I never opposed abortion if getting an abortion would save the mother's life and not getting an abortion would result in the death of the mother. But I supported outlawing abortions after the development of brain cells and possibly also earlier in the past.
Maybe I was wrong in opposing abortion and here is why I might have been wrong. I am not saying I was definitely wrong but I might have been wrong.
Let's presuppose abortion is an act of killing and in some cases it is more specifically an act of murder.
Most Democratic Candidates support legalized abortion. Now someone who votes Democrat is more likely to teach their children to vote Democrat and to have the value systems very often that go with voting Democrat including supporting abortion.
There are some exceptions of Democratic Candidates that do not support abortion
https://web.archive.org/web/20030614103243/https://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Jim_Traficant_Abortion.htm
After the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, Traficant tended to vote more often with the Republicans than with his own party. On the issue of abortion, Traficant voted with the position of the National Right to Life Committee 95% of the time in the 105th Congress, and 100% of the time in the 106th and 107th Congresses.If someone who votes democrat does not get an abortion and raised children they would not have raised if they got an abortion their children would be more likely to vote to legalize abortion
https://web.archive.org/web/20220412003322/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant
When I talk about Democrats through the rest of the article I am not talking about the rare exceptions but for people who primarily support taxpayer funding of abortion, more taxes, taxpayer funding of public schools, forced hiring policies controlling the percent of employees based on race, religion, gender identity and sexual orientation, taxing carbon dioxide emissions, internet censorship of viewpoints that do not agree with the democratic party viewpoints and forcing people who do not want to live in a communist society to be coerced to do work for other people through taxation, the right for public school teachers to persuade children under 18 years old that they are transgender without parental permission, the right to surgically remove children under 18 years old anatomical parts without parental consent if the children are persuaded by public school teachers that they are transgender, the right to fine or imprison people who do not call you by the gender pronoun you desire them to, taxing people to pay insurance benefits for monogamous homosexual married couples, arresting police who use force to try to stop black on black violence, open border immigration for people with HIV AIDS, open border immigration for people without background checks to see if they committed violent crimes, etc.
Talking Democrats out of getting abortions or outlawing abortions for Democrats would only spread abortion in the next generation
Democrats tend to support taxing people to spend money on Public Schools. Public Schools tend to instill in people the Democratic Party value system.
The Democratic Party Value system supports war against people who should not have war waged against them and supports using violent to redistribute wealth, even if they give lip service to opposing war, by supporting tax payer funded schools that teach blind faith in government Democrats support unjust wars.
If people were made fully aware that abortion is killing or murder but not prevented from getting abortions then people who do not value human life would be more likely to choose to get abortions, but people who do value human life would be less likely to choose to get abortions. Hopefully this would result in the next generation having a lower percentage of people that do not value human life and a higher percentage of people that do value human life. This might not happen if those who got abortions adopted later and still raised children with their anti life value system. Also hypothetically if someone got A abortions but still gave birth to X children and raised X children but would have given birth to and raised Y children if they did not get any abortions then if X is greater than or equal to Y then allowing them to get an abortion does not make the situation better in terms of preventing people with anti life value systems from raising children
When people with anti life value systems teach their children an anti life value system those children are more likely to grow up to become murderers or commit other violent acts against non violent people.
Allowing people to voluntarily set up a communal wealth system is not a problem and many voluntary communal societies have successfully worked when the society was allowed to reject members who would not contribute labor to help others in the community such as working to provide food for the community or provide services for the community members which the community members agree are valuable enough to let them stay without producing food in exchange for the food.
New Book: Bernie Sanders Was Kicked Off Vermont Commune for Loafing
https://web.archive.org/web/20160420123527/https://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/new-book-bernie-sanders-was-kicked-off-vermont-commune-for-loafing/2016/04/20/
Imposing communism by force has had a track record of multiple holodomores in which massive numbers of people starved.
