Found This about Abortion

like clockwork

Attached: Deanna-and-family_resized-e1388073289424.jpg (907x619, 170.74K)

lmao repent

Attached: PaganFailure.png (213x313, 53.07K)

Racism is still a sin, no matter how cool the alt-right becomes, or how low IQ, subhuman and criminal they say or even prove black people are.

I am not a racist. I just wouldn't want to raise another people in stead of my own.

And I'm certainly not a Pagan, I'm Orthodox.

Yeah, I understand, but that's only your preference, I'm sure her adopted children are her preference too.

Also pardon the shitposting, but you kinda stereotyped yourself.

No, I think it's far more likely that she's brainwashed and has a guilt complex. Either way, once ethnic tensions start ramping up in the Jewmerican empire, which I hope will be sooner rather than later, she will regret her decision.

My condolences to the mother.

What if they are little Russian kids?
Point is I don't care, it's not material to the point of my post.

I certainly hope Russia doesn't allow Westerners to adopt its children.

...

Why should being raped give you the right to murder a child?

It doesn't. He's that fake Christian who keeps posting for some reason.

Most of us think abortion in case of rape is justified.

Well it's not what Christians believe.

Rape is not a valid means of procreation.

What is wrong with you?

...

It's a rapist's child. You people take it too far, what if the baby is retarded? It would be nothing but a tremendous burden. I don't know if you've ever known a family of a downs patient, but they go through a lot and have to spend a lot of money to take care of them. All of those resources would be better spent on another baby that is healthy.

God is the only one to judge who lives and who dies. Downies have perfectly fine lives in the right environment. Obviously you cannot hold them to the same standards speaking as per education and work etc., but who cares ? Have you known one ? They are tremendously loving people. They are slow, dumb and whatever, but it is NOT US to decide if they can live or not.
Your post is, frankly speaking, an utterly disgusting display of secular ideology that permeates our societies - the same crap everywhere, no matter if you're capitalist, marxist or anything else. "It can't live up to what we defined as efficient and functioning human being so it goes into the trash". DISGUSTING

>Excellent chance to have someone to care for, if only because the only people that others delicately care about are the mentally challenged
>Wait no, we could also kill him and spend the saved money on new clothes I mean, another healthy baby

NEO-Charity in a nutshell.

Attached: Bye.png (321x290, 114.06K)

Get a grip

So you want sociopaths getting their genes into the next generation?

Where'd your Charity go?

I'm not the one justifying killing an infant for crimes it didn't commit.

"How to Spot Compromised Morals, by user"

Ok, but here's my problem; all you've done is cause another issue, namely that this child will have to be parented, and really, you can't blame the mother for not wanting to.

If you can redpill me, shoot, I'd like to know more & I don't really like the idea of absolute moral rules with Talmudic holes in them, so I'm more than happy to change my mind.

Completely false.
Abortion is murder no matter what the cause. Once a child is conceived, it's a new human being and should be treated as such.

The thing is, you can say the rules are x, but there are several competing interests in child-rearing and this is the thorniest problem in the world in my opinion, war is easier to deal with.

Let's imagine the following, 2 mountaineers, attached to one rope, which is fraying under their weight. Is the 1 mountaineer entitled to save himself morally by cutting the rope and killing the other? Or put another way, if an abortion scenario could reach such a high bar, is it blameworthy?

Ok, let me think about it, I can't discount the possibility that you are right.

Attached: 1523361444963.jpg (500x598, 60.94K)

Who are you?

I didn't understand this, are you declaring Papal inerrancy my protestant friend?

He's referring to Biblical inerrancy

Now see, these children, whatever their background of the reason for them being given up for adoption, will now be raised in a Christian home. There's a good chance that had they not been adopted by this couple, the boys may have been raised without a father to look up to. In the case of American black children, this is the underlying cause for the never-ending cycle of fatherless boys who never grow up; here the cycle is broken. In the case of the girls, they now have a mother to show them how to be pious women, something the West is running low on. Seeing as this couple has already produced two children of their own, I see no problem with them being a family to these other children.

