My view is that they shouldn’t ban abortions altogether, there’s too many problems with people on crack or smack, living on the streets or whatever, and there’s nowhere that doesn’t have an issue with drugs or poverty.
If you let the gene pool get corrupted by literal poison, which is already happening to the whole human race to some degree anyway, it will be detrimental to the entire thing and potentially destroy us all.
That’s the way I see it, we already have a cancer rate of one in two, they put endocrine disrupting chemicals in pesticides and in plastics, messing with the hormone levels.
Agent orange for example, they hit Vietnam with it in the seventies, and it’s still affecting them four generations later, even if they weren’t exposed directly themselves, and it’s a similar thing with nukes, or malnutrition, it can cause permanent mutations in the code.
That may sound like I’m into eugenics, and up to a point, it does make sense, improving the genetic stock, and in my opinion the point at which that should stop is where it causes more suffering.
The way I look at morality is whatever causes the least suffering to all creatures, not just men or women, not just children or unborn children, but all creatures that can feel pain including future generations.
So, my view is that there should be limits on abortion, like late term abortions should require a very good reason because they are conscious, but who decides what’s a very good reason?
Saw a woman saying it’s a woman’s right to kill a baby that’s two years old, and having seen what it’s like living with a severely autistic kid injured by vaccines, I can even understand that argument, but you obviously have to draw the line somewhere.
There has to be some preservation of life, because if you don’t stick to that idea, then anyone could be on the chopping block, even me.
The thing about pro lifers is that they will often talk favorably about guns and killing people and war and supporting the troops as they kill literally millions of all kinds of people and not see the logical flaw with that thinking.
Support the troops as they kill men, women and children for the oil profits, weapons profits, heroin profits of the bankers, though it’s not even helping the country but bankrupting it to give them trillions, but protect the unborn, even before they can feel anything at all?
Even if they will be born with fetal alcohol syndrome or crack baby syndrome or whatever kind of drugs half of these people are on?
That’s the problem, and it’s a real problem, and while it’s important to protect the rights of the unborn and not cause them pain, I just can’t see that it’s a good idea to force people that don’t want to have kids to give birth.
I realize I’ve been brainwashed with several layers of eugenics programs including the drugs, the feminism, the cultural marxism, the anti family propaganda that has already destroyed the west, but it’s kind of too late, it is what it is.
The more people there are in the world the more those with a depopulation agenda will come up with new ways to reduce the population, and if you had to pick a way to do it, abortion or preferably other forms of contraception are probably the best way.
I think it would make sense to have different states with different ways of doing things, but I don’t see it being morally righteous to ban abortion altogether anywhere, and it’s not that popular an idea.
I heard it was 13% who want to ban abortions completely, and therefore if you tried to make that a campaign policy, it would probably lose the election, (if you can even trust elections), and that’s probably why the Democrats wanted people talking about this issue.