In 1932–1933, a famine known as the Holodomor killed 3.3–3.9 million people in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
https://web.archive.org/web/20220429172547/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question
https://web.archive.org/web/20220502021057/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Democrats support policies that lead to holodomores in which massive numbers of people starve to death
If Democratic parents raise children who vote and more importantly behave like Democrats more people would be murdered if the parents did not abort the children and successfully instilled Democrat value systems in the children then the number that would be murdered if the parents aborted the children and did not give birth to or adopt any children to replace the children they murdered through abortion
Now not all children that are raised by Democratic parents choose the value system of their Democratic parents so this reasoning might not hold in practice
Although there is an unlimited amount of money since money is created by belief there is a finite amount of food mass per volume in any section of the world of a given volume. I am not opposed to people receiving welfare if they are offered it but I am opposed to people using violence to force other people to do slave labor work to give them welfare. Someone can choose to take food stamps while simultaneously voting against any tax that is justified with the excuse of raising funds for food stamps.
Currently men when looked on as a group as a whole are net tax payers and women looked on as a group as a whole are net tax receivers. Traditionally women would have children and receive net resources of food from her husband but not from other women's husbands. The husband who provides the food for his wife's children would get to instill his value system in her children, whether they are both of their biological or adopted children or children she had from a previous marriage in the case of a widow or sometimes in the case of a divorced woman depending on custody arrangements.
Now some single mothers are exceptions to this but the following applies to the net effect of most single mothers as a group. Now single mothers will tax men she is not married to, to give food to them without letting that men paying the tax raise her children and teaching them their value system. These single mothers do not do the work of raising their children because they do not earn the food to feed the children, do not baby sit their own children and do not morally educate their own children instead they send their children to public schools that babysit the children and to public schools to immorally educate the children and tax men they are not married to, to pay for their children's food. These single mothers tend to vote Democrat and the Public schools they send their kids to tend to teach a Democrat value system. If voting actually worked there is not way to solve this problem by voting. The problem can not be solved by voting because single mothers tax men who are not married to them. This means that married men who try to have as many children as they can support in order to teach them other value systems than the Democrat value system are are limited in how many children they can support because they have to pay taxes to support children of single mothers who vote Democrat, but single mothers who vote Democrat have no limit to how many children they can have and raise to vote Democrat because the more children they have the more tax they can take from men they are not married to. This is a positive feedback loop that can only be stopped if single mothers no longer can tax men they are not married to. This positive feedback loop of an ever increasing percent of the population of people who do not work for food taxing an ever decreasing percent of the population who work to produce food tends to lead towards mass starvation. The only reason it has not yet reached a state of mass starvation in the United States yet is because technology improves over time so one man can potentially produce more food per time now than in the past.
Suddenly Hermes and La Barbara have returned from Spa 5. He had made the labor camp so efficient that they only needed one Australian man to perform the labor.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220503233255/https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/How_Hermes_Requisitioned_His_Groove_Back
The only way to stop the positive feedback loop that will lead to starvation is to stop taxing men to pay for other men's children which will never happen as long as net tax receivers can vote to tax net tax payers. This positive feedback loop could be slowed down by letting single mom's get abortions if single mom's would have less children and thus raise less children who vote to tax people to fund net tax receivers.
Democrats also support open borders which when combined with allowing net tax receivers to tax net tax payers will result in mass starvation. Communal societies only work with border restrictions. Forced communism plus open borders leads to mass starvation, because you can not close the borders to keep out people who will refuse to produce food but will demand to receive food through the violent imposition of communism. When these non food producers enter the border and have children they can persuade their children to vote for the value system that will tax the net food producers leading to mass starvation. Allowing the immigrants who want to violently force other people to produce food for them to get abortions can slow down the positive feedback loop that would lead to mass starvation if non net tax paying immigrants would have less children and thus raise less children who vote to tax people to fund net tax receivers.
Getting an abortion is still killing so I am not suggesting people who oppose the Democrats anti life value system go out and get jobs as professional abortionists. I am suggesting maybe we should let people know abortion is the killing of a life, and let people who do not value human life get abortions without stopping them. We should still stop forced abortions of mothers who do not want abortions and who would not die as a result of not getting an abortion.
