Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Will Bouwman]

...Agree with Immanuel Can right now, or burn in hell forever!

Nobody has to agree with me, at all actually. The One with whom they have to agree is well above my pay grade.

Is there a way not to burn in hell that could involve you being wrong about God?

[seeds]

"...if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes..."

_______

Well you're correct dying is a negative, though open heart surgery is commonly indicated for serious, but not immediately lethal conditions. But you can substitute any other medical procedure if it makes you feel better.

Like what? A boob job? A BBL (Brazilian Butt Lift)?

I don't understand your point.

As to your attitude about abortion it seems to me to be pretty mainstream in the sense that it should be legal and that women should think long and hard about the long and short term implications of their decision.

You have no idea of how radical my attitude about abortion truly is.

Harkening back to my conversation with Will Bouwman...

At what point do we become seeds, seeds? How much superwombal living do we need to do?

Like I said to henry, at "birth."

We need for that final and special "light" to come on in our minds at the moment of birth for the "seed" to become officially formed.

The challenge is in trying to understand what the "seed" is actually a seed of.

Even Christ said that in order to enter into the kingdom of God, one must experience 2 births.

The first one "of water" (as in birthed [alive] from the amniotic water of the human womb). And the second birth is "of the spirit" (as in birthed from the body and into true reality).

Abortion circumvents the first step in that 2-step process.

And just to be clear, when I talk about humans being "seeds" (in fact "The Ultimate Seeds"), I mean this...



The point is that if the parties involved are dead set on aborting a fetus...

(why? - because, for example, it's just not convenient [financially or emotionally] to have a child at this time in their lives)

...then it would be better if they killed it right after it was born.

And that's because, based on my whacky theory, a new and viable "seed" (soul) has been officially formed at (and only at) the moment of birth. And therefore, if killed post-partum, it will immediately awaken into true reality to live forever where it has the potential to evolve into a higher being just like the Creator of this universe (as depicted in the illustration).

However, as suggested in my conversation with Will, a new eternal soul will not come into existence if you abort it prior to that initial birth ("of the water").

So, by all means, if you absolutely must abort that baby, then for the sake of it possibly awakening into true reality and into its true and eternal form (the same form as God), do it after it has experienced that initial birth.

Now of course, all of that sounds insane, right? (except from the perspective of that new soul).

Like I said, you have no idea (until now, anyway) of how radical my take on abortion truly is. However, it would be completely reasonable if my theory is possibly true.

In addition it is your preference that circumstances be that women's negative situations that make carrying pregnancies problematic, didn't exist.

Yes, that would be best.

How can we get there?
_______

[accelafine]

How can we get there?
_______

'We'? Perhaps you could offer some manly mansplanations to women because they clearly aren't capable of thinking for themselves or making decisions about things that only affect them. I'm all ears...
You do realise that ImCan's position on this is a purely misogynistic one don't you? He's been obsessed with this for years. His position is that women are dirty sluts who need to be punished and made to suffer as much as possible for the 'sin' of having sex. He's an abomination and the worst kind of hypocrite. He doesn't even know what an abortion is, or what it involves, and has no interest in knowing. Isn't that SOME sort of a clue to his psyche? He's more than likely anti contraception as well. Don't even get me started on Henry Hypo, the little freak who's always banging on about 'freedom'. Fuck him too. FFS. This site is full of complete morons.

[accelafine]

Does anyone seriously believe that if men could get pregnant then there would ever have been any kind of 'debate' over abortion? Would evangelical kristians like ImCan give it even a nanosecond of neuron activity? (let alone hours and hours of repetitive lying crap on an internet forum). Obviously not.

[seeds]

How can we get there?
_______

'We'? Perhaps you could offer some manly mansplanations to women because they clearly aren't capable of thinking for themselves or making decisions about things that only affect them. I'm all ears...

By "we," I simply meant "humanity" in general.

Good grief, is that all you can do is look for highly specific trigger words in some hapless male's post in order to take your feministic umbrage with him?

If you paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would realize that I believe there should be no laws or prohibitions against anything you wish to do with your body.

