The Christian Solution
|Home Page About TCS Contact Us Document Library|
March 2018 AD
asked about Abortions
UPDATED 4/22/2018: Added response to Indiana Abortion law, signed by Mike Pense, struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court judge.
An abortionist woman challenged me the other day with her worst case nightmare which she supposes shuts me up --
"What if I get pregnant after a rape,
would YOU Mr. MAN adopt my child,
and if not,
then YOU Mr. MAN cannot have any authority
to tell me what to do with my body"
I accept her challenge
with all HER ground rules
On the surface, this lady at my work is any typical American lady.
When meeting for social occasions, she emphasizes her intense love of husband and daughter. She is utterly committed in fidelity toward her husband (even though he is a MAN), and on several occasions, without any reason to say so whatsoever, has assured our group (presumably she was referring directly to myself) she would never even consider cheating on him. As to her daughter, never was there a more doting mother (unless you consider she was out of town on contract for months with her career and not with her daughter, but then, so was I. As we all say, we do what we have to do. My wife was home with my sons, not working and doing what I really consider to be doting on my children. Perhaps her husband was a stay at-home dad doing the same. Don't know, didn't ask.
Lastly but most importantly, she claims to be a devout Christian.
So as far as we know she is a professed Christian woman, totally committed to the Christian covenant of marriage and has clear knowledge and agreement as to the morality related to her duties as wife and mother.
But like all us sinners, she has a deep dark side.
She is a haughty, unrepentant, flaming liberal, man-hating, "No man is going to tell me what to do with my body", feminist abortionist.
In arguing her case with me, she made no attempt to convince me abortion was morally acceptable should she be married and a baby comes before she had time to fulfill her career, for she would know my response would be to say her intentions were purely selfish.
Being a socialist, she is not allowed selfish thoughts, so she cannot argue on this basis.
She made no attempt to argue along the lines of should a women become pregnant when out on a date with a man she loved, she should not be forced to marry and have the baby, because this would not allow her the time to attend college. Again, a selfish argument, not acceptable.
There was not even an attempt to argue abortion was acceptable for the case where her intentions were purely honorable, but the cad ran out on her and she would be unable to care for the child. Naturally she would not want to provide a beautiful baby into the arms of a childless couple who wanted a child.
Going further down the argumentative chain we are establishing, she has made no attempt to justify abortion in the case where a woman voluntarily enters a night club, well aware the bar is filled with men who have no other objective in being at the bar than to nail a chick, at which point she gets so drunk she is unable to function, gets taken advantage of and finds later she is with child. Hard to justify the killing of a baby based upon your own irresponsibility, so she passes on using this as an example of a righteous killing of her own baby.
No, her only argument to justify all the abortions in the above cases is this:
"What if a bad man broke into my home,
while I was innocently sleeping in my own bed,
I became pregnant,
Would YOU adopt my child?"
My honest answer was no.
So in conclusion, claiming total victory as it where, she hatefully stated,
"Then you have NO RIGHT!!!!
to tell me
what to do with my own body."
I of course did what most men do in cases like this, I stopped talking.
But I accept the challenge of her proposed worst case and will take up the gauntlet to argue on her own ground.
Right away, this lady is transferring all responsibility for the crime of rape from the criminal to myself, an innocent bystander. If I do not make myself the victim of this rape by adopting the baby, then she feels justified to make the child the victim of this rape by killing it, but in no way will she admit it was her who was the victim.
She makes no attempt to ask me if I would adopt my own son's baby should they make a girl pregnant.
She makes no attempt to ask me if I were to adopt any of my nieces babies if they were unable to provide and support a baby at that crucial time in their lives.
In fact, she makes no acknowledgment of the fact that the baby is half her own baby, and that she would be the natural person to 'adopt' the baby, if she had half the compassion she expects of me.
No, in her eyes, her abortion is all my fault.
But let's take her argument even further.
Let's say I was the rapist of this lady.
Let's say that I thought
"If she can justify the murder of her own child,
based upon rape,
and say that
NO MAN can tell her what to do with her body",
then why cannot I say,
"Well then, I am going to justify the rape itself,
NO WOMAN can tell me what I can do with my body!"
The truth is what you already know.
Long before she has any idea if she were pregnant or not, she would be running to the police to scream,
"THAT MAN has NO Right
to do what
HE wants to do
with HIS Body!!!!!"
And all the male policemen would absolutely agree with her that I had no right to do what I wanted to do with my body. They would immediately place a state-wide man-hunt for me, catch me and place me in prison with plenty of other men who were wondering why they were not allowed to do what they wanted to do with their bodies, from taking drugs, to taking money out of a cash register, to killing someone who had made them angry, or to a man who desired a woman who had spurned him, which in my case meant raping the woman to get what my body had so desired and wanted.
