe restrictions on abortion even if they don’t want it banned entirely. That’s why we hear less about it: because it’s a losing issue for them (this is why they tried to switch the debate to contraception and in 2012 said that Mitt Romney would send around his Mormon police to poke holes in your rubbers).
Judaic religion believes not in eventual reward in some Heaven, but in perfected bodies on a renewed Earth after the Judgement.
Z noted earlier the search for emortality.
Those of the Righteous seed- Abraham’s deal- shall rule the lesser peoples in a benevolent dictatorship. The Epsilons.
If they can pull off this vision, who’s to say they haven’t earned it?
I don’t completely agree with the article I linked below, but the thing you should take from it if you read it is who the Jews are. From a Christian perspective, at least from Orthodox Christians (we are Catholics, just not Roman Catholic), WE CHRISTIANS ARE THE JEWS THE BIBLE REFERS TO!!!. (In most contexts that are important to the faith, anyway.)
There are three or four denominations that have a credible claim that their rituals are the closest to Christianity as it was practiced by the Apostles. The Eastern Orthodox churches taken together are among those denominations. If anybody should know, they should.
Maybe you didn’t get the memo.
“In this case, the Holy Orthodox Church seeks to restore to our nation’s law the highest principle which a civilized society can espouse—the recognition that all human life is sacred. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court relied heavily upon its presentation of historic Christianity’s teaching and practices. The assertions made in Roe were erroneous, and have no foundation in the church’s traditions. Rather than being ambivalent, or even condoning abortion, as suggested by the Roe Court’s opinion, historic Christianity has always condemned abortion as murder, without regard for any distinctions as to fetal development or viability.”
If you look at the actual laws and the history of it, the abortion debate is, in reality, long over.
If Roe V. Wade were to be overturned, all that would happen is the issue of legality would revert to State Law. In several states abortion had already been legalized prior to ’73, such as NY in 1960. In some states (such as FL) the state constitution has an explicit ‘right to privacy’ which the State Supreme Court has invoked to shut down many attempts to restrict the practice.
Overturn Roe V. Wade and you could count the number of states that would severely restrict/outlaw abortion on the fingers of one hand.
But it’s been a reliable fundraiser and political hobbyhorse for both sides.
If genetic editing becomes a reality (and I doubt it will anytime soon, human cloning has gone absolutely nowhere) there will be someone who will go wherever it gets allowed to create FrankenQB. Also, for years gays have claimed (with very dubious actual evidence) that a ”gay gene” exists. Won’t there be those who would want that removed from their future child? Gay advocates get very uncomfortable when that’s brought up.
I believe this long battle will end where it should have landed decades ago. States will be free to ban elective abortions after some period of time – 20 to 24 weeks. Just like those Western Europeans who all the liberals idolize do.
The fake outrage over Bush’s ban of federal FUNDING of embryo experimentation was some of the dumbest I’ve ever seen. Why would the government ever fund any kind of medical experiments unless they had some kind of direct benefit such as treating wounded soldiers?
did Khan Noonien Singh teach us nothing?! the ironic part is that genes for letism will be edited out of the human genome — because those type of people are totally worthless to a society.
No more Lefties?
Thanks for putting a positive spin on this, Solomon!
Why do you think that? The progs will be in charge of editing. Those genes which produce people like us, sensible, with values, will be edited out early.
lefties can’t even collect the garbage with any competence, so i wouldn’t worry about them being able to use the genome technology for much. this eugenics stuff is going to be a spectacular case of unintended consequences.
Yes. it is. And who is responsible for most of the unintended consequence failures in this country? The leftists.
Maybe in China and Japan. In the USA, if they can ever find “leftism” genes, it will probably be mandatory to preserve them.