Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v Wade

Pete345

Sparrow
Orthodox
Catholic theology teaches that non-baptized children, including those that die in the womb, do NOT go to heaven. We don’t know where they go, but the official Catholic teaching is they go to a sort of limbo. The reasoning is God is merciful, so they wouldn’t go the hell, but they are still stained with Original Sin, so they cannot go to heaven. Abortion is evil. Full stop. A Christian that defends abortion is not a Christian.
In case you are not aware, "original sin" is not accepted as valid doctrine in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox position regarding many of these questions can be found here:
 
Last edited:

Papaya

Peacock
Gold Member
...

I'm right around the same age as you and in my experience, when I was in my 20s, politics was separate from work. I did have political conversations with my coworkers when I was in my 20s but there was never the sense that the company itself was supposed to take any sort of public political position on any issue. That has changed big time and in my opinion it's because younger people / millennials have a different attitude regarding the separation of work and personal political views. It's like they need consensus and to know that everyone around them is on the same page politically or else they feel uncomfortable.
...
This is not accidental. The fusion of government and corporation as top down authority(s) has been carefully woven into the cultural gestalt via social engineering. Its an integral component of the GloHo / Communist 2.0 transition matrix. The emasculation of Western men started subtly inthe 1960s but has become increasingly more overt to the point of ridiculousness we see now. Weak men coupled with the destruction of traditional affinities ( family, religion, country) is necessarily and intentionally leaving a void to be filled by the technocracy.

Edit ”Rollerball Murder” (1973) the short story from which the movie ROLLERBALL (1975)* was based on very accurately predicted this transition from nationalism to corporate loyalty. It was first published in Esquire magazine.

 
Last edited:

budoslavic

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
I think there is a really big generational divide on the Left. I'm around the same age as you and I think a lot of older Democrats don't have to deal with the younger generation on a day to day basis and that insulates them from a lot of the woke craziness. At 70 years old my guess is your Dad's not having to sit through diversity/sensitivity/sexual harrassment trainings at work or feel like he has to toe the line when the globo homo corporation he works at starts spouting off about BLM/gays/trannies/etc.

I'm right around the same age as you and in my experience, when I was in my 20s, politics was separate from work. I did have political conversations with my coworkers when I was in my 20s but there was never the sense that the company itself was supposed to take any sort of public political position on any issue. That has changed big time and in my opinion it's because younger people / millennials have a different attitude regarding the separation of work and personal political views. It's like they need consensus and to know that everyone around them is on the same page politically or else they feel uncomfortable.

Another difference I see is that younger people seem less open to free speech when it conflicts with people's feelings. They seem to have a much more feminine approach to it where protecting people's feelings take precedence over open debate. In my experience, they're more likely to agree with the idea that "hate speech" shouldn't be protected speech. Older Democrats (at least some of the men) seem more accepting of free speech and open debate. The guys can still laugh at an off color joke. It's the younger ones who ready to censor anyone who offends them and have this attitude that you ought to be punished for having vocalized something that's racist/sexist/phobic/etc.

When I've read in the past about liberals who were themselves cancelled at work over doing or saying something offensive, they were generally older (40s+) and it was generally people younger than themselves doing the cancelling.

media%2FFSBmIydXsAAErkD.jpg%3Fname%3Dsmall
 

SaintPiusX

Robin
Trad Catholic
Counterpoint: if God gave free passes to aborted babies into heaven, abortion would be a moral imperative. There would be no point or urgency to preaching the Gospel.

Therefore, since the Bible teaches that there is urgency in sharing the Gospel, I cannot agree that abortion always results in a free pass to heaven.
I don’t know why you are getting downboated for this comment. It’s true. If an aborted fetus went straight to heaven, then it would be logical for a woman to abort her child, sending him or her straight to heaven. The women would then just need to confess her sins, and then she would be absolved. A human is not absolved of Sin until baptism. This is why when a woman has a miscarriage, she should try to baptize the fetus shortly after the miscarriage. A layperson can baptize in an emergency as long as he or she has the proper form and substance of baptism. When a fetus is aborted, a woman is sentencing her child to a life outside of heaven. It’s why abortion is a sin that has excommunication as a punishment.
 

josemiguel

Robin
Orthodox
If an aborted fetus went straight to heaven, then it would be logical for a woman to abort her child, sending him or her straight to heaven. The women would then just need to confess her sins, and then she would be absolved.
This autism is contrary to Saint Paul:
"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

Likewise, confession isn't a simple mechanical formula that operates as you describe.
A human is not absolved of Sin until baptism
That is the norm. There are saints who were received into the Kingdom outside of that norm, as both St Cyprian of Catlrthage and St Cyril of Alexandria in his Catechal Lectures describe.

