Migrant Invasion of USA

flower27 said:
I don't know if it's the 'right thing' for rape victims to be allowed abortions. That's saying pregnancy is a punishment for the sin of fornication, while rape victims shouldn't face pregnancy since they didn't consent to sex. Pro-Life means you live all life, and don't punish the baby for the father's act.

From a political point of view, it sorta makes sense since people aren't rational to negotiate with though. However at this point Roe v Wade is already overturned so IMO no point in bargaining with the pro-choice (supporters of genocide against the unborn), but instead just hold nothing back and don't give the enemy an inch.

You think Jesus would defend aborting the babies of rapes?
Click to expand...

I think Jesus would call anyone a hypocrite who judges a rape victim. I bet you 95%+ of Whites would want the abortion if it was a Black man doing the raping. If your daughter was raped by a rapugee, you wouldn't want her to abort? You'd want her to give up 9 months of her life and vitality for a baby she never wanted, nor want to keep, for some miscegenated parasite?

The only people who could reasonably decide if they want to keep a rape baby is the woman and her parents, and should she decide to abort, the man who did the rape should also be charged with infanticide of the fetus as well. A rape victim has no responsibility to the rape baby, as by definition there is no consent to the pregnancy so she cannot be blamed for any resultant abortion either.
 
Samseau said:
I think Jesus would call anyone a hypocrite who judges a rape victim.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't promote abortion though.
Samseau said:
I think Jesus would call anyone a hypocrite who judges a rape victim. I bet you 95%+ of Whites would want the abortion if it was a Black man doing the raping. If your daughter was raped by a rapugee, you wouldn't want her to abort? You'd want her to give up 9 months of her life and vitality for a baby she never wanted, nor want to keep, for some miscegenated parasite?

The only people who could reasonably decide if they want to keep a rape baby is the woman and her parents, and should she decide to abort, the man who did the rape should also be charged with infanticide of the fetus as well.
Click to expand...
The rape victim isn't to be judged for being raped, but she (and/or possibly her parents) have free will to decide to abort or go through the pregnancy. Also adoption services exist, so she doesn't have to sacrifice her entire life for the baby.

And nope, I wouldn't want her to abort. I care more about my salvation, so I wouldn't be an accomplice to murder, and would not support it. If she wanted to give it up for adoption, then I would approve of that.
Samseau said:
A rape victim has no responsibility to the rape baby, as by definition there is no consent to the pregnancy so she cannot be blamed for any resultant abortion either.
Click to expand...
If you define no responsibility as the right to kill life, then sure? If she chooses to abort than she used her free will to abort the baby. That's a choice, and abortion is sin.

Since the girl was 10 I suppose in this case you could blame the parents though, but when it comes to adult women who get raped and pregnant, they can still choose whether to preserve life or not.
Samseau said:
for some miscegenated parasite?
Click to expand...
The bible never speaks against race mixing, all unborn babies could arguably be defined as "parasites", but that's how pregnancy works. The fact that you use "miscegenated" as if it somehow justifies killing life in even the slightest form, has nothing to do with Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
I think Jesus would call anyone a hypocrite who judges a rape victim. I bet you 95%+ of Whites would want the abortion if it was a Black man doing the raping. If your daughter was raped by a rapugee, you wouldn't want her to abort? You'd want her to give up 9 months of her life and vitality for a baby she never wanted, nor want to keep, for some miscegenated parasite?

The only people who could reasonably decide if they want to keep a rape baby is the woman and her parents, and should she decide to abort, the man who did the rape should also be charged with infanticide of the fetus as well. A rape victim has no responsibility to the rape baby, as by definition there is no consent to the pregnancy so she cannot be blamed for any resultant abortion either.
Click to expand...
you know i just realized something more ironic

There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men

Perhaps the greatest problem of Christianity today is that many of the messages of Christ have been perverted with time. Much like a game of telephone, the word of Salvation has been perverted by translations and various political interests across millennia. Most of what people believe about...
www.rooshvforum.com www.rooshvforum.com

you made a thread saying men are allowed to fornicate and you acted militantly in defending it, as if it was on sinful.

the admin @Roosh literally had to shit down your thread to shut you down

stop promoting abortion on Chirtian forum, especially in the name of racism, it is SICK
 
flower27 said:
you know i just realized something more ironic

There's Nothing In The Bible That Prohibits Premarital Sex For Men

Perhaps the greatest problem of Christianity today is that many of the messages of Christ have been perverted with time. Much like a game of telephone, the word of Salvation has been perverted by translations and various political interests across millennia. Most of what people believe about...
www.rooshvforum.com www.rooshvforum.com

you made a thread saying men are allowed to fornicate and you acted militantly in defending it, as if it was on sinful.

the admin @Roosh literally had to shit down your thread to shut you down

stop promoting abortion on Chirtian forum, especially in the name of racism, it is SICK
Click to expand...

