Why is abortion the way of the world?

[BlindBoo]

I like you state, "They are non-differentiated cells", as though the two are mutually exclusive. It's so much fun to listen to leftists try to be "scientific" by changing the names things are called by as though it changes the basic facts.

Yes, an embryo is made up

Your confused. A zygote is not an embryo.

Oh, wow, an analogy to a completely different life form

Yet we share so much DNA with them and most all life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

According to biology. . .

You tell me whether or not a chicken in the embryonic stage of their life is a chicken or not.

Damn it. I wish I'd thought of that!

I wish you did too.

We know which one came first, but who cares? They're both delicious.

Do you really have to know which came first, in order to know what a chickenis or when its life and aging actually, biologically begins?

Here's a thought.

Instead of having a desired outcome and then cherry picking , ridiculing and dismissing the facts that challenge your desired outcome. . . . Why don't you just examine the objective facts and form your opinions around THEM?

Acquiring an education would cut into his weed-smoking time too much.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why should I prove something I didn't do. Prove your accusation. When did I say a zygote from two human parents was non-human? A zygote is an unattached fertilized egg. When it attaches to the mothers womb it becomes an embryo. Not all zygotes attach to their mothers wombs. Nothing sacred about conception.

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tell us exactly how much conservatives would have to provide in the way of welfare for you to finally agree to a ban on abortion.

I would never agree to an all out ban on abortion. But I will agree to do everything possible to support a woman a woman in making a choice for life and helping with that choice after birth. I will also agree to make birth control and comprehensive evidence based sex education readily available and free. The results of such programs are evident in countries that have them and have lower abortion and unwanted pregnancy rates.

Make abortion rare and necessary only in cases of maternal health or severe fetal deformity.

What are you willing to offer?

Then you must admit that your inference that abortions are justified because "conservatives don't care about children after they are born" is nothing more than a red herring.

According to your own words, Conservatives can notcare enough for children AFTER they are born to make YOU care more about them and their rights PRIOR to their being born.

That is as red a herring as one can get.

So how are you going to stop abortion?

Since when is stopping the violation of a child's rights, the standard?

Children are molested in all sorts of ways and they will continue to be molested, despite our attempts to stop it.

Does that mean we should just turn a blind eye to it?

I don't think so.

Did you turn a blind eye to the trauma inflicted on children during the 100% family seperation policy at the border?

As a mod, should you really be trying to divert a thread about abortion onto "Trump is eeeeeevil!"?

 

[Dragonlady]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

In the old, old days, some cultures believed that the gods would be more moved and willing to "help" if they were given the most precious gifts of the people. There is no more precious gift than a person's child, yannow---like Isaac?
Today people are terminating pregnancies when they cannot afford to feed, clothe, educate and house the child in a decent fashion. It is called being responsible to not bring an unwelcome child into the world.

Society can't afford to feed and cloth them so kill them?

Seriously?

Hitler once led the sick in hospitals into the basements to exterminate them because they were a drain on society as well.

Should this be done to illegal immigrants as well or just make sure no more can get into the US?

What happened to the unlimited money from the top 1% we all need to go confiscate?

American society CAN afford to feed and cloth all of the children who are aborted, but society has chosen not to. It is not our talents which define us, but our choices. American society chooses violence, war and greed, over health, compassion and other values which build a society.

 

[Crixus]

Says it all.


The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger: Web Edition

Does it?

Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.

PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.


Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong



Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.


The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.


So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.

Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.

The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.

But they are. Planned Parenthood supports them. Openly, quietly sometimes, but the plan is in action. No Abortion clinics in rich white girl neighborhoods, but plenty in any ethnic partnof town. That sure adheres to sangers recommendation of segregating minority’s and poor people, and then controlling their population by means of abortion and sterilization. It has EVERYTHING to do with Sanger and her views. What other reason would their be to kill a born child?

You may have a point about the ethnic makeup but I have not seen any proof that PP targets minority neighborhoods but they rather target poor urban areas - areas where their clients are. The racial divide is likely a function of that rather than the other way around.

I don't link support of abortion with Sanger either as support for abortion is widespread and most people have no idea who Sanger is. I think stating that PP follows Sanger's vision of population control through abortion AND sterilization is extremely tenuous at best. You could say the same thing about any hospital and many clinics all across the country.

And at this time I can not provide any statement from them saying eugenics IS their mission statement, just that it sure looks that way. But what with the new law in new York and the VA law, I’m having a hard time seeing it any other way.

 

[BlindBoo]

Specially, what organism did I claim we morph out of?

If you are not claiming that human zygotes morph into human beings, this is your chance to clarify your claim.

