Black voices aren't the only minority voices who say things worth listening to.
"Identifying as trans is just a way for white men to place themselves at the top of the progressive oppression hierarchy. It's literally white patriarchy but with extra steps and horrible makeup. "
Lauren Chen
Dan, and others, base their arguments in favor of unrestricted abortion on the following premise.
"It's wrong to force a woman to give birth to a child."
It's not their only argument, but it's a regular. Leaving aside the multitude of problems with this statement, I want to focus on a hypothetical.
Recently, I've seen various sources reporting on the possibility of some sort of artificial womb. Some incubation container that would allow us to grow children is "greenhouses". I know it sounds horrific, and the potential for harm seems huge. But, consider this.
What if these women who can't be inconvenienced by allowing the child in their womb to fully gestate, let alone be bothered to care for it, were able to transplant the child into one of these artificial wombs? Wouldn't that completely eliminate this line of argument? What if, the millions of families who would adopt these children if their lives weren't being ended so cavalierly were able to fund these artificial womb centers?
I suspect that the pro abortion folx would find other excuses to end the lives of their children, even if they had this option. Because it's their property to dispose of as they wish with no restrictions.
https://www.lifenews.com/2022/12/26/17-years-of-data-on-over-5000-women-shows-abortion-hurts-women/
The piece above references at least a couple of studies that could reasonably lead an unbiased observer to conclude that abortion causes harm to the women who abort, as well as to the aborted child.
On top of the studies that strongly link abortion with increased cancer risk, PTSD or other mental haelth issues, and damage to the reproductive system.
By all means, let's ignore the harm.
Many say "Your doctrines and beliefs don't matter--what matters is how you live, if you are a good person or not". But that IS a doctrine--it's the doctrine of justification by works.
D.M. Lloyd-Jones
I could be wrong, but it seems like we've had a movement towards a counter culture in the US since the 1950's. I think you could say that it started with the advent of rock music and the fact that parents didn't like it. During the 50's it looked like the guy in a leather jacket, with a hot rod, and a cigarette. During the 60's is looked like hippies, those who experimented with LSD, and who protested the Vietnam War. In the 70's we saw the excesses of the disco scene, punk rock, and the emergence of the homosexual activists.
What's interesting to me is that at some point in the 70's and 80's what had been the counter culture was morphing into the dominant culture. At some point in the 90's Hip Hop culture was briefly counter cultural, until culture simply absorbed it as well. We started to see thousands of identically dressed people who all acted the same who really believed that they were non conformist and a counter culture. They must have missed the point when the trappings of the counter culture had been turned into a fashion statement.
Fast forward to the 2020's and all of a sudden the counter culture looks like people who want to get married, live on a farm, home school their kids, and dress well. It looks like young women who choose to dress modestly. It looks like people deciding to choose not to live the drugs, sex, and Rock and Roll lifestyle.
It's kind of refreshing to see a counter culture that doesn't involve destructive behavior.
Instead of my documentation of the revelations coming out of Twitter, I'll simply point people to Wintery Knight's blog where he goes into quite a bit of detail, and provides links and quotes.
He also has another excellent debate regarding the existence of God. I suspect the no one here has the intellectual ability of those being debated, and certainly don't suspect that anyone here could demonstrate that any of the arguments made are false.
https://winteryknight.com/
"It's not a person."
"It belongs to me."
"I can do with it as I please."
"The law is on my side."
Historically these 4 arguments have been used to justify two institutions. Any guesses?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/political-progressive-conservative-christians/
I'm interested in reading this when it comes out, because it seems that the research is suggesting that the current narrative might not actually be True.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2021/07/19/whats-current-lesbian-events-excluding-trans-identified-males-ruled-unlawful-in-tasmania/
It would appear that we're seeing the L's who are oppressing the T's.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-female-in-head-scarf-attacked-black-cultural-center-police/
Strangely enough, this attack was blamed on "white supremacy" , and UVA chose to hide the identity of the attacker.
If a college professor claimed the following,
"white people are committed to being villians"
That Africans arrived in North America before white Europeans
"Whiteness is going to have an end date"
"We gotta take these muthafuckers out"
Should this professor be disciplined in any way?