And neither do I believe that anyone who has or performs an abortion will be judged and punished in any spiritual (afterlife) context for what they did here on earth.

I am merely trying to help you sleepwalking heathens see, not only the fantastic and wondrous eternal potential of your own being, but also the wondrous potential of what it is that's being aborted.

Unfortunately, many here are simply not awake enough to understand where I am coming from.

I mean, if you knew - with absolute certainty - that your own life was going to continue on forever in a higher and more beautiful context of reality after death,...

...would you still have the same attitude about taking that ultimate gift away from someone else via abortion?

You do realise that ImCan's position on this is a purely misogynistic one don't you?

Trust me, I know enough about Mr. Con's position to make me wonder why any of you even bother to talk to him.

I know we often use these "useful idiots" to get our own ideas out there, but seriously, don't let him bother you. The guy isn't even a real Christian.
_______

[accelafine]

How can we get there?
_______

'We'? Perhaps you could offer some manly mansplanations to women because they clearly aren't capable of thinking for themselves or making decisions about things that only affect them. I'm all ears...

By "we," I simply meant "humanity" in general.

Good grief, is that all you can do is look for highly specific trigger words in some hapless male's post in order to take your feministic umbrage with him?

If you paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would realize that I believe there should be no laws or prohibitions against anything you wish to do with your body.

And neither do I believe that anyone who has or performs an abortion will be judged and punished in any spiritual (afterlife) context for what they did here on earth.

I am merely trying to help you sleepwalking heathens see, not only the fantastic and wondrous eternal potential of your own being, but also the wondrous potential of what it is that's being aborted.

Unfortunately, many here are simply not awake enough to understand where I am coming from.

I mean, if you knew - with absolute certainty - that your own life was going to continue on forever in a higher and more beautiful context of reality after death,...

...would you still have the same attitude about taking that ultimate gift away from someone else via abortion?

You do realise that ImCan's position on this is a purely misogynistic one don't you?

Trust me, I know enough about Mr. Con's position to make me wonder why any of you even bother to talk to him.

I know we often use these "useful idiots" to get our own ideas out there, but seriously, don't let him bother you. The guy isn't even a real Christian.
_______

You were the one claiming that women use abortion 'as a contraception method'. That doesn't even make any sense as you would know if you knew the slightest thing about the subject. 'Funny' how men suddenly get sooo interested in women's concerns ONLY when it comes to abortion. All the rest of the time it's 'euwww, I don't want to know about any of THAT stuff'. Go and get your prostate checked, and whatever other manly things manly men get up to. i won't offer an opinion.

[henry quirk]

women use abortion as a contraception method

Financial Circumstances
I can't afford a baby.

Timing
It's not the right time for me to have a baby.

Partner
He's not the one I want as father of my baby.

Responsibilities
I have too much going on in my life to have a baby.

Mental health
I'm not psychologically well enough to have a baby.

Not Independent or Mature
I'm not ready to have a baby.

Rape & medical emergency rate low.

So: yes, abortions are mostly after the lovin' birth control.

[seeds]

'We'? Perhaps you could offer some manly mansplanations to women because they clearly aren't capable of thinking for themselves or making decisions about things that only affect them. I'm all ears...

By "we," I simply meant "humanity" in general.

Good grief, is that all you can do is look for highly specific trigger words in some hapless male's post in order to take your feministic umbrage with him?

If you paid the slightest bit of attention to what I have been saying, you would realize that I believe there should be no laws or prohibitions against anything you wish to do with your body.

And neither do I believe that anyone who has or performs an abortion will be judged and punished in any spiritual (afterlife) context for what they did here on earth.

I am merely trying to help you sleepwalking heathens see, not only the fantastic and wondrous eternal potential of your own being, but also the wondrous potential of what it is that's being aborted.

Unfortunately, many here are simply not awake enough to understand where I am coming from.

I mean, if you knew - with absolute certainty - that your own life was going to continue on forever in a higher and more beautiful context of reality after death,...

...would you still have the same attitude about taking that ultimate gift away from someone else via abortion?

You do realise that ImCan's position on this is a purely misogynistic one don't you?