Furthermore, in the Moral Law of Deuteronomy, God repeatedly commands us to care for the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner. Do you think that every one of the Church fathers didn't know what they were talking about when they declared one of the chief duties of the Church to be ensuring the well-being of orphans and widows?
you have been (I hope) delivered out of bondage by Christ, now do not seek to obstruct Christ's deliverance of the fatherless. This family is only doing as Christ commanded.
As for this comment specifically, if the mother can't love her own child, someone else will. There will always be someone else willing to love them.

And what the winnie the pooh is wrong with that? It's not like she cucked him, and gave birth to a baby of another man, they took a bunch of rejected kids and gave them home. What is it better for those black kids to live without a family and become criminals? Do you want them to add to the crime statistics in the USA?

Being a race realist is fine and completely justified, hell I think that even not wanting to procreate with races with lower IQ scores is completely reasonable, treating other races as worse because of our inherent differences is not fine. Before you say that what I just said is hypocrisy, I'm not speaking of not procreating with another race because of them being worse, but because of the fact that your own race needs more children.

Attached: a1a33a536dc3bb4e5213a3ba66d75f6f74f7ea1943f42264a67f2527ae6ddbbf.png (640x480, 290.27K)

Abortion is only understandable in the case of the baby threatening the life of a mother It's cruel, but better one person dead than two people dead and maybe some genetical diseases in which it would simply cause more suffering for the child to live than to die.

I can understand women wanting to have abortions in case of rape, but it is still an immoral thing to do and should not be allowed. The baby should not suffer for the sins of it's father.

This tbh. Its isn't the baby's fault it was born into this world in such aweful circumstances. In cases like this in my perfect world the mother wouldn't be able to abort it but she shouldn't be held liable for the costs to deliver the baby. The rapist is held liable. Than aftert the baby is born it is taken to a good orphanage where the fear of God is put in it so the mistakes it's parents made aren't repeated again. unless the mother wants to keep it, but personally I don't think that would be a good idea

I keep thinking of this whenever that comes up.

Attached: Shiloh.jpg (423x767, 84.5K)

I'm not racist and definitely not anti-adoption from wherever, but having only 1 or 2 offspring of your own and adopting a whole bunch of children that are not your race is just asking for trouble in my opinion.
Sure, if you got 4 kids of your own you can go ahead and adopt a negro or Asian or whatever but making your own kids the minority in its own house is extremely unsettling.
Heck, there are enough Caucasian kids waiting for adoption too.

May I ask why not?

lmao winnie the pooh off racist

Admit it you have no good reason for it being "unsettling" other than your own damn prejudice.

Attached: e43.png (571x618, 53.39K)

Stop spouting communist propaganda.

Acts 17:26 and Deuteronomy 32:8 say otherwise.

Single motherhood is never good for a baby or a mother as babies need both a father and a mother to take care of it in order for it to be healthy. I would rather have that mother be a productive member of society than having her bogged down from a baby she never wanted. Her chances of finding a husband will go up if she doesn't keep the baby as well.

top wew how f'd in the head must you be to actually believe that?

Merely refer to God's sovereignty over nations. He appoints them and sets their boundaries, yes. This is not an excuse or a handing over of authority for you to start a full out race war or segregation like you seem to be implying. Good example of how God treats racists like you is found in Numbers 12.

Calling race realism racism is communist propaganda though.

Read "The History of the Russian Revolution" by Leon Trotsky:
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch01.htm

Read the whole text to understand the context and see the exact same subversive term you use with the word "racist".
And unlike you and Trotsky, the Church recognizes "racism" as "the exaltation of one race over another".

Nope.
Throughout the OT, God recognizes the Nations as a great group of people inhabiting a specific territory with common descent, history, culture, religion, and language.

Please don't post here again, for your own sake.