The children aborted are in the hands of the God who said "let the little children come unto me." There is no place safer for them to be in, He will sort them as well on judgement day, in His Justice and Mercy.
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
As much as I like the libertarian ideas in many ways, they can't work in a society where few truly believe in religion or even where people attend churches but the churches are very weak.
This is essentially the view of John Adams. I'm not one of those "What did the founders want" originalists, but when it comes to something like the question of how should a society be ordered, I pay a lot of attention to what someone like John Adams says, as he put many years of serious thought and discussion with his equally intelligent and gifted peers in pondering and debating these questions and to decide how society should be ordered and governed, ultimately putting his life on the line in an attempt to realize these dreams. I place a lot more weight on that than I do my own personal wishes or biases or thoughts of "how I wish the world to be".

The operation of a secular state is a dirty thing, and compromises have to be made, and its decisions cause people to live or die. Just look at Covid, Obamacare, the mideast wars, each of these decisions had repercussions that caused innocent people to die. Now, I think the US administrators made the WRONG decision in each of those cases, (perhaps in large part because moral Christians play little part in our government), but Adams' point is that Christian moral societies and "other" societies are ordered differently and it is totally inappropriate to govern one as if it were the other. Which is why libertarianism would be an absolute disaster in modern America, though it would probably function really well in a place like Palo Alto full of nerdy high IQ whites and asians.

The biggest issue with abortion is that it is an outdated fight. More people were having secret illegal abortions in 1972 than are today where abortion is easy and accepted. Because surgical abortion has basically been replaced by safer, easier, cheaper and more private options.

I think many of the staunch "fight abortion at all costs" people here don't realize the facts that

1) Abortion is less common today than it was when it was banned and

2) that abortifacient drugs are available privately (secretly) through the US mail.

I didn't know either of these facts until looking into this issue over the last 2 weeks. It kind of makes the abortion clinic obsolete. Sure, you can ban the clinic, but then what you are doing is still allowing the abortion procedures to take place by the vast majority of people via other methods, but stopping the most irresponsible, low IQ, dysfunction parts of society ONLY from getting abortions, and instead artificially boosting their birth rates above the rest of us.

If you don't tackle the root of the problem -- fornication--then banning abortion doesn't change much in the society, and there is a good chance it won't even have a meaningful effect on the number of terminated pregnancies.

That's without even addressing the question of how much child abuse, drug abuse, cruelty, rape, incest, and other evils that will be inflicted on these unwanted children by their mother's boyfriends, thugs in the community, foster homes, etc. and the lack of quality schools and communities we will have for an influx of poor wards of the state, many of whom are minorities, when you don't first address the root cause.

It may be sad to consider, but abortion came about for a reason. Sure, you can ban it. But the reasons that people sought out such a dysgenic, antisocial thing as abortion in the first place still exist in the society, and will still manifest in different, perhaps even worse, ways unless you address that root reason.

You can't operate your society as a feminist state (as the US is) but then set up restrictions on feminist actions. That will never work. The argument "but feminism (abortion) is bad tho" is meaningless unless you are effectively and realistically countering it.
 

MartyMcFly

Pelican
Other Christian

It is so disrespectful to do this. Even if they dislike the judge, what about his neighbors? Another reason among many to avoid even considering living in a suburb deemed safe. You need to be a minimum of 1 hour away (and preferably 90 minutes away) from a major city to be truly safe from jerks like this.

I am reminded of a BLM protest in another 'safe outlying suburb' of Stillwater, MN where a man couldn't even drive to his house because the obtuse idiots were protesting against his neighbor and they refused to take a few seconds to move to the side to let him drive home.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
It is so disrespectful to do this. Even if they dislike the judge, what about his neighbors? Another reason among many to avoid even considering living in a suburb deemed safe. You need to be a minimum of 1 hour away (and preferably 90 minutes away) from a major city to be truly safe from jerks like this.

I am reminded of a BLM protest in another 'safe outlying suburb' of Stillwater, MN where a man couldn't even drive to his house because the obtuse idiots were protesting against his neighbor and they refused to take a few seconds to move to the side to let him drive home.
You do realize that these people dont have any understanding of civil discourse and are either paid to riot or are overcome by their indoctrination right?