Trust me, I know enough about Mr. Con's position to make me wonder why any of you even bother to talk to him.

I know we often use these "useful idiots" to get our own ideas out there, but seriously, don't let him bother you. The guy isn't even a real Christian.
_______

You were the one claiming that women use abortion 'as a contraception method'. That doesn't even make any sense as you would know if you knew the slightest thing about the subject.

First of all, I didn't use the word "contraception," I used the term "birth control."

And yes, perhaps I was being a little loose and careless with my terminology.

However, According to Bing COPILOT (which is similar to ChatGPT) (bolding and resizing mine)...

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2021, there were 622,108 reported abortions in the United States.

The abortion rate was 11.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 204 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Early medication abortion, which involves the administration of medication to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, accounted for 53.0% of all abortions.

This method has seen a 137% increase from 2012 to 20211. Additionally, data from Guttmacher indicates that 53% of U.S. abortions in 2020 involved pills, up from 39% in 2017. Commonly used medications include mifepristone (which blocks hormones supporting pregnancy) and misoprostol (which causes the uterus to empty).

The point is that it is pretty obvious that quite a few females in the U.S. (never mind the rest of the world) use abortion as a form of "birth control" when needed.

I don't know how those statistics could be interpreted any other way. And God only knows how many abortions go unreported.

'Funny' how men suddenly get sooo interested in women's concerns ONLY when it comes to abortion. All the rest of the time it's 'euwww, I don't want to know about any of THAT stuff'. Go and get your prostate checked, and whatever other manly things manly men get up to. i won't offer an opinion.

Can you be any more of a stereotypical modern-day feminist?

I'm not your enemy, for crying out loud.

Chill out, already.
_______

[Dubious]

But stop whining.

Hey! I won't be pleading with Jesus to let me in when the time comes...

There won't be any point, then. The matter will be decided by you, now.

The human brain weighs ~3 pounds. Considering how much of it is straitjacketed by those like you into a single frequency which acknowledges only one view - the remainder suffering criminal neglect - 3 ounces would have been more than enough

[Dubious]

There won't be any point, then. The matter will be decided by you, now.

That's right, Dubious. Agree with Immanuel Can right now, or burn in hell forever!

Nobody has to agree with me, at all actually. The One with whom they have to agree is well above my pay grade.

So is everyone else who has the mental capacity to think beyond any encapsulated views one may occasionally succumb to. If you were Adam, you would, until the day you died, have pooped in the Garden of Eden entertained by cute moral stories of how god loves you as told by the angels above and Christ's suffering on the cross would never have occurred or been necessary...or at least, so the theory goes!

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Pragmatism" tells us nothing. A "pragmatic" case can be made for either option.


No, I did not stipulate you had to get it from God...if you have a different source for such a transcending principle, go ahead and name it, instead. If you don't have a principle higher than the courts, then you've got no way to arbitrate between the Nazis pragmatics and the ICJ's pragmatics.


Sure: but which one?


You'll have to say why we should believe it. Because lots of people want to kill. If you can't make a case for a moral standard that all can recognize as condemning them, then your "standard" is not only arbitrary but actually just a power play.


It's not, actually. If it were, people would never kill. But as you already noted, Islamists do. So do Nazis. So do Communists -- more than anybody. So do abortionists, and advocates of euthanasia, and warmongers of all kinds, and psychopaths...

You can see that your "answer" won't work.

Pragmatism means the empirical reductions of humans-killing-humans which can be tested with a morality-proper system without coercion not threat.

No, the definition of pragmatism is as follows:

"Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected"

https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

...the natural universal principle of morality [no killing of humans] is innate and inherent in ALL humans...

So is the propensity to hate, kill, cause wars, etc.
You still need the larger, transcendent moral system to be able to judge whether killing or non-killing is the "right" choice, since both are clearly instinctual within human nature.

You don't have one, apparently.

Your thinking is too narrow.

I define morality as the management and modulation in the elimination and prevention of evil acts at source.
What is evil is that which is related to fatality and serious harm [including mental] that is fatal to the individual[s] and humanity.
Morality is confined a specific list of what is evil, i.e. genocide, rape, slavery and so on.
Virtue and vice is not morality per-se.