Why should I prove something I didn't do. Prove your accusation. When did I say a zygote from two human parents was non-human? A zygote is an unattached fertilized egg. When it attaches to the mothers womb it becomes an embryo. Not all zygotes attach to their mothers wombs. Nothing sacred about conception.

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

It is a human fertilized egg, otherwise known as "what all human beings are at that stage of life". Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Can it become an adult human being? Yes, if not killed. Is it less of a human being for not being an adult? No.

Yes.

 

[Chuz Life]

[QUOTE="BlindBoo, post: 21772667, [/quote]

The (human) zygotes are no more human beings than a fertilized lizard egg is a lizard.[/QUOTE]

Denial is not an argument.

You skipped biology. Didn't you.

Let's go slow.

Biologists can and will ask and observe, in no particular order.

How is the zygote formed?

Is the zygote alive?

Does the zygote physically exist?

Do the sperm and egg cells that formed the zygote still exist?

What happened to the lives of the sperm and egg cells that merged together to form the zygote?

When did the zygote "come into existence? "

When does the zygote start to age?

Does being Implanted or not implanted affect or change what the zygote IS?

Biologists have already answered all of these questions and more and guess what! The conclusion is that a human organism (being) is a human organism (being), regardless of which stage of development they are in.

 

[FA_Q2]

Since when is stopping the violation of a child's rights, the standard?

Children are molested in all sorts of ways and they will continue to be molested, despite our attempts to stop it.

Does that mean we should just turn a blind eye to it?

I don't think so.

So you have no plan. Got it.

The plan is to establish, secure and protect the rights of children who are being denied their rights by you and your ilk.

Funny that sails over your head.

But then what? How will you stop it?

Name any one crime against humanity that has been completely "stopped."

Why are you demanding more when comes to stopping abortions than you are for any other form of child molestation?

Because it's something Taz wants to do. If he/she wanted to beat children, he/she would be insisting that the fact that the laws don't completely stop such behavior, there shouldn't be any laws at all.

That really is not the crux of that statement and there really is a problem there. Something that the pro-life position must address (and does in a few ways).

If abortion becomes illegal do you prosecute women that have an abortion? If you do, then how do you do so or even know that it was an abortion and not a miscarriage? If not, then why make it illegal in the first place?

Those are, IMHO, real questions that the pro-life position has to struggle with as there is not a good answer to them both even if there is a best answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Lucifer is The Lord of this World until after The Battle of Armageddon, and a couple other end times battles at which some point The Second Coming Occurs, and Jesus dethrones Lucifer, and takes back The Throne and Crown of Adam which was lost during the whole Garden of Eden fiasco.

Until this occurs, people will be selfish and wicked, and resist all attempts at protecting, respecting, and revering life.

To my point of view, a woman who terminates a pregnancy that she knows she cannot care for properly IS revering, protecting and respecting life. A quality life.

To my point of view, anyone who thinks "respecting life" consists of eugenics is too ignorant to be allowed access to sharp objects.

Suddenly abortion is "eugenics". Nice try.

Abortion is about poverty. Plain and simple. And the lack of rights or protections that lower wage workers have in the USA. As long as a poor woman can be fired from her low paying job when she gets pregnant, she will opt for abortion. By being fired, she will not only lose her income, she'll lose her health care at the time both she and her family need it most. And she'll have no help with child care when she is ready to return to work.

This is true regardless of the race of the woman. Poor women have abortions. Low income women in other first world countries where they have universal health care, mandated maternity leaves, job protections, and subsidized day care, have abortionos at a rate of nearly half that of American women even though their abortions are being paid for by their universal health care system.

No, killing people based on whether or not YOU think their lives are good enough is eugenics. And spare me the cut-and-paste leftist speech about "We have to kill babies because you won't give us more government money." Been there, heard it, still think you're an ignorant, evil piece of garbage.

 

[FA_Q2]

Does it?

Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.

PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.


Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong



Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.


The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.


So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.

Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.

The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.

But they are. Planned Parenthood supports them. Openly, quietly sometimes, but the plan is in action. No Abortion clinics in rich white girl neighborhoods, but plenty in any ethnic partnof town. That sure adheres to sangers recommendation of segregating minority’s and poor people, and then controlling their population by means of abortion and sterilization. It has EVERYTHING to do with Sanger and her views. What other reason would their be to kill a born child?

You may have a point about the ethnic makeup but I have not seen any proof that PP targets minority neighborhoods but they rather target poor urban areas - areas where their clients are. The racial divide is likely a function of that rather than the other way around.