What one really needs is a remote location, a large fence with physical barriers, several large guard dogs (i prefer American Bulldogs but your preference) guns, a warning system and cameras, and if, in the case of the supreme court justices you're a public official.... Hired security.

I'd you're Jo shmo like me... Fly under the radar and be the gray man. Carry a gun. Have your wife trained and carry a gun.

If you've got to be politically controversial, carry a gun. Have your wife trianed and carry a gun.

These big wigs don't get sympathy from me. Get a security man. Pay him money. He will guard you and yours.
 

Brother Abdul Majeed

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
This is essentially the view of John Adams. I'm not one of those "What did the founders want" originalists, but when it comes to something like the question of how should a society be ordered, I pay a lot of attention to what someone like John Adams says, as he put many years of serious thought and discussion with his equally intelligent and gifted peers in pondering and debating these questions and to decide how society should be ordered and governed, ultimately putting his life on the line in an attempt to realize these dreams. I place a lot more weight on that than I do my own personal wishes or biases or thoughts of "how I wish the world to be".

The operation of a secular state is a dirty thing, and compromises have to be made, and its decisions cause people to live or die. Just look at Covid, Obamacare, the mideast wars, each of these decisions had repercussions that caused innocent people to die. Now, I think the US administrators made the WRONG decision in each of those cases, (perhaps in large part because moral Christians play little part in our government), but Adams' point is that Christian moral societies and "other" societies are ordered differently and it is totally inappropriate to govern one as if it were the other. Which is why libertarianism would be an absolute disaster in modern America, though it would probably function really well in a place like Palo Alto full of nerdy high IQ whites and asians.

The biggest issue with abortion is that it is an outdated fight. More people were having secret illegal abortions in 1972 than are today where abortion is easy and accepted. Because surgical abortion has basically been replaced by safer, easier, cheaper and more private options.

I think many of the staunch "fight abortion at all costs" people here don't realize the facts that

1) Abortion is less common today than it was when it was banned and



If you don't tackle the root of the problem -- fornication--then banning abortion doesn't change much in the society, and there is a good chance it won't even have a meaningful effect on the number of terminated pregnancies.

That's without even addressing the question of how much child abuse, drug abuse, cruelty, rape, incest, and other evils that will be inflicted on these unwanted children by their mother's boyfriends, thugs in the community, foster homes, etc. and the lack of quality schools and communities we will have for an influx of poor wards of the state, many of whom are minorities, when you don't first address the root cause.

It may be sad to consider, but abortion came about for a reason. Sure, you can ban it. But the reasons that people sought out such a dysgenic, antisocial thing as abortion in the first place still exist in the society, and will still manifest in different, perhaps even worse, ways unless you address that root reason.

You can't operate your society as a feminist state (as the US is) but then set up restrictions on feminist actions. That will never work. The argument "but feminism (abortion) is bad tho" is meaningless unless you are effectively and realistically countering it.
This doesn't really matter. Are you suggesting that we replace a great evil with a little less evil that will make all our lives materially more palatable? We should tolerate the slaughter of infants because people are going to do it anyway? We should have a lassiez-faire attitude towards it?

No matter what justification anyone might have, abortion is the single most evil act imaginable perpetrated on the most innocent of the innocent of the creatures made in God's image. Satan laughs. A mother has abandoned her child with the permission of a doctor (who has supposedly taken the Hippocratic oath to save lives at all costs).
 

Max Roscoe

Ostrich
Orthodox Inquirer
Are you suggesting that we replace a great evil with a little less evil that will make all our lives materially more palatable?
Quite the contrary. I'm taking the opposite view--that banning surgical abortions does NOT substantially change the evil that birth control and pregnancy termination is, and that abortion clinics have basically aborted themselves already. Read the post again without assuming it is hostile and that should come through.

THIS:
If you don't tackle the root of the problem -- fornication--then banning abortion doesn't change much in the society, and there is a good chance it won't even have a meaningful effect on the number of terminated pregnancies.
The evil is fornication.
The bastard child is the fruit of that evil.
The evil is what I wish to eliminate.
Not just the evidence only, but the root evil act.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
One thought, and this one is as much for the lurkers who follow my posts as for the forum members:

Maybe the GOPs best political strategy here is to double down. The base at this point is extremely frustrated with the lack of push from the party. Any Republican who can successfully establish themselves as having an aggressive, “fighter” reputation stays popular and is heavily insulated from gaffes and scandals that kill the careers of those who aren’t. See how popular Trump remained despite a constant stream of retarded decisions and statements.

By being aggressive you become a foci for people’s frustrations and they give you their loyalty whether or not you deserve it.


Similarly those “swing voters” you are afraid of are dwindling in numbers.

Harp in on leftist care and shame tactics to defend the issue, then flip their “ Defendkng Democracy” thing back at them. Defending democracy requires that issues with the system be resolved with the tool’s democracy gives us: the legislature.
 

renotime

Ostrich
Catholic
Gold Member
Humanity was at its absolute peak during a Christian Europe, and later a Christian United States. This is objectively true.

Now, as the west is falling away from Christianity is it any coincidence that society is falling away right along with it?

People could still die from TB and polio back then. Sounds like it kind of sucked. But at least women knew their place.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
People could still die from TB and polio back then. Sounds like it kind of sucked. But at least women knew their place.
Hardly the only measures. What we have gained in short term “freedoms” we have more than most in self determination with most of us slaves in all but name.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
TLDR: option 1, though I am open to seriously examining the question of when life begins.
Under this academic scenario I view the greater harm to occur under option 2.

Long answer: First I would say that's a false choice; it's like asking who would you invade in 2001, Iraq or Afghanistan.
The correct answer is neither one and of course the world never operates under such restricted conditions.

So my answer here is neither.
But if I was restricted to do only ONE single thing, I would do something more meaningful like banning the mail-order morning after pill, which kills far more fetuses than surgical abortions do, or getting rid of No Fault Divorce laws (which are behind much of the sex outside of marriage which is the root cause of birth control and abortion).

If instead I had power to adequately address the issue, I would take broad actions. Institute a revamp of the divorce laws. A focus on the institution of marriage as a sacred and respected thing. Make violations of wedding vows carry repercussions, even to third parties. Make marriage something our institutions value and respect.

Schools would teach it to children. Instead of waiting until 4th grade to be indoctrinated about trannies, which is COMPLETELY the wrong discussion to have, students would be learning about marriage and the sanctity of its vows throughout school. Media would respect it, and would not portray interracial couples in advertising, or make condescending anti-male commercials. Married couples would be depicted in a positive light in our culture.

I would look to places like North Korea, which has a 96% marriage rate, and a 1% divorce rate and copy their policies.

000457dc.jpeg


I would end divorce-rape and no fault divorce laws. I would end excessive alimony and child support payments and stop incentives for women to end marriages, and instead provide monetary punishments for instituting a divorce.

I would ban pornography and prosecute cam whores with public shaming and corporeal punishment.

Then I would attack hookup culture and use social media (which IS a tool of government) to shame sluts and degenerate activity, and prominently feature wholesome Christian virginal behavior, targeted towards young women. I would encourage early marriage, instead of carreerism, as it is impractical to expect someone to remain celibate until age 30+.

I would alter our housing and welfare payments which reward single mothers with increased support based on their unmarried status and number of kids out of wedlock to stop rewarding that behavior.

Only then, when the systems in place to encourage Christian marriage and to discourage sinful fornication, were established, would I restrict abortion, but surgical abortion would not be my focus, as it is a very small part of the birth control system.

I would outlaw the pill, the IUD, the implant, and other forms of birth control, and restrict limited sale of certain types to married couples only.

Surgical abortions are done at a level BELOW that of when they were ILLEGAL in 1973. They may be a symbolic evil, but they represent a very small part of the pie in terms of aborting life and damaging marriage and families.

BUT all that said, given the state of our current society, which is neither Christian nor moral, If I couldn't do all that first, then I would take the practical choice of keeping abortion rules as they currently are. A drunken intercourse from a night club hookup is not going to produce a viable population, and I do not want a society made up of this. Single people are currently the majority in the US, and the majority of children are now bastards. I want a society dominated by the offspring of married Christian couples, not the offspring of fornicating satanic pagans and degenerates (this may be a bit hypocritical as I am often criticizing those in the forum who separate Americans based on their political belief and want to punish and exclude the "other" and I seem to be saying abortion is bad in a Christian society but ok in a non-Christian one).

The problem is there are millions of unChristian fornicators who want nothing to do with childrearing (which is why they terminate pregnancies) and if you don't address that, but simply force them to reproduce against their will, you are creating a giant social problem.