That thread did not promote fornication, but everyone kept misunderstanding it until Roosh closed it down. I've actually discovered a lot more on the subject of pre-marital sex that took years of research through Orthodox cannon law, but since that thread is closed I could never update it. The truth is not what people think, although the rule to abstain from sex until marriage is still a great rule. Just not nearly as universal as people think it is.
 
As for Biblical teachings on rape; Jesus said he came to uphold the law and not overturn it. The old law states,

Deutronomy 22

25. But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
26. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,
27. for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So, a woman raped is not responsible, and the rapist should be executed (which used to be the law in America until the liberal judges of the 1950's declared it cruel and unusual). Thus if the woman is not responsible for any sin, she isn't responsible for any abortion either.
 
Samseau said:
So, a woman raped is not responsible, and the rapist should be executed (which used to be the law in America until the liberal judges of the 1950's declared it cruel and unusual). Thus if the woman is not responsible for any sin, she isn't responsible for any abortion either.
Click to expand...

In a pragmatic or optics sense you might be right. Many people might be unable to come to terms with a baby being carried to term, if is was their sister or daughter being raped. However, the chance of being raped is similar to the chance of getting AIDS, it can be effectively eliminated if you avoid obvious risks. The same way you can avoid AIDS by not sharing needles and not having random sex in park bathrooms, one can also avoid rape by not getting recklessly impaired around strange men and not going out at high-risk times without a trusted escort or protection. Roosh wasn't wrong when he wrote his "infamous" article on the subject, society promotes high risk behavior to women as "liberation," then complains about the obvious harmful results.

As far as being pragmatic, I'm personally not interested in making deals with baby killers because of emotions. When you're right you're right. I think it can only help us by holding people responsible for their actions, instead of offering an easy way out that involves murdering innocent lives.
 



FYxZ9-yUYAAojyC
 
Much as I like Texas and Arizona sending their interlopers to DC and NY, I think there is opportunity to improve. DC and NY have plentiful neighborhoods of Urban blight. The arrival of new, high cost, low return visitors won't make much splash. Instead, such deliveries should be made to the suburban swamps like Potomac, MD and Mclean, VA. These are posh areas that share the lefty-swamp politics, but shelter their daily lives from the downside.

Let all the GS-14s, cushy .gov contractors, and think-tankers share in the struggle. They asked for it. Let 'em have it. Time to spread the vibrancy.
 
Convincing DC that Russia is sending death squads over the southern border may just be the way to stop the flow.



 
Pointy Elbows said:
Much as I like Texas and Arizona sending their interlopers to DC and NY, I think there is opportunity to improve. DC and NY have plentiful neighborhoods of Urban blight. The arrival of new, high cost, low return visitors won't make much splash. Instead, such deliveries should be made to the suburban swamps like Potomac, MD and Mclean, VA. These are posh areas that share the lefty-swamp politics, but shelter their daily lives from the downside.

Let all the GS-14s, cushy .gov contractors, and think-tankers share in the struggle. They asked for it. Let 'em have it. Time to spread the vibrancy.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but now that planeloads of migrants are touching down in Martha's Vineyard and so on, isn't that something of an own goal? Flooding safe white communities with rapefugees to own the libs, isn't he just doing their dirty work for them and providing a convenient target for the blame?
 
ed pluribus unum said:
I tend to agree, but now that planeloads of migrants are touching down in Martha's Vineyard and so on, isn't that something of an own goal? Flooding safe white communities with rapefugees to own the libs, isn't he just doing their dirty work for them and providing a convenient target for the blame?
Click to expand...
We've done it that way (shielding wealthy libs from their consequences). It doesn't work. They keep flooding the border. We hear "Elections have consequences." So do open borders. Rich liberals have "No human is illegal" lawn signs and private cop night patrols, poor liberals and working class whites get rapefugees and homeless? Nothing will change.

Refugee networks/organizations select where and who gets new vibrancy. They often chose poor neighborhoods in largely white areas (many such cases in this thread). That is no accident. They admit it. Then they do it - with much Federal assistance run through non-profit cutouts.

For once, Republicans are getting inside their "OODA loop." Decades late, as far as I am concerned, but a welcome development.

If a district voted Democrat, it deserves boatloads of rapefugees and homeless people - even if it is rich. The industrial and old/poor part of town where I work votes the exact same as the liberal in-city country club area - lockdown blue. The homeless get dumped and shuffled around from "poor parks," but they never land at the country club area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top