Attached: b4480e9b0.jpg (194x320, 18.35K)

npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/01/05/260006815/the-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism

But please go on make yourself look like an idiot because you believe without question everything that Zig Forums literally lies about.

He came up with the term, not the word.
You can find literature from the 19th century with the word "racist" used to reference other terms. Similar to "racialism".

Did YOU? Because I'm fairly certain that you didn't, since you go on to say this:

What Trotsky said:

Do you even know what slavophilism is you brainlet? Hint: it's not talking about race or anything to do with racial politics. It was basically a movement to cut off all Western European influences from Russia. Trotsky is attacking this notion as backwards.

Again, no proof of this. Just baseless assertions from people fresh from Zig Forums who want to meme magic a lie into becoming a truth.

You know exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm getting sick of these word games we're playing. The term RACIST was invented no earlier than 1927/1930 by the marxist author Lev Bronstein (renamed himself Leon Trotsky), a Jewish tailor from Brooklyn. If you want to get more into the dishonest talmudic mindset from which this idea came, you will have to go deeper than the English terminology he used and arguing over semantics.

...

Wrong. Look at the history of Israel for example. Moses married a Cushite woman, another of his wives (Zipporah) was descended from a Kenite shepard - God still considered them to be a part of Israel. Sure they can share the same religion and culture but common descent? No, unless you stretch back to Adam and Eve but that's a universalist claim that renders your autistic prejudice against others defunct.

christcuck logic is /\/igger-tier. your whole argument is "muh read the bible" and then when somebody reads the bible and isn't convinced then, then it's "muh you're too stupid, grow a brain and read the bible again"

Attached: PAGAN STRONK.jpg (803x439, 38.96K)

That's not logical at all. Why should the baby be punished for the actions of the father? If your mentality is what WN pagans and Europeans have, then it's no wonder you're being replaced by non-whites.

I think that user was actually referring to giving the child up for adoption, not of killing it.

I'm just mentioning it as to avoid dishonest fags like to strawman their way out of the argument.
Too late now.

And so, he uses "racist" to shame those who want to preserve their ethnic heritage and prioritize those who are more close bound by heredity instead of foreigners and foreign culture.
That's basically what the communist/subversive term behind the word "racist" is all about.

And, similarly, King Solomon's uncontrolled lust led him to marry many foreigners.
The fact that someone favored by God like Moses committed a sin doesn't suddenly change the fact that it is a sin and that God is displeased.

THAT WASN'T HIS SIN YOU MOTHERFUGGING MORON. You didn't even read the passage of the Bible I cited (Numbers 12) where God explicitly punishes the others for daring to question Moses' interracial marriage.

"Dishonest fags" "strawman"

LOL you were the one so convinced that Trotsky came up with the term "racist" and you still can't bring yourself to admit that it has a long history prior to Trotsky himself.

Holy shit you people are illiterate. This quote

"BUT ALSO" - do you notice that? "BUT ALSO". He's referencing two different groups here, he's not accusing the slavophiles of being racists, he is talking about some other group. Which other group is unclear and would require us to be transported back to the time when Trotsky was still alive but jesus you people…

Nope.
That punishment was for trying to remove Moses from power, not for challenging Moses’s marriage.

Good luck with that cognitive dissonance.

Oh really? Then why was Miriam's punishment having her skin TURN AS WHITE AS SNOW?

You're so filled with hatred towards other races that your brain literally cannot process the fact that God made a mockery of those who think light/whiter skin is better.

I'm sorry that your grasp of the English language is so poor that instead of honestly engaging you shut your eyes and try to justify racism by lazily stating that it's all a marxist conspiracy by Trotsky, even though I've already proved he didn't even come up with the word.

smh

Shallow speculation won't get you very far.

First you argue about how the slavophiles had nothing to do with race or racial politics. Then you change the focus to how the "racists" Trotsky is talking about is another, unknown, group completely foreign to his book.
You are desperate to use any mental gymnastic you can come up with to avoid the fact that he is talking about the old and the new philosophy of the Slavophiles.

