Cozy up to some reich wing news for all of ten minutes and you'll know everything nx believes about a thing.

(July 10, 2023 at 4:43 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I would find the abhorrent aspects less troubling if they were at least mildly interesting; what's tragic here is that NX's worldview and insights are both extremely pedestrian and thoroughly mundane.

Welcome to brain washing. Would have made a great 'Manchurian Candidate', but alas, he chose to go down the fairy tale rabbit hole.

Argument 1: Is there any reason you're singling out the heartbeat, and not something like, say, brain activity? And even if we're going to insist on heartbeat, the true heartbeat isn't really a thing until early in the second trimester, because, strictly speaking, it doesn't even have a heart yet.

Argument 2: The argument that elderly parents being dependent on their children is somehow analogous to abortion will only work when that elder care requires them being bodily attached to their children.




Argument 3: Even on the off chance that Margaret Sanger's dodgy racist attitudes actually have any merit on whether or not abortion can be morally justified (it doesn't), your interpretation of the N---o Project is way off-base. Here's some context on the larger program (Spoiler alert: it was more a campaign to promote birth control among the black population [specifically, the poverty-stricken Southern black population] than any attempt at genocide. And it didn't even end up resulting in a single birth control clinic being opened.)

And here's the letter you quoted in full. The remark about how "we do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the [black] population" isn't a hint at a nefarious plan. It's about nipping rumours in the bud before they have a chance to spread. And the last couple years' madness over COVID-19 vaccines is a testament to why this would be a good thing.

(July 10, 2023 at 4:23 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: This thread is to discuss the Manifest Evil of Pre-Natal Infanticide, or so-called Abortion, or Abortion-Killing.

Best have a word with your dear a fluffy lord god then. Spontaneous abortions account for the overwhelming majority and they're all his doing.

(July 10, 2023 at 4:23 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: This thread is to discuss the Manifest Evil of Pre-Natal Infanticide, or so-called Abortion, or Abortion-Killing. Is it right or wrong, and how do we know? First, the Biblical Prohibitions and those in the Didache for e.g. "The Lord’s Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles … The second commandment of the Teaching: “Do not murder; do not commit adultery”; do not corrupt boys; do not fornicate; “do not steal”; do not practice magic; do not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.” (The Didache, First Century A.D. Oral Tradition); And why? Because, as the Didache, which comes from Christ's Apostles, continues, “this is the way of life” while “there are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference,” and it implies that the way of death leads to a culture of death and to perdition if unrepented, which is what we've seen sadly come to pass in our time. Some 2 BN children have been killed worldwide by Abortion.

But the wrongness of Abortion can also be proven, through Mere Reason/Natural Law, especially when Medical Science has now clearly proven that Babies, from around 6 weeks in the Mother's Womb, have discernible beating human hearts. Let's make a few Scientific Arguments against Abortion.

1. The First Argument Against Abortion - Abortion kills Babies by stopping their Beating Hearts, and stopping the Beating Hearts of Babies is wrong.

Premise I: It is wrong to kill babies with beating hearts.
Premise II: Abortion kills babies with beating hearts.
Conclusion: Therefore, Abortion is something clearly wrong. 

Generally, atheists or other Pro-Choice Liberals don't disagree with any of these premises per se, because they are Scientific and Moral Facts, but if anyone here wants to, let them, and then we'll see; rather, Atheists/Liberals generally say, since the Mother gave birth to the Child, and the Child now lives in her Womb, therefore she can kill him/her. Which brings us to the 2nd Argument against Abortion, which is also a response to that.

2. The Second Argument against Abortion - it is true that children are dependent upon their parents, their Mother when they're in the womb, but also their Parents, when they're very young, for food and other things pertaining to the sustenance of life itself; it's also true that, later on in the cycle of life, very often Parents will mostly be dependent on their children again, especially in very old age. If therefore, it's moral and lawful for Parents to kill Children in young age, it should be Perfectly Fine also for Children to kill dependent Parents in old age. But it isn't. Therefore, neither is it moral or lawful for Parents to kill children when very young, either before or after birth. So, likewise, it is not right for children to abandon their parents, or neglect to care for them when they, who cared for us all our life, now need our help in old age. These are good, solid, traditional moral values, affirmed by Christians, Hindus, Muslims, people of all religions, and even some Atheists. Why do others disagree? What reasoning/scientific and moral principles can they give, in order to justify their beliefs and behavior on this point. Let's see if it can hold up to Reason and Scrutiny, or it was a silly idea invented by some godless men like Marxists, and some liberal Racist women like Margaret Sanger.

