Ok allow me to assist.
Not murdering someone isn’t the opposite of forcing them to live. Simply allowing a human life to unfold by nature of not intentionally killing them isn’t forcing someone to suffer. Sick people die. You will die. I will die. That’s just part of living. We can’t kill each other to magically avoid the work of dying. Aborting a baby is just how cowards hide from death. It’s invisible to YOU. Surely not to the one being suctioned out of the womb.
Now each surgery and procedure for ALL lives big and small comes with a risk benefit profile. It includes time vs quality of life. We understand this for dogs. Your grandpa is 80 and has advanced cancer. Is the pain of chemo worth the additional three months? Likely no. Doing this consideration is part of parenting ALL children and part of ALL healthcare related decisions. This is normal life.
All lives have inherent dignity and worth. This doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to die. It means we aren’t supposed to kill each other. We are supposed to support, reduce suffering, and make decisions in love for each other. Killing a baby doesn’t reduce suffering. It blinds YOU from the suffering. It’s a hidden suffering. It’s not noble. It’s fear.
My child may die, but not in the dark at my hands.
I live in the most affluent suburb of a top 20 American City. Large families (4+ kids) here manage to have a stay-at-home/homeschooling mom, own a home, & save for retirement, even though dad’s making less than 1/4 of that.
Stop lying. It 100% comes down to your priorities.
You cannot have a stay-at-home wife in a top-20 American city unless you're making $500,000 a year. You need to compensate for her lack of income, her retirement, her social security, and what happens when she divorces you. The nuclear family math doesn't work in 2026 and it's not coming back.
Mail in ballots should be outlawed except in cases of documented absence such as military service. If not outlawed, they should be required to be counted BEFORE in person votes so that their totals can’t be manipulated to match an outcome.
@Amy_beke They directly, intentionally killed (aka murdered) a distinct, living, defenseless human (aka baby). Even the dictionary says you’re wrong here.
Don’t let them gaslight you.
They’re cheaters.
They stole the LA mayoral election.
The late mail-in ballot numbers are… literally unbelievable.
There’s no way the no-name councilwoman Nithya Raman who got 22% of the vote in person…
Organically got 40% in late mail in ballots.
Coincidentally JUST enough to pass Spencer Pratt. How handy.
Meanwhile Karen Bass’s 34% Election Day percentage stayed relatively stable with 38% late mail in ballots.
While Spencer Pratt supposedly completely bottomed out from 30% on Election Day to 20% of late mail ins.
They’re so audacious they don’t even try to hide it.
They know they’ll get away with it.
Because they always do.
But don’t let them convince you that you can’t NOTICE the cheating unless you’re prepared to name in court “Miss Scarlett in the Library” how they pulled off the heist.
This is why they fight tooth and nail against ALL common sense election integrity laws. They need every aspect of the election to be chaotic and vulnerable to make their fraud virtually untraceable.
May God have mercy on our nation.
When statistically impossible things happen, we should not be expected as a society to accept them. Evidence of fraud isn’t limited to video surveillance. Statistical impossibilities are hard evidence of fraud.
@MJRobinson1571@EyeElsie@DrCalumMiller Abortion, the intentional destruction of pre-natal human lives, can never be considered as healthcare. Abortion is the antithesis of authentic healthcare.
@NancyRPearcey This is why—absent confession of sins and embrace of the saving grace of Jesus Christ—their marriage is unlikely to survive this “choice.”
She will come to deeply resent him for not standing up for, protecting and fighting for their child. Sooner if he pushed it.
"I didn't want to bury my son."
I'm finding the more I encounter the abortion debate how few people think about what happens to their baby's body during/after an abortion.
Your baby does not magically Thanos dust into the ethos during an abortion. You give birth.
In the case of a surgical abortion, which at 21 weeks this family chose to endure, a large needle is inserted into the woman's abdomen to pharmaceutically induce a heart attack in your baby's body, and subsequently they are dismembered limb by limb and suctioned out of your womb before being dumped in a medical waste bin, sold to researchers, or cremated.
Your baby has a body, from the moment of conception.
Choosing to pawn off his remains to a doctor does not erase that fact.
Pray for this beautiful baby boy now in the loving arms of our Father in heaven.
The pre-born child has the right to her mother's body in the same way that the newborn child has the right to her mother's breast milk and the toddler has the right to her mother's food, clothing, and shelter.
Parental obligations exist.
PC: “Freezing an embryo does not kill it. Freezing a human does. Ergo, an embryo is not a human.”
Ummm...Freezing an unborn HUMAN doesn't kill it, and freezing an adult HUMAN does. Because adults are larger organisms, which are harder to thaw.
This isn't the epic take you think
I’m often asked: When we overturn gay marriage, is interracial marriage next?
Nope. Here’s why.
Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are not the same.
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down racist marriage bans, reinforcing the basis of husband-wife marriage, not redefining it. The Court removed an illicit barrier that had nothing to do with the meaning or purpose of procreative marriage.
Obergefell v. Hodges did something very different. It created a new “fundamental right” to a same-sex marriage license, something absent from the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition. Because it departed from our legal tradition rather than conforming to it, Obergefell remains open to challenge.
But the differences are not just legal. The outcomes for children are opposite as well.
In an interracial marriage, children remain connected to both of the adults to whom they have a natural right. They are raised by the mother and father responsible for their existence and identity. Nothing about interracial marriage requires a child to lose a parent.
Same-sex marriage does.
Children raised by same-sex couples are necessarily separated from at least one biological parent. They are denied a relationship with half, and sometimes all, of their genetic heritage. They lose either a mother or a father.
Reversing Obergefell would have no impact on Loving. Interracial marriage remains legally secure because Loving upheld the historic understanding of marriage while removing a racist barrier.
Restoring the man-woman meaning of marriage protects what matters most to children: their mother and father.
@DigitalActOfGod@America_Only_@McJuggerNuggets If she’s ill-equipped to raise and carry a baby, it is very simple to never get pregnant.
Are you suggesting that if the parents of a 2-year-old decides they’re “genuinely ill-equipped to raise” that child, that we shouldn’t throw them in jail after they dismember the kid?
@MysterEGemini@America_Only_@McJuggerNuggets That child’s life already happened and was violently ended by his own parents. Sorry you failed biology, but shortly after a sperm penetrates an egg, a brand new distinct, living human child exists. No parent has the right to cut that child’s life short, for any reason.