Are you still relying on no one noticing your strawman attempt when you shifted the focus to the origin of the word instead of the term attached to it?
If you are so confident, feel free to post literature from before 1930 where the word "racist" or "racism" has the same subversive connotation.

Now I know why you spout ad-hominems in every post.

This is where I'm at, additionally I would not advocate killing a kid for Mammon, but some secular people will do this, and the ugly truth is that they are so deep in the world, that they will turn to a man with a coat-hanger if pushed. So I guess in closing I, like Pilate before me, wash my hands of the whole damned thing. Personally though, I have made up my mind that I won't put myself in a situation where I might kill a kid for no other reason than Mammon, not through me will that sin come into the world I dearly hope. Nor am I having trouble staying celibate, which is actually a relief these days, nobody thinks of it that way in this secular world which preaches sex, more sex and food, but it is a relief not to be embroiled in that as much as it is a relief to go hungry or fast from time to time.

Oh don't worry it's not like I've talked to my pastor about this ages ago already and he agreed it was to punish Aaron and Miriam for being racists in addition to challenging Moses, no surely you, mr. hasn't even read Numbers 12 and google'd it only after I pointed it out, has the better, more Christian interpretation…not.

Neither of these two points are in contradiction. Maybe try using that thing called a brain?

What the ever loving fugg is the difference between the "word" and "the term attached to it"? There is NO difference between "racism" "racist"/whatever the fugg else you want to say.

I already did.

Cool beans.

It's not about contradictions, it's about being intellectually dishonest.
The word "Slavophiles" and "racists", in that text, are referencing the same group of people. Yet, you try your hardest to make your way around it in order to defend a lie.

So you don't even know the difference between word and term?
That explains a lot.

>

Attached: pol'schristianity.png (2456x1664, 275.41K)

I already told you in , he first talks about the old philosophies and then the latest one as revealed by the same group. The only difference is that he calls them racists instead of Slavophiles the second time.

Referencing an unknown group without giving clues inside the book and expecting the reader to take a guess makes no sense whatsoever.

That's the point. There was no need to do that.
He was just looking to frame them as an opposing ideology.
To create a political tool that allows you to quickly silence your opposition is the whole point of this mess. And you tried to make use of it itt.

That premise depends on rejecting the obvious statement made in Trotsky's book: Slavophiles is synonym with "racists".
This paves the way to shaming anyone who dares putting their own ethnic group and culture before foreigners and foreign culture. And that's exactly the way you used that word in
Every other meaning given to the word "racist" or "racism" previous to 1930 lacks that negative connotation and is used pretty much as a synonym to "racialism".

If it wasn't true, I wouldn't be posting it.

Sorry for attacking your hero, but at least give credit where credit is due.

Now getting past this point, re-hammering old communist propaganda is not welcome in this thread.

Like St. Joseph did?

Attached: dumpster-fire.gif (625x417, 2.62M)

See, that's the type of hippy shit that's allowed for Vatican II to happen. Let the Lord handle the others, I have enough issues with my own flock.

Cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt though see clearly to cast out the mote of thy borther's eye. Matthew 7:5

They already have friendo.

Orphans are a problem of the society from which they are generated. To pawn them off onto some other socitety/economy is to use the second civiliazation as an escape valve from the issues in the first. It only creates resentment and issues between the two. The same as mass economic migration.

See, that's the difference - it's here in the chans where we whet our swords and can go out and reach the discontented masses and get them to come back to the Churches instead of engorging themselves on mass media/shenanigans.

While I agree with this sentiment on face value, it seems as though the answer to a non-Western culture's problem is to foist it onto the West as though we don't have our own emotional-, economic-, and mental-problems within our own populations.

And what is wrong with looking to your own community's-, people's problems first? Seriously?

Explain your Matthew 7:5 quote further.