You can argue Margaret Sanger was unethical, if you believe life begins at conception, but she did have a point, one that I have not seen a credible response for from the right. Something has to be done with these offspring from drunken nightclub hookups and ghetto parties who would be raised by the state or by teenage atheist radical carreerist single mothers, and I pity the child who will grow up in this sorry excuse for a "family." If abortion is legalized first, without all the other steps above, you are going to end up with hundreds of thousands of children each year raised by demons, and I have not heard a credible plan to answer this. You will also end up with a lot of kids who are sexually abused or raped coming out of these "families."

Of course, if we could all agree that life begins at conception and then abortion should go away tomorrow. But that's not likely, and anyway you still have to deal with the societal problems above that it would create. I question whether many pro-life advocates even believe that because I rarely hear them attack the far more common forms of aborting, like the pill, implant, plan B, and IUD.
I wrote a whole thing in response to you, but before I post, I'd like to clarify (so that I don't misquote you or misinterpret):

When you argue that abortion is necessary/the lesser of two evils in some cases, do you believe that the woman and child would be better off with the abortion (i.e. that the woman would be better off ending the pregnancy and the child would be better off dead)?

Or are you arguing that despite abortion being a negative outcome for the mother and child, it is beneficial/necessary for the rest of society and therefore should be accepted/encouraged?

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but it's actually a very important difference.

I disagree with both, but I want to make sure I don't misunderstand what you're saying.
 

Argus101

Sparrow
Protestant
When I've read in the past about liberals who were themselves cancelled at work over doing or saying something offensive, they were generally older (40s+) and it was generally people younger than themselves doing the cancelling.
Maybe the cancelling of older workers is being done as a Machiavellian ploy by younger workers so they can move up and take the better-paying jobs that are now vacant.
 

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox Catechumen
Quite the contrary. I'm taking the opposite view--that banning surgical abortions does NOT substantially change the evil that birth control and pregnancy termination is, and that abortion clinics have basically aborted themselves already. Read the post again without assuming it is hostile and that should come through.

THIS:

The evil is fornication.
The bastard child is the fruit of that evil.
The evil is what I wish to eliminate.
Not just the evidence only, but the root evil act.
Banning abortion is a good first baby step forward. It is a realistic goal. Your goals are unrealistic at this time. Do you think the left wing with their degenerate agenda would not have liked to have their full agenda implemented immediately? They took little steps pushing, pushing and pushing to get where we are today and still have further to go and will continue to push. At least the banning of abortion is a measure against there agenda.
 

SlickyBoy

Hummingbird
You do realize that these people dont have any understanding of civil discourse and are either paid to riot or are overcome by their indoctrination right?

What one really needs is a remote location, a large fence with physical barriers, several large guard dogs (i prefer American Bulldogs but your preference) guns, a warning system and cameras, and if, in the case of the supreme court justices you're a public official.... Hired security.

I'd you're Jo shmo like me... Fly under the radar and be the gray man. Carry a gun. Have your wife trained and carry a gun.

If you've got to be politically controversial, carry a gun. Have your wife trianed and carry a gun.

These big wigs don't get sympathy from me. Get a security man. Pay him money. He will guard you and yours.
About the only legal thing one of those justices can do is unleash a stench so horrible that nobody wants to stay around. There may be the risk of some kind of municipal citation, but what can they say if the aroma of skunk starts to emanate through the grass in the front yard? Not the same as pepper spray as that is considered a weapon. But a stench? Let them waft in it as long as they can put up with it. Maybe turn on the sprinklers when they get close enough. I think it would be quite fun.


And I for one are so sick about hearing about independents, swing voters, etc. Those people always break 2:1 Democrat anyway. Show some leadership, call out the pink haired fatties for who they are, and stand behind the institution of the supreme court that cannot be polluted by insurrectionists as it just was. Ask any Democrat lawyer defending this what would happen to his law license if he were the leaker - call the bastards out.

But of course, the GOP won't. Each GOP "conservative" is an atomized donor-robot who doesn't band together for anything other than their own re-election.

The entire pro life movement in the 1980w-90w was led by shams such as Ralph Reed, who when asked by E Michael Jones how he felt about a recent victory shot back a look as if to say "Ugh, one of those people again..." EMJ realized then that it's never been about pro life for so many of them, it's about a grifting/LARPing as a pro-lifer. It's a living, that's it. They don't actually want to win.
 
Last edited:
Top