Abortion: Why abortion is bad for women

Many people think that abortion is a necessary medical procedure. This is a common attitude amongst adults in relation to children. However, most women who get abortions are about-faced by how abortion is performed as a procedure. The fact of the matter is that abortion is an induced miscarriage, and thus is a trap for women.

The Bible states in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

The Greek root word denoting murder is φονός (Latin: phonos) and refers to any taking of a human life. This commandment was interpreted then as any taking of a human life, including in the womb. Women got abortions then smuggled abortifacient herbs in order to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion was a rare procedure then, meaning only the coldest and most uncaring mothers to be had.

Abortion is a rare procedure here in America. Most women who get abortions are pressured into the procedure by a man. This is because most abortion benefits a man. Whenever a woman gets an abortion, that takes away responsibility from a man. Fathers of unborn children may have to pay child support if the child is born alive. Abortion also is a way to cover for a sex crime committed against a woman or child. 

It is a total myth that abortion gives children control over their own bodies. The unborn child is a body within a body, and has the genes of both parents in the boot. Any life with both parents' DNA is a human life with autonomy and rights of its own. Even the gender of the child is among the first things to be known about him/her as the autonomous child that he/she is.

Most women will never get an abortion. This is because most women are in touch with their instincts, and won't personally get an abortion. If what an abortion entails becomes national news, most all women wouldn't get an abortion. Even if the pregnancy is "uncomfortable" it shouldn't be, as most women who are in touch with their intuition entirely don't feel pregnancy discomfort.

Most abortion in the Early Church came from abortifacient herbs smuggled into the church. Those herbs grew nowhere in the Old Testament context, and were kept out by way of checkpoints at the border. The Early Church did not have checkpoints, as they simply lived next to the church. Thus, when abortifacient herbs were found on the possession of a mother, it was seen as evidence of a murder. Whenever a stillborn baby was had, it was seen as suspicious, unless the mother could explain otherwise.

A D&C is not the same as an abortion, When the corpse of the unborn child was found rotting in the mothers' womb, the doctor then removed the rotting corpse, with there being a funeral for the child. Abortion is when the child is murdered in the womb, by way of abortifacient drugs in most all cases. Every abortion victim is stillborn, which alone haunts women forever.

The mothers who murder their children in the womb, and all who aid and abet, will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be cast forever into the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent!

 

Abortion: Why abortion is a trap for women

Many people today support abortions. This is a common attitude coming from the woke left. Abortion was long opposed by the Early Feminists. However, the women's movement has lost their credibility for supporting abortions, