... on Abortion Debate

... on Abortion Debate · ... Gun Rights vs Abortion · ... on "Medical Reasons" for Late Term Abortions

Pro-Abortion Students Get Cozy With Satan
TFP Student Action | 6.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv6q5iYq8h0

Features a petition:

DEFUND Planned Parenthood Forever
May 05, 2017
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/petitions/defund-planned-parenthood-forever

Which I signed:



And I also commented under video:

I

2:12 "we have a thing called separation of Church and State"

Not from the founding fathers, at least.

One of them privately stated that as a motive, but separation of Church and State, literally so stated, or in synonymous terms, never became official policy of a state or federality anywhere before 1905 with Clémenceau, who on that line confiscated French churches from the Catholic Church and started looting sacred vessels. When Catholics stepped in to prevent this, they were shot by police.

He was of course your ally during World War I. Briefly, since you were not all that much involved in it.

Now, a series of Supreme Court laws actually do give you this "separation of Church and State" as pseudo-exegesis of one Amendment (II, I think*). That amendment doesn't adress separation or union of Church and State at any other level than that of Congress : Congress shall make no law concerning establishment of a religion, by which in context was meant one Christian confession.

Now, one of the court cases had sth called a "lemon test".

The Catholic view of sex and fertility actually would pass it.

• 1) Sexuality is meant for procreation, and limiting it to it (i e banning anti-procreative practises, eiaculatio extra vasum, pills, abortion) is useful so society continues to have a healthy balance of old and young.
• 2) We are people, not beasts. If two of us procreate, we need to speak about it first, and education of children on some level affects all of society, so, this requires making some kind of promise before all of society. That promise is called marriage. In marriage, man is the head, because there needs to be a "casting vote". Two people cannot have a majority vote about what to do. This means, by marriage, a woman is electing the head of her family, like a town's citizens elect their mayor or like US elector colleges elect a president. Obviously, her children normally can't make the election, since they normally aren't there.
• 3) Marriage makes a couple which is the nucleus of a family. Within the limits of letting sex be procreative and keeping the promise (not separating, but staying together while children are raised - in Catholic / sacramental marriage even for life -, not committing adultery, not raising children to apostasy or revolution) the family should be autonomous. Saves lots of tax money, reduces lots of unhealthy meddling élites, from CPS to shrinks on one hand or compulsory schools on the other, allows nature and nurture to go together for best results spontaneously possible from the marital promise.

None of this limits the morality to "one religion".

It is nothing like imposing a ban on strong drink or a surveillance of those using it to see if some risk becoming alcoholics, which is definitely a special pleading from Protestant sects like Mormons or 7DA or Methodists. Prohibition meant more drunkenness, not less. The surveillance system means less equality, not more sobriety.

In France, Muslims are pushing this also, at least some of them.

Back from comparison with "alcohol politics" to procreative morality. Yes, man being fallen it stands to reason that some will in fact not act according to the three principles just given. It would be draconic to apply this as if any deviation in any direction immediately merited the worst penalties.

But the worst of the deviations is trying to "repair" a deviation by murder of a child procreated in non-ideal circumstances. Therefore, abortion should be getting the worst penalty, both for participating medical personnel, and for mothers so chosing, or, with recent conditions in mind, I'd gladly add maternal grandparents or for that matter foster parents of a mother, who push her to abort.

NB, this last thing only has become an issue since it became senselessly difficult for teens to marry, work and raise children instead of continuing school, celibacy and non-parenthood. Therefore, marital minima ages should be lowered, some works at least (other than just pop singer) should be open to teens.

In all of this, while this is truly obedient to God per se, all is also truly comprehensible for non-believers with, on that issue, good will. None of it strictly depends on believing in God (except sacramental marriage being lifelong).

Going back to a little earlier:

0:46 "poor or unable to take care of that and decides not to get an abortion, obviously she's not even able to take care of it, it's gonna have a worse life, right?"

• 1) That is sectarian and does not pass the lemon test! Growing up with a poor, illiterate Catholic mother is not worse than growing up with a rich, college educated and unbelieving one, except on the sectarian views of such unbelievers (ranging from sects like Puritan Protestant to sects like "Western Atheism" which is a radically de-Christianised version of Protestantism).
• 2) The prediction involves a religious sense of curse (over the poor) and predestination to what is ill, which, while not Christian is sectarian Calvinist (in case said by an Atheist, remember, Western Atheism is a de-Christianised version of Protestantism).
• 3) Even granting someone has a life worse than someone else born under other circumstances (which as said cannot be known in advance), this does not make it worse than being killed by an abortionist.
• 4) She is part of the problem, since she is part of a society making it hard for poor, young, uneducated parents to stay effectively parents and effectively in charge of their children.
• 5) This is why I not only signed the petition, but also promote family liberties for homeschoolers, for poor, young, and uneducated parents and also combination of both.

* (footnote)

Glad I wasn't too sure, II Amendment was the gun thing. I was thinking (looked it up) I Amendment. As you may guess, I am no US citizen.

II

2:42 "and they actually take care of their people"

Meaning Satanism cannot survive without imitating some virtues of the Catholic Church.

How much is apostasy being pushed, while Catholics are not doing what they should?

I'm not sure it is all it means, it may also mean Satanists control their people in ways reminiscent of ... Spurgeon sects. Or what I get as a gut feeling about some Evangelicals. There is a mainly black Evangelical congregation in Paris (and surroundings) which markets itself around repairing destroyed lives.

Apart from some of these repairs being adulteries, how much control are the new members required to hand over before getting their lives repaired? I don't know. Being Catholic, I haven't tried them. They have been nice on occasions, though, while knowing (I hope) I am not one of them.

"and they actually take care of their people"

Unfortunately, I have a feeling, it also involves Satanists, like PP, passing off "helping" a girl to abort as taking care.

See also:

Dr. Levatino Destroys Abortion in 2 Minutes
TFP Student Action | 23.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXQBhTszpU

(c. 1200 abortions / c. 1461 days - credible.)