There is no need for a "larger, transcendent moral system to be able to judge whether killing or non-killing is the "right" choice, .. ."
Such a moral system is a non-starter and an impossibility because the supposed judge is impossible to be real, thus a mere illusion.

Since morality is about elimination and prevention of evil at source,
and
...the natural universal principle of morality [no killing of humans] is innate and inherent in ALL humans...
then what we need is to develop the innate moral potential towards its optimal maximal capabilities, say, moral quotient [MQ].

Progress in the MQ has been going on since humans emerged but very slowly.
Say the average MQ 3000 years ago was 100 but now in 2024 is 110.
This is evident in terms of slavery [an evil act], at present, chattel slavery is illegal in all sovereign countries which is a very significant improvement from a mere increase of 10% in MQ over 3000 years.
With such a positive trend in the reduction of slavery, we could end chattel slavery in time.
Meanwhile your illusory and immutable transcendental moral system condoned slavery eternally.

In terms of the killing of humans and violence, there also had been a reduction,

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.

Certain immutable transcendental moral system sanctions the killing and violence on non-believers.

The group of men who compiled the OT and NT got it morally right but only intuitively and in alignment with the innate moral potential targeting ZERO killing of humans but that is grounded on the threat of hell from an illusory God. So it is not effectively ultimately.

My human-based moral FSERC's mission and vision is to develop the innate moral potential within all individuals so as to expedite the increase in the average MQ towards the ideal of ZERO evil in the future [not possible now].
This will involve identifying the specific moral mechanisms in the brain and body, and using foolproof methods to increase their moral competencies.
As such, if the MQ is at 110 now, it will gradually increase to 1000 and higher.
This will effectively reduce the number of people killed by homicide from the current 200,000 per year to 5000 per year [2100] targeting 100 per year thereafter.
The same rate of progress is expected for no abortion.

At the current rate your theistic moral system cannot achieve the above gradual result merely based on beliefs in an illusory God, especially the trend is the average person is getting more rational and wiser in time.

[Immanuel Can]

...Agree with Immanuel Can right now, or burn in hell forever!

Nobody has to agree with me, at all actually. The One with whom they have to agree is well above my pay grade.

Is there a way not to burn in hell that could involve you being wrong about God?

Again, my being right or wrong won't change anything. What will be, will be. If God says something will happen, then it will happen; if He has not said it, then it will not happen.

The question is not what I think, but what is true. But I'm sure you realize that.

[Immanuel Can]

...a single frequency which acknowledges only one view...

There are two descriptors possible for this state: one is called "closed mindedness." The other is called "knowing something."

[Immanuel Can]

There is no need for a "larger, transcendent moral system to be able to judge whether killing or non-killing is the "right" choice, .. ."

Sure there is. Think about it: if you have any two systems that claim to be "moral systems," you have to be able to choose between them. How are you going to do that? The only way you can is by invoking some kind of "higher moral system" that is capable of telling you.

So, for example, if the two systems are Communism and Democracy, how do you know which to prefer, which to support, which to implement?

The only way you can choose one is to have in your mind some axiom that differentiates the two in some important way, such as "The right political system is going to be the one that allows maximal freedom for the individual," or "The right political system will be the one that is most obedient to the collective good, as conceived by the Party."

But from where are you going to get that higher, decisive axiom? Which axiom are you morally obligated to follow, since they rationalize opposite choices?

Now you surely see the problem: to choose among moral options always relies on a higher axiom, some principle that transcends both of the alternatives, and allows judgment of them. But how do you derive such an axiom, since anything you suggest is going to be controversial?

[Harbal]

Nobody has to agree with me, at all actually. The One with whom they have to agree is well above my pay grade.

Is there a way not to burn in hell that could involve you being wrong about God?

Again, my being right or wrong won't change anything. What will be, will be. If God says something will happen, then it will happen; if He has not said it, then it will not happen.

The question is not what I think, but what is true. But I'm sure you realize that.

If God doesn't exist, then he obviously never said anything, if that helps anybody to work out what the truth is.