I can make a strong case for it. I am glad I was, and I would recommend it for everyone who has a say in the matter.
Godless nihilists.
Leftards believe in the principle of the intrinsic value of nature. And since man is the destroyer nature, this leads the anti-man conclusion.
We are seeing a phenomenon that has been studied in mice and rats.
Check out the Mouse Utopia Experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
This is not the best video, but does touch on some aspects of the pathologies that developed. At no time in these experiments did the mice or rats ever run out of resources. The issue was that they were crowded and could not form proper social structures. Their behavior became more aberrant over time, until none of the mice had the social skills or attitudes necessary for survival.
The left consists of individuals who are deeply sunk into this kind of pathology. Note that the majority of insane leftist behaviors originate in cities, where it is impossible to escape crowded conditions unless one becomes a recluse in one’s cramped apartment. Of course the left attacks children; they externalize their pathology. The left also wants to feed the pathologies, in their attempts to confine everyone into cities and deprive us of free transportation.
I think that the bottom line for the survival of humanity is to avoid raising children in cities, and stick to small towns as much as possible.
I think the pro-abortion movement is nothing more than a front for global Marxism with the aim of destroying the church and the breakdown of a judeo/christian society.
It has turned into an organic structure with no real goal except to bring like minded people on the left together to argue a point already argued and won in the supreme court. The left wanted a federal law and they got one. Now the states, rightfully so are making their own laws regarding abortion.
It seems ironic, that this is exactly what the left wants to do to change the second amendment by taking it to the states.
The West, with the exception of the United States, is in demographic decline. This is a talk by geopolitics author Zeihan. His bit on demographics starts about minute 13.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIdUSqsz0Io&t=3005s
They're only against children of wypepl.
This is just a part (big Part) of the eternal war between Satan and God through our Lord Jesus. And if we don’t fight for our Lord with all our Hearts and Souls than we shall definitely be “Left Behind.”
Happy Mothers Day?
“Why are pro-abortion activists such as Brian Sims so angry? Because they abhor the alternative. Children,”
By extension, they abhor the human race. Their dream is to see humanity extinct. There is no lower form of life than one that seeks its own annihilation.
I loathe these people with a passion.
" Dr. Kathi Aultman told a U.S. Congressional committee in 2017 that she referred to unborn babies as 'fetuses' when killing them in abortions but 'babies' when they were wanted; and she regretted the incongruity. She also said she was fascinated by the 'tiny but perfectly formed limbs, intestines, kidneys, and other organs' of aborted babies."
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free. Today, the individuals most denied their freedom are those innocent lives in the womb who, if wanted, are called "children," and if, for some reason are inconvenient at the time, are called "fetuses," as Aultman averred.