I don't link support of abortion with Sanger either as support for abortion is widespread and most people have no idea who Sanger is. I think stating that PP follows Sanger's vision of population control through abortion AND sterilization is extremely tenuous at best. You could say the same thing about any hospital and many clinics all across the country.

And at this time I can not provide any statement from them saying eugenics IS their mission statement, just that it sure looks that way. But what with the new law in new York and the VA law, I’m having a hard time seeing it any other way.

LOL. No, I would not ask for or expect a statement from them supporting eugenics - clearly any org will hide that 'mission statement.' I just don't really see how they differ from any other organization that performs or promotes abortion.

The only reason that they are the mascot here is because they are low income providers that supplement the bottom line with governmental funds.

 

[alang1216]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

My emotions are just fine thank you. We ALL kill 'innocent life' every day. What did that cow or carrot ever do you?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

No pro life advocates avoid that at all. Human is CLEARLY defined in modern science generally though genetics. There is absolutely zero question that a human life begins when it is conceived.

What you are digging for is personhood - not human.

OK. How's this?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

Indeed.

Being religious is not a prerequisite to question the humanity of killing your offspring in the womb. I know a few people like this.

But alas, the Left will continue to portray this as a state vs. religion issue.

Go check out the thread on Why is the left so happy about abortions? to see why Alang really, Really, REALLY needs to set up strawmen. She's completely lost and helpless the instant pro-lifers don't conform to what her talking points memo told her their positions would be.

From this post: "A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life"

sanc·ti·ty
Dictionary result for sanctity
/ˈsaNG(k)tədē/
noun
noun: sanctity; plural noun: sanctities

1. the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.

 

[alang1216]

PP must be pretty stupid because:

In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.​

No, it is once again YOU who is stupid, because you think that actually stops them. THEY are far smarter than you - as are most people, it seems - in that they figured out how to cook the books before the Hyde Amendment was even signed.

I was unaware of this. Do you have anything to support your assertion?

 

[BlindBoo]

Why should I prove something I didn't do. Prove your accusation. When did I say a zygote from two human parents was non-human? A zygote is an unattached fertilized egg. When it attaches to the mothers womb it becomes an embryo. Not all zygotes attach to their mothers wombs. Nothing sacred about conception.

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Dodger fan?

No, humans are not birds. Yes, we share about 60 % of DNA with Chickens. There are two types of reproduction......

 

[Dragonlady]

Does it?

Why does a singular entity - even the founder - pigeonhole an entity into morality or immorality? This is little different than the idiots declaring America as immoral because its founders were slave holders and womanizers. PP stands on its own accord and can, or rather must, be judged on its own merits.

PP cannonizes Sanger and any good libtard will sing her praise.


Planned Parenthood | 100 Years Strong



Yet they never mention Sangers motives. I’ll cut and post item (a) through (e) from the link I provided from New York university.


The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
(a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
(b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11.
(c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
(d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
(e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.


So take that from a woman who the DNC celebrates, the fact that abortion facilities are only built in low incom minority communities, the DNC’s insistants on having racist and rapists in positions of power is very telling. Y’all are heading back to eugenics.

Because Sanger's motives really are not important anymore. She is dead and does not, nor her philosophy, make policy for PP.

The fact that most PP are built in low income areas is not a surprise, they are a low income provider. There certainly is a discussion to be had on weather or not the government should be funding the company - I don't think that the government should be funding any company lest of all PP - but that has nothing to do with Sanger. It has to do with PP and it actual actions - they speak for themselves.

But they are. Planned Parenthood supports them. Openly, quietly sometimes, but the plan is in action. No Abortion clinics in rich white girl neighborhoods, but plenty in any ethnic partnof town. That sure adheres to sangers recommendation of segregating minority’s and poor people, and then controlling their population by means of abortion and sterilization. It has EVERYTHING to do with Sanger and her views. What other reason would their be to kill a born child?

You may have a point about the ethnic makeup but I have not seen any proof that PP targets minority neighborhoods but they rather target poor urban areas - areas where their clients are. The racial divide is likely a function of that rather than the other way around.

I don't link support of abortion with Sanger either as support for abortion is widespread and most people have no idea who Sanger is. I think stating that PP follows Sanger's vision of population control through abortion AND sterilization is extremely tenuous at best. You could say the same thing about any hospital and many clinics all across the country.

And at this time I can not provide any statement from them saying eugenics IS their mission statement, just that it sure looks that way. But what with the new law in new York and the VA law, I’m having a hard time seeing it any other way.

Eugenics is not their stated aim, nor was it Sanger's. It was a by-product of her aim to provide all women with birth control.

Yes, more women of colour get abortions than do white women. They do so in direct proportion to the percentage of their respective populations which are poor, and in America, you are more likely to be poor if you are non-white and living in urban areas. It has nothing to do with eugenics.