Interestingly, the Hindu Scriptures, which also speaks against Abortion-Killing, compare Abortion to the Crime of killing one's own Parents, who gave birth to us, who loved us, and cared for us; see how Good Values ought to be promoted; first, Parents ought to care, and have the Objective Moral Natural Obligation to care for the Children they brought into the world. Second, Children in turn, having been the recipients of that care all their life, but especially in infancy, when most vulnerable should also care for their Parents all their life, but esp. in old age, when most vulnerable.

Which brings us to the third point:

3. Racist Margaret Sanger, foundress of Planned Parenthood, promotes Black Genocide: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the N [racial slur; African American] population". This is not just "inartfully written", as Liberal Washington Post idiots claimed. This is Pure Racist Black Genocide, which is what the foundress of Planned Parenthood, a famous abortionist organization, aimed for. That's what Abortion is. The Genocide of a people. How sad, some liberal christians, some liberal atheists, and other leftists/liberals, don't see the evil intent behind it.

One more fact on this point, hardly known in the West. So, if indeed, as I said, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, [conservative, traditional and orthodox, i.e.; some adherents of all these religions may not adhere to their Scriptures on this point] are all against Abortion, and much of the world is either Christian, Hindu or Muslim, then who on earth first promoted Abortion as some kind of Panacea? Ah yes, the Communists/Marxists.

Wiki: "The Soviet government was the first government in Europe to legalize abortion. In October 1920 the Bolsheviks made abortion legal within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic". Sigh.

You know, the same Bolshevik Stalinist Atheists, who killed some 10 MN Poor Ukrainians, most of whom were Christians (Ukraine is a 90% Christian Country), these are the same persons who promoted Abortion-Killing, for their own Racist, Anti-Humane and Christophobic Reasons.

So, who are we going to listen to? Morality, Science, Conscience, Reason, or those like Godless Commie Thug Jo Stalin who killed some 20 MN?

[For a source, in 1989, the NYT Reported: "A Soviet weekly newspaper today published the most detailed accounting of Stalin's victims yet presented to a mass audience here, indicating that about 20 million died in labor camps, forced collectivization, famine and executions."]

Thoughts?
Let's Debate.
Serious Issue.
Regards,
Xavier.

Shall we go on about Hitler, the Christian who slaughtered 6 million Jews because of his Christian beliefs?

How about Stalin who replaced the worship of a god with the worship of the state and the individual (as most hardlind communist nations did)? That's hardly what I would call "atheist".

And, frankly, I stand for the rights of a living, breathing person over those of a POTENTIAL person.

And, SERIOUSLY, if you don't like abortion, don't fucking have one!

(July 10, 2023 at 6:37 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Shall we go on about Hitler, the Christian who slaughtered 6 million Jews because of his Christian beliefs?

How about Stalin who replaced the worship of a god with the worship of the state and the individual (as most hardlind communist nations did)?  That's hardly what I would call "atheist".

And, frankly, I stand for the rights of a living, breathing person over those of a POTENTIAL person.

And, SERIOUSLY, if you don't like abortion, don't fucking have one!

I doubt he will cut his balls off. To many available school children and nuns.

Hitler was not a Christian, he was an Apostate from Christianity. He praised the works of Julian the Apostate, an Anti-Christian Roman Emperor, and condemned St. Paul for allegedly falsifying the Gospel of Christ - which no Christian Denomination holds, although Anti-Christian Deists, Atheists and Nihilists like Nietzche have; next, speaking of Nietzche, Nietzche and his rambling atheistic nihilist fantasies were a big intellectual influence on Hitler. Hitler gifted volumes of them to his pal Mussolini. Here is Wiki: "In Table Talk, Hitler praised Julian the Apostate's Against the Galileans, an anti-Christian tract from AD 362, in the entry dated 21 October 1941, stating: "When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. ... Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry.... and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew ... The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him. Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely."

He who says Jesus Christ was not of the Jewish Race is an Apostate from Christianity and denies the Gospel from the very First Page. What is the First Line of the Gospel: That Jesus Christ was "the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Mat 1:1). Now, of what Tribe was David? Why, of Judah of course, from whom the Jews are named. In other words, King David and Jesus Christ were obviously Jewish by Race; but Hitler's Racist and German White Nationalist and Aryan theories told him otherwise. Needless to say, such false Aryan European Political Ideologies have nothing to do with Apostolic, Biblical Christianity, for most of Christ's Disciples, being Jews and Asians, would have been brown men; early on in the Acts of the Apostles, we see Ethiopians, i.e. Africans or Black Men, come to Christ and to Holy Baptism. And of course Christ Himself evangelized many Centurions who were Romans, i.e. Europeans as well. So, we see Christianity was a truly Multi-Cultural, Multi-Racial, Multi-Ethnic and indeed arguably the first Truly Universal Religion to ever have existed, welcoming without discrimination people from all races and classes, from all nations and ethnicities, to receive by grace through faith the saving waters of Baptism. St. Paul confirms: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28). Maybe this is what Hitler called the alleged "Jewish Bolshevism" of St. Paul, the alleged "decisive falsifier of Christ's doctrine". Lol. Hitler was an Apostate from Christianity influenced by Nietzche, who also ridiculously accused St. Paul, the Great Martyr for Christ, of such similar silly things.

