If we bring people to common sense of what they’re really doing, they may stop with this non-sense of pro-choice. Killing a child is a crime by natural law, no matter how small the age was, and calling it “reproductive rights” is a fancy distortion of what a right actually is which, ironically, not only violates the universal right to life that the child was granted when she was conceived, but it was introduced by the Catholic Church Herself in the Middle Ages.
I will not make friends saying this but, if you knew for a fact that Heaven was the destination of all aborted babies’ souls, would you still say abortion is giving the kid no chance at all? If Heaven is the ultimate prize, that nothing can compare to it, that to be absent from the body is to be with the Lord, then in a twisted way, even though it displeases God, killing someone before they have an opportunity to sin, inasmuch as that secures an eternity with God in Heaven, is doing them a huge favour, it’s giving them a gift unsurpassed by any other gift. That’s the paradox of abortion, if you disobey God you WILL save souls that, statistically, were going to be damned had they been given a chance to live. God is malcontent, but a soul is saved. I know the despair, heartbreak and terror of a lost soul facing the prospect of eternal misery doesn’t faze God, so I say salvation and avoiding hell trumps everything, even if it has to be done at the expense of God’s laws. Abortion is barbaric but so were some of the things God commanded his people to carry out in the OT (smashing babies’ skulls against rocks and such).If we bring people to common sense of what they’re really doing, they may stop with this non-sense of pro-choice. Killing a child is a crime by natural law, no matter how small the age was, and calling it “reproductive rights” is a fancy distortion of what a right actually is which, ironically, not only violates the universal right to life that the child was granted when she was conceived, but it was introduced by the Catholic Church Herself in the Middle Ages.
I can’t figure out how people can be conviced that this type of thing should be admitted anyway. Giving the child a chance in the rough enviroment of a foster home or adopted or whatever is far better than giving the kid no chance at all, the logic simply doesn’t follow and gets to a conclusion that is even worse, which is killing the baby because he’d suffer. Like, isn’t that a bit contradictory to say the least?!
WWII was not fought over the six million jews who died, they died in that war. Also, a just war can be violent. If you want to fight a war over abortion, take single mothers into your home and win by using weapons of love.
No, actually, that is not what WWII was fought over.
Who would fight in this just war of yours?
It’s interesting to note how the epidemic of vice seems to have taken everyone’s drive to question. Who in the modern world, except you (and me), would ever think of doing something so real? I was taken by my family to pray at an abortion clinic once, taught (correctly) that the fetus is a person. But it was years until I thought of applying the principle that violence is acceptable in defence of innocent life. But the spirital epidemic had taught me never to question. I had been taught “do what you’re told”, and I did. I didn’t even consider real action until years later. It takes a real seed of virtue to consider such an action.
We fought a revolutionary war against the world’s most powerful army. We were severely outgunned and outnumbered. We had every disadvantage. Defeat was certain. But that was moral.
Abortion was legalized about 40 years ago. Since then, we’ve spent the whole time trying love, voting, writing magazine articles, and rational argument, and the situation is getting worse. PP didn’t used to get billions of taxpayer funding annually. Stuff like the “moring-after pill” didn’t used to be around. There didn’t used to be the HHS mandate.
Keep in mind that the unborn still choose their eternal destiny. You can’t send them to heaven by killing them. Also what God wants is not lack of sin, but non-lack of Virtue.
This is passivism. We can fight back. Someday, you’ll see proof when God gets his hands on some real followers who care about his will more than obeying the law.
It doesn’t matter what WW2 was about. This is about millions of babies annually. What doesn’t that trump?
I would, tenderlynew would, and so would anyone else who is truly on God’s side without reservations.
The white blood cells aren’t working. We’ve been trying them for over 40 years.
Domini cane said:
The rosary is a prayer, not a weapon. Prayer is fantastic, I’ve seen the marvels it can work. But I’ve never seen it accomplish anything when the pray-er isn’t doing all within their power to make God’s intervention unnecessary.
Well, I wouldn’t trust Russell as an authority, but even so, there is a difference between a baby who has been baptized and a baby who has not been baptized.
First of all, for the response of that particular quote of Russell, I’d tell you to read this.
I think the problem here is that you have not identified who you will have to fight.
) to tax laws. So I don’t think anyone reasonable can take that position. Then at that point when the State intervenes and ask you to give back the “weapons of abortion” what do you do? You will have to obey the government and give it back.Yes it does. The OP’s entire premise is based on WWII being fought on behalf of 6M Jews, and applying that to the conclusion we should fight a war about abortion because that is more than than 6M.
The moral law is not based on number or trumping anything.
I think you’ve missed my point. Just war theory is very specific. It isn’t just any people fighting taking up arms against just any other people. You fighting the police, you doing violence to an abortion doctor, that is just a street fight, not a war and certainly not a just war.
None of these would meet just war doctrine.
I got the idea from the question/answer that you linked. You know how we say that the end doesn’t justifiy the means, well concerning hell, the end (avoiding it) would certainly be a case where the end justifies the means. People make it sound like God didn’t have any other option except to “create” hell. He’s creative, smart and almighty, hell simply exists because his justice wants it. There had to be a milder, humane alternative for those who miss Heaven. No in the face of an oppressive system I naturally tend to look for loopholes as an intellectual exercise. But don’t worry I don’t have a political platform with specifics on how to implement mass post-baptism infanticide. I’m simply thinking aloud.First of all, for the response of that particular quote of Russell, I’d tell you to read this.
Second, that argument is hardly valid, if at all. On the first note, most pro-choice people don’t believe in a Heaven, so their minds don’t rest easy on that point, and that’s used to who is actually trying to protect the babies. Second note, where is the confirmed claim that aborted babies go to Heaven? Last time I checked, either that or a sort of Limbo is no more than a theological theory, and that’s not to be taken for granted either.
Third note, our ultimate purpose is live here on earth as humans, not to respond to the universal call for holiness which gives us Heaven. That’s after our life here is done, and that should come when the life here is accomplished. Things here on Earth are much different than in Heaven, and it’s only after being here that you can really appreciate to go up there. Fourth, much linked to my thrid note, not even a baby can know true happiness without knowing true sadness in life, that’s just how human beings are built on.
Fifth, once again, it goes against one’s right for life. I’m not guessing you go around killing people that want to go to Heaven faster. You simply live your life as God wanted you to be in order to be clean and holy and able to enter Heaven. Any conception of a baby has the Original Sin which doesn’t even have the chance of being baptized, so you can’t really say you’re doing anything ok. Becoming holy is available to anyone that chooses to do that, and you’re not giving the baby any chance to do his own choice (yes, there are those who feel satisfied to have a short but intense life, and they’d rather not live an eternity; deal with it), and start and work on his/her relationship with God to truly know Him and being ready to meet Him. So, arguing that the baby is granted to go to Heaven is way too much of a bet. Most likely he/she’ll spend a lifetime in Purgatory to get ready to meet his/her Creator, which didn’t even had a chance to enjoy His creations by his/herself.
On the last note, and I don’t want to sound like aggressive or anything but really, how in the world do you even think of suggesting that?..
Pray!!! That is the army you need!