Neglecting the male police protecting her from rapists, who themselves work for the male politicians she claims is trying to stop her from doing what she wants to do with her body, she condemns male politicians.
Neglecting the moral arguments of the Old Testament of "Thou shall not kill"; neglecting the moral arguments of the New Testament which gives us the Golden Rule of "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you"; neglecting the fact that no place outside of Christian communities treat women even remotely as well as Christian men treat all women, even as Christian treat Muslim women, which is much better than Muslim men treat their own women, (Whom this woman says White America needs to BROWN up with, in Muslim rape I suppose?); neglecting all this, I am left to believe this woman blames me for the fact that we all refer to God as Father and to Christ as Son, which again in her eyes amounts to the fact that this MAN God is daring to tell her, A WOMAN, what to do with her body.
Roe v Wade
I did point out to her that Margaret Sanger was a racist who wanted abortion to kill off the minorities. Should be a convincing argument to a die-hard liberal to jolt her into joining our side, for a woman who stated in our group that "BROWN PEOPLE" are superior to white people. She said she was well aware of this fact about the genocidal history of Planned Parenthood, but it phased her not the least in her radical fanaticism with the death cult of abortion.
I was there, I remember, so I told her that Roe v. Wade was sold mostly on the meme,
"What if a BLACK man
raped your (WHITE) daughter?"
She would still not phased by the racist hatred.
Roe v Wade
I would speculate that if I had told her the ONLY reason the MEN of the Supreme Court allowed abortion in Roe v Wade, was to get MEN off the hook for sleeping around with women, to get MEN off the hook for loving'em and leaving'em, she would still not be phased in the least with this either.
After all, the net outcome has been that men are allowed to love'em and leave'em, even if the woman choses NOT to get an abortion, since this is HER CHOICE!
Roe v Wade
all federal laws
RACISM, SEXISM, and DISABILITY
April 21, 2018
(Bold below added by TCS)
In his Thursday opinion, [Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William J.] Bauer wrote that the provisions represented a barrier in a woman's right to choose.
provisions prohibit abortions prior to viability if the abortion is
sought for a particular purpose," Bauer wrote. "These provisions are
far greater than a substantial obstacle; they are absolute prohibitions
on abortions prior to viability which the Supreme Court has clearly
held cannot be imposed by the State."
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill appealed.
"By declaring unconstitutional a state law that would bar abortions based solely on race, sex or disability
such as Down syndrome, a federal judge has cleared the path for genetic
discrimination that once seemed like science fiction," Hill said in
a September statement to IndyStar.
Laws fought for bitterly by liberals for many, many years.
If a woman wants to abort a baby because it's a girl, well, the one making that decision is a woman, so guess discrimination laws no longer apply to her.
We are now like China, where little girls are a liability and are killed right and left.
Too bad the Second Amendment "Right to bear arms" does not have a clause stating that the right "cannot be infringed", as the "right to an abortion" stated somewhere deep in the Constitution has in abundance.
Consider this recently ruled case ruled one day earlier...
Abortion now appears to trump your own wallet. If you send a representative to your state legislature and tell him to watch your wallet, too bad, a federal judge will now enslave you to fund abortions with your own money which you religiously and fundamentally disagree in providing.
Roe v Wade
They OWN it!
So in conclusion, let's peel away all the silly excuses she gives herself. Let's ask the really tough question where no men are allowed to participate;
Let's ask her the simple question,
"We were wondering what
your daughter thought
of her mother
killing her sister?"
Where are Republicans?
U.S. House passes $1.3 trillion omnibus bill that keeps funding Planned Parenthood
WASHINGTON, DC, March 22, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The House of Representatives passed a $1.3 trillion spending bill to finance the federal government through the 2018 fiscal year, leaving Planned Parenthood’s annual subsidies untouched in the process.
Planned Parenthood pushes the "Constitutional right" of abortion, while the NRA pushes the absolute Constitutional right of keeping and bearing arms.
If Planned Parenthood receives $500 million to support abortion across America, why doesn't the NRA also get $500 million dollars to promote gun safety across these fruited plains?
This is a Dinesh D'Souza talking point.
What Constitutional right do Americans have that require the government to pay for it?
Can I lobby Congress to give me money to start my newspaper, just because I have a right to the press and free speech?
Will the President allocate funds to help me build a church because I have freedom of religion?
Not only no, but HELL NO would be the answer of liberals.
Give ME a right to free speech by supporting this website? Heavens no abortionists would say.
Give my religion government funds for a pregnancy crisis center? SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE all abortionist would scream.
But heh, how about a few pennies from Congress for my "constitutional right to an abortion" and liberals are all over it.
The NRA doesn't enjoy any Constitutional Rights, liberals would say, but DO NO WRITE ANY LAWS WHICH INFRINGE our right to an abortion.
Article located at:
Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State
Must Read Classics
"Checks and Balances"
History of the World
The Christian Solution © First Release: March 15, 2008