Society should recognise what trouble it’s in when it sees things like this:
The very nature of a sperm bank and IVF in itself is anathema for so many reasons, on so many levels. This is just one of the spin offs. It was summed up in another post:
… in comments:
By “freeing” sex from reproduction, and marriage too, the Left has unleashed a monster.
The desire for sex, pleasurable and linked to the continuation of the species, is one of the most powerful instincts around… and constrained by marriage and (theoretically) abstinence until marriage, is one of the most civilizing things around. And it forms a male-female pair-bond (as imperfect as that is at times): thus, the nuclear family.
Abortion and swipe-right-for-a-hook-up culture destroys that. Which destroys one of the key bulwarks against Socialism.
Remember, these people are missionaries. They BELIEVE in Socialism like you in Jesus and me in Hashem. And like the terminator, they will not stop – EVER – until they achieve it. (Of course, they’ll be disappointed, but then it won’t be “real socialism” and someone else will pick up the torch.)
Once you start down these paths, you always end up with this sort of thing as well:
As Chuckles says, ‘That’s not junk science, that’s fraud and attempted murder.’
Exactly as predicted. In film too – what happened to Skynet in the Terminator series?
And there are very good reasons why, not least because of the very people actually constructing this.
Let me slightly reframe that and move away from left/right here, terms I’ve applied with monotonous regularity over time. The terms certainly work as a delineator in politics but when it gets into moral and ethical concerns, yes – we can still use those terms because they’re understood and apply but there’s something missing in that dichotomy – the principle of a malevolent driving force.
And even that expression – malevolent driving force – can be understood as what’s coming out of the elite, out of the UN, out of the EU but the Christian adds another perspective – good versus evil.
I once sub-majored in Ethical Issues in Biology, for the hell of it, trying to learn about DNA, stemcells etc. and it became apparent that there were issues which could remain under the header of Controversial, e.g. euthanasia under extreme duress, not electively, modifying cells to alter a malignancy and so on. That will always be debated.
Ones which crossed the line though into sheer amoral evil included murder of babies for anything other than emergencies, IVF and sperm banks were another, for the reason that they break down society as sure sas night follows day, in combination with dystopian political mores taught in schools which, for example, wrongly call a same sex partnership a ‘marriage’ and should most certainly, most imperatively, never, ever, involve children in their personal horror story.
It’s a very, simple principle – a child needs his/her mother and father. As Groucho Marx might say – fetch me a child and ask him.
Yes, there are circumstantial breakdowns due to road accident, disease etc. but not to electively provide this for all and in fact urging it to happen under the guise of ‘compassion’.
Because the instant ‘elective’ comes into it, then it moves beyond the moral issue to one of certainty, in time, that it will modify and wreck the fabric of a society politically, to the extent that the denizens then become easily subjugated and controlled.
And then it gets into Hitler/Stalin/Mao territory, which comes right back to socio-political systems. To the voices of the secular anti-communist can then be added the voices of Christians who are certain there’s a dynamic called good versus evil.
And no prizes for guessing which side of the line fall unsanctified and broken down families. It sure ain’t the Godly side.
On a site such as OoL, dedicated to liberty afap, there comes a point where a State sanctioning a particular liberty leads to the eventual removal and suppression of liberty for all and the reintroduction of serfdom.
It’s long been a maxim of the right that the greatest bulwark against socialism, communism, politburo States, is the family. You can see the malevolent destruction of marriage and ‘religion’ in the 1776 Weishaupt principles which underlie Masonry in its bastardised form. It’s really no accident.
A practical example of the ‘all your children are ours’ thing is in the Scottish mentoring and ‘naming’ programme [posts passim] where every child north of the border has a State assigned ‘mentor’.
Fortunately, that’s been put back on the backburner.
There is quite a distinction between people who abide by a rule of agreement … and law out of that agreement … as against a libertine, a licentious, sociopathic person with a ‘do as thou wilt’ prime directive, who says to hell with you, I’ll do anything I want, wherever I want, to anyone I want.
Different other beast, ladies and gentlemen.
The former takes a less strident and less fanatical stance, a sustainable stance where that hijacked word is used in its proper way, he or she has grown up and developed the maturity to see that the aim of a govt must be, as far as you have a govt, to guard and maximise, to the greatest extent possible, individual freedom.
An impossibility in reality because of the opposed forces, plus that factor of evil – malevolent counter-force. We’re talking a constant, never resting push for evil to prevail – you can define evil however you wish.
And what of pointy-hatted Church oppression? Same principle – no priestly class ordering people burnt at the stake for religious reasons, no thou shalt or thou shalt not coming from the druids of that religion while they live the debauched high life, the choice though to read or not to read the Word if you so wish it. Cursed be the fanatical priestly class wearing crosses and pointy hats, just as much as fanatical atheism denying me the right to believe what I choose to.
That is an entirely different freedom to the right to murder a baby and store body parts at your home to sell off to the highest bidder.
Coming back to the article on the Catholic stacking of the benches in the US, there is a sad but inescapable fact – I am not Roman Catholic but there’s no doubt the laity in Catholicism are more naturally anti-abortion, more against calling same sex ‘marriage’, all of that.
Yes, we then confront the anti-Pope issue, the paedo priests, the horrifying nun-run homes for pregnant teens in Ireland – yes, there’s all of that to contend with. Always we come back to the priestly class here, don’t we? We talk nuns and priests, we do not talk laity. Inquisition? The unholy Church and State alliance, every time. Crusades ditto.
Have a look at Hungary at the moment and countries which have been able to counter the Islamic threat and ask why that has been possible there … but not here. Look at the Donald’s stance in the States and how he’s embraced by so many who see some hope at last.
And for an old satyr like him to start praying with Mike Pence – let’s just say that if faced with that versus what the Demrats are offering – doesn’t bear thinking about, it’s a no brainer to me. Sure he’s appealing to the bible belt, to the evangelican vote … but why not? Big tent over there.
And that route creates and preserves freedom – look at the antecedents of the US Constitution and Articles, look at what those men subscribed to as their beliefs, it’s written into the words, it’s written into the Pledge – you throw that element out and you may as well hand the state directly to the Demrats like Harris and Pelosi or creepy Biden.
Lastly, there’s a warrior element to this whole question, there’s a need for political will to ensure something is done, e.g. Brexit. Once a people make a decision, then it’s up to a strong person to push that through.
Not something else he or she invents. No one agreed a WA in the least or any other rubbish like backstops, invented later, it was a straight In or Out with an implied and assumed immediacy.
The unassailable leader is one who forces through the clearly expressed will of the majority of people – if Johnson went straight for No Deal, he’d be returned in a landslide. He knows it, yes fanatically pursues other than what the majority wanted.
Nothing I’ve written in this post is remarkable, we’re hovering around some point in society which offers the greatest good possible to the most people, but it needs a strong defence of that against the evil Them until they’re assassinated or the Boston brakes are used.
What I’m saying is – there IS no utopian unicorn world where everyone loves each other, for the simple reason that if you remove society’s support, you open the way for the barbarian to enter and trash your society.
There IS no happy lovey-duvvy land of no threats. The only freedom the people of Hobbiton had was that guaranteed by the Striders, those patrolling against marauders. Remove the Striders and you dismantle the defences.