13% of the women getting abortions in the USA are evangelical Christians. Guess that "abstinence only" birth control and virulent anti-abortion stance isn't exactly working for them.

"Campaign life" your name's a lie. You don't care if women die.

 

[alang1216]

And quite frankly, I value any zygote you point to more than I do you. And after all, you ARE all about "granting" the right to live based on whether or not other people want you to, right?

I guess you don't believe in capital punishment?

 

[alang1216]

Feel free to explain to me why you are somehow different and special . . . if you can.

You may disagree but as a human being I can think like no other animal on the planet.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let's

Go

Slow

Just

For

You.


Is a human being "a human being" while they are in the Zygote STAGE of their life, growth and development?

Yes

Or

No.

It is a human fertilized egg. Is that so hard to understand? Can it become a fully functional living, breathing human being? Not unless it can attach itself to it's mother womb.......otherwise it's out with the tide!

Does

It

MORH

Out

Of

Something

That

Is

Not

A

Human

Being

Into

Something

That

IS

A

Human

Being?

Is a fertilized chicken egg a chicken?

Are humans birds? No? Are they even remotely related to birds? No? Then what the hell does bird reproduction have to do with anything?

Although I guess we should be grateful you got closer this time than with your last analogy involving PLANTS. At least this time you were in the right kingdom and phylum. Maybe eventually you'll work your way up to an argument that involves another mammal.

Not really needed though. Inside that fertilized chicken egg there is, indeed, a chicken in its earliest stages of growth.

So yes, that is a chicken.

I disagree. It's not even a chick yet.

 

[FA_Q2]

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is human life they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be human and that inevitably leads back to religion.

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

No pro life advocates avoid that at all. Human is CLEARLY defined in modern science generally though genetics. There is absolutely zero question that a human life begins when it is conceived.

What you are digging for is personhood - not human.

OK. How's this?

Most pro-lifers forget to mention it is personhood they are pro because that means they would have to define what it means to be a person and that inevitably leads back to religion​

Still false - that is the pro choice argument trying to force its precepts on a pro life position. A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life. Pro choice wants to divide that human life up into a part that is expendable and part that is not.

And none of that requires a religious precept.

Indeed.

Being religious is not a prerequisite to question the humanity of killing your offspring in the womb. I know a few people like this.

But alas, the Left will continue to portray this as a state vs. religion issue.

Go check out the thread on Why is the left so happy about abortions? to see why Alang really, Really, REALLY needs to set up strawmen. She's completely lost and helpless the instant pro-lifers don't conform to what her talking points memo told her their positions would be.

From this post: "A pro life position recognized the sanctity of HUMAN life"

sanc·ti·ty
Dictionary result for sanctity
/ˈsaNG(k)tədē/
noun
noun: sanctity; plural noun: sanctities

1. the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.

And?

That does not require a religious precept. Sacred applies to both religious concepts (Jesus is sacred) or non religious ones (my memories are sacred). Further, the sanctity of life is not a dictionary word - it is a phrase with more meaning - Sanctity of life - Wikipedia - that encompass religious precepts as well as secular precepts aka ethics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

25 Cultures That Practiced Human Sacrifice

Because historically child sacrifice was the status quo

It's just who we are.

And it is for the same reason, which is material gain. Most women have abortions due to financial concerns. Likewise, pretty much all ancient religions sacrificed their children to the gods for such things as victory at war or fertile crops, etc.

Lucifer is The Lord of this World until after The Battle of Armageddon, and a couple other end times battles at which some point The Second Coming Occurs, and Jesus dethrones Lucifer, and takes back The Throne and Crown of Adam which was lost during the whole Garden of Eden fiasco.

Until this occurs, people will be selfish and wicked, and resist all attempts at protecting, respecting, and revering life.

According to Christian Mythology, Lucifer was the Angel of Light. One of God's favorite creations.

According to Christianity, that changed pretty early on.

Which is why condescension about things you're ignorant of is a bad look, even though it's the look religiophobes most often cultivate.

It is a ludicrous mythology (the revolt in Heaven as well as the other creation myths) I agree, on par with the multi-theism of the Romans and Greeks.

What's ludicrous is that you arrogantly make incorrect statements about something because you haven't bothered to actually know what you're talking about, and THEN you double down on your arrogant ignorance by assuming that your opinion of it is valuable to someone other than you.

You don't "agree" about anything, because I never said, or even hinted at, your pronouncement, nor would I lower myself to agreeing with anything that came out of your flapping gob. Do NOT presume to put your inferior words into my mouth for ANY reason.