Now, let's come back to Abortion; first, I want to address an unheard-of-strawman and Non-Sequitur. Accidental Deaths happen, therefore homicides are good? The argument from miscarriages is a bit like that. Babies even after birth may die accidentally, but that in no way means it is ok to kill them ourselves; we should try to save them if we can; if we genuinely cannot, it's ok. But to kill them ourselves is clearly a sin/wrong.

And now to Angrboda; hey, you missed a word yourself, hear let me add it for you. lol.

(1) All [white] [born] Human Beings have All Human Rights (2) therefore, we can kill or discriminate against non-white, non-born children/people etc. Sigh, same old same old errors of the racists, the eugenicists etc of a former age.

All these errors come when some Human Beings are denied some Human Rights. Those human beings who are born, like those human beings who are white, are only a particular subset of All Human Beings. Either all human beings have all human rights or none do. Granted therefore that at least some do [such as those born], it follows that all do [including the pre-born]. Otherwise, one can discriminate against anyone, based on race, age, sex or gender, and various other categories, saying arbitrarily they lack the right to life. Rights are Natural. Everyone deserves rights based on their Nature. The Child in the Womb is Naturally Human. Therefore, it has a Natural Right to Life, period, the same as children after birth.

@ Deese: "Therefore...what is the appropriate punishment for an (illegal) abortion? ... Your refusal to address my very valid latest points is also noted. You dont care about babies or fetuses being aborted naturally, do you? You care about the mothers aborting them, do you? Prove me wrong by correctly addressing my objections. Show me what a bad, baad militant atheist i am."

You should read what President Lincoln wrote about the Abolition of Slavery. Prez. Lincoln, who helped abolish slavery, was a devout Evangelical Christian (not an alleged deist and practical atheist, as someone else alleged on another thread, lol), as many of his statements show. He himself was firmly for Abolition, and we are for Abolition of Abortion today, by change of hearts and minds above all, but also by the law gradually recognizing the Truth, that Unborn Children are Human Persons worthy of Legal Protection. Yet, he made every allowance for those who did such things while the law permitted it, while gradually directing the laws, and the consciences of people, in the right direction. Here is Wiki: "Many abolitionists emphasized the sinfulness of slave owners, but Lincoln did not.[5] Lincoln tended not to be judgmental. In his 1854 Peoria, Illinois, speech, he said, "I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up."[6] In 1865, in his second inaugural address, he said, "It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged," and he urged "malice toward none" and "charity for all." Nonetheless, Lincoln suggested, God had judged the nation — "both North and South" — for the "offence" of slavery.[7][8]"

So, yes, we are for amnesty and forgiveness for all who did such things while the Law wrongly taught them it was ok to kill children; and we also see women as largely victims of abortion; but, in time, the laws should reflect the Truth that babies both after and before birth are human beings, which is a biological fact - not surprising those who deny there is even such thing as a Woman anymore, and that a Man can become a Woman simply if he identifies as one, as some people claim, should deny biological facts on this too - and therefore are legally entitled to all human rights. The same as former slaves were, the same as various other people discriminated against in the course of history deserve, simply by being human.

burp.

(July 10, 2023 at 8:10 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: (1) All [white] [born] Human Beings have All Human Rights (2) therefore, we can kill or discriminate against non-white, non-born children/people etc. Sigh, same old same old errors of the racists, the eugenicists etc of a former age.

Well, I'll ignore that this is no longer a valid example of modus ponens, but I'll take you for what you meant to say, rather than this nonsensical thing you blurted out. That's the principle of charity at work.

Being non-white does not entail that one does not possess the full panoply of rights, so your exhortation here is simply incoherent rambling. But as with most flawed arguments, there are multiple ways to make the same point. Let's remove born from the equation. In that case either of two things is true. Either, a, you are implicitly asserting that the preborn are possessed of all human rights including the right to life, which is the same as your conclusion and is therefore an example of begging the question and is thus an invalid argument. Or, b, it is unclear that the preborn possesses the full panoply of rights (as we are not including it as necessarily true) and therefore it is not necessarily the case that premise #1 is sound, and therefore the conclusion isn't necessarily true either.

Xavier, word of advice, you don't have the logical chops to be having this debate with me. You'll just end up embarrassing yourself.

1. Comparing a fetus to a race is just dumb 

2. No being regardless of race or development has any right to live in another person's body against their will