Presuming the reader is on my team, now we should encourage people on our team to not get abortions. But on the team that supports all the bad things I listed above that Democrats support, preventing them from getting abortions might lead to an increase in their numbers resulting in mass starvation of both or all teams in the long run and increased violence in future generations in the short run. We can try to persuade them to change teams and then persuade them not to get an abortion if they switch to our team, but if they will not switch to our team preventing them from getting an abortion might increase the numbers of an army of evil.
I still maintain that Paul Hill and Scott Roeder committed third party defense and not murder when they executed abortionists, but Paul Hill was executing someone from the enemies team to defend someone else who would likely be recruited to the enemies team which might have increased the number of abortions in the long run even though it decreased the number of abortions in the local geographic area in the short run. Although Paul Hill technically committed defense it might not have been a wise decision because he may have increased the population of the anti life team by preventing a member of the anti life team from aborting potential recruits of the anti life team who have anti life parents who would try to raise them in anti life values.
Letting the antilife team completely exterminate themselves would result in less abortions in the long run then letting the antilife team procreate more members who will get future abortions. Perhaps allowing the antilife team to grow in population relative to the prolife team by temporary forcing antilife people not to get abortions instead of allowing them to naturally exterminate themselves would allow them to grow in numbers enough to be powerful enough to not only change the law in the future and resume abortions but also to force abortions on the prolife team as has been done in China with the one child policy.
But someone might object the Bible opposes abortion. The Bible classifies causing a parent who should not receive an abortion to have an abortion as murder but actually has prescribed abortions for wicked people or executing the children of wicked people in some cases.
I am not saying we should enforce old testament laws or execute people based on old testament laws in a different geographical location than ancient Israel and a different time period. I am not saying whether or not people should obey the Bible but simply explaining this for those who object to what I say on the grounds of the Bible.
Exodus 21:22-24 describes up to the death penalty for a man who injures the baby of a pregnant woman with the death penalty in the case of an abortion that results from hitting a pregnant woman but the following exceptions in the Bible in which there is no death penalty for abortion must be considered
Deuteronomy 20:10-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-11 prescribes not to kill people who make peace with you,
Deuteronomy 20:12-14 prescribes to execute men only and take the cattle, women and children of people who do not make peace with you
except those people from specific groups listed in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 who you are to leave nothing alive of not even the cattle, women nor children
The groups described in Deuteronomy 20:16-17 may have committed human sacrifice, incest and bestiality in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 and because of that leaving any of them alive even their offspring may have resulted in a spread of stds and genetic defects leading unto future generations, and leaving the adults alive may have spread the teachings of the practices of incest, bestiality and idol worship
Leviticus 20:20-21 prescribes the execution of people who committed a specific type of incest and for them to die childless. They were not to be given an abortion and allowed to live but to be executed. The execution would result indirectly in an abortion unless the execution was delayed and the woman was allowed to give birth prior to being executed. However Leviticus 20:20-21 prescribes for them to die childless hence an indirect abortion through the execution of the mother.
Numbers 5 Prescribes giving a woman suspected of adultery drink a solution and if she has committed adultery the result of the solution will result in her having an abortion but if she has not committed adultery the solution will not result in her having an abortion.
Deuteronomy 22 Execution of an adulteress woman would result in an abortion unless the woman is required to have her execution delayed until she gives birth which is not mentioned in the text
The difference between Numbers 5 and Deuteronomy 22 is in Deuteronomy 22 understood in the context of the books of Moses a further degree of proof is required before executing the woman involving a proper court trial with witnesses but in Numbers 5 the proof is insufficient and the solution is given upon suspicion of adultery
Starting in Exodus 11 and continuing in later parts of Exodus, God warns he will slay the firstborn sons of the Egyptians who were supporting Pharaoh in enslaving the Israelites, except perhaps hypothetically for any Egyptians who changed sides to the Israelites side and performed the same passover ritual Israelites were required to perform to prevent their firstborn from being executed. This would be post birth abortions and might potentially have included pre birth abortions of any Egyptians who were pregnant with their first son but have not yet given birth
Copyright Carl Janssen 2022 May 9