Attached: da10e0553a3116931b9b661b395a4c010329765d22a80f766dca94cd2afa1858.jpg (522x516, 173.04K)

I use the Matthew quote to say that we should look to our own flocks first and foremost. That this couple chose to adopt and to save these kids from a potential life of crime/issues is noble, but, are there not issues in their own community to be solved as well?

I don't doubt that their intentions are and were noble, but, I do question their priorities.

This makes me anger. Why would you adopt african children when they could've adopted children from Eastern Europe or in America??? WHY DO CHRISTIANS DO THIS???? IT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHORE WOMEN WHO HAD BLACK TRIPLETS. I feel no empathy towards her now.

They're not from the US they were from some vodoo African warthorn tribe, they will most likely be future killers or robbers brought by a low self esteem soccer mom to America endangering our society.

There was a Reddit story about a couple and had children of 3 (2 boys 1 girl) who adopted a 9 year old African child and…

TL;DR: He molested the couple's daughter and broke their Dad's foot thumb nail.

Why do people smoke or do drugs? It's just one of those things people do because they think it's cool.

retard mods

Attached: 1459399515085-3.png (886x712, 416.56K)

Literally

I'm a Christian and I believe it, so deal with it.

this lmao

No it's not. Letting rape-children or children with genetic defects live is just utter cruelty. Admit it, you're a Catholic who would like to see the family unit and nation state destroyed, and replaced by a Catholic global theocracy. The retard and race-mixed mutt are your most loyal followers.

I'm pretty sure killing an unborn baby just because he is a result of rape is murder, my dude.

Rape-children completely break the social fabric, because if people can cheat the reproductive game with rape then things like having a good job and living an exemplary life in order to find a woman are disincentivised. On top of that, the value of a woman absolutely plummets through the ground if she is mother of a rape-child because not only is a illegitimate and illegally conceived, but its father is almost guarenteed a social and genetic reject.

Never ever will I stand against abortion in case of rape. All the woman raped by invading armies who aborted or killed their rape-children throughout history can not be held accountable for only wanting the chance to have a proper family. Unlike fornication women do not chose to be raped, so they also can't be responsible for the product of rape.

Find a Bible verse then.

Do we even need a bible-verse?

Jesus Christ Himself is enough, when the Virgin Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ was not instantaneously born, but went through a normal impregnation period.

Ergo, in the situation of a pregnancy there is a third person, and killing this person is unjust per the commandment against murder.

Oh nevermind, you're a nut-case.

Are you kidding me?
You should be the one to find a verse that justifies murder in case someone has a genetic disorder or was born because of rape.
Repent.

And killing the Canaanites was not?
"Thou shalt not kill" is a very specific commandment, and refers only to full members of society, from your own tribe, and who have not broken God's commandments.

I have plenty of verses where God commands killing for all sorts of reasons, including the children of the Canaanites, and rapists and adulterers in general. Abortion of rape-children is a very obvious topic, even in ancient times, yet God is completely silent about it. So no, it cannot be sin.

What in the world do the Canaanites have to do with anything? Do you acknowledge the unborn as a person or not? If so, there is no justification for murder.

Hello, Jew.

It was the Catholic Church who pushed for race-mixing of Europeans and Amerindians in Catholic America. Only the Catholic Church has insisted that abortion in case of rape should be illegal - the Orthodox Church allows it.
Was does the Catholic Church care so much about producing people without roots, without family even?
Btw, this is not a new idea, this "Catholic theocracy of the mixed massed"; many people have put it forward throughout the ages, including the German chancellor Bismarck.

Attached: casta_painting_all21.jpg (1061x1489, 475.66K)

I know Catholics don't read the Bible, but maybe you should be the exception. God commands the killing of the Canaanites, women and children included. So "thou shalt not kill" cannot be a general commandment.
Only because I read the Bible it does not make me a Jew.

You're one of those blinded ones Scripture speaks of, repent.

The Orthodox Church also allows divorce, just like on this, they're dead-wrong.

So you're absolutely going to ignore my arguments in favor of name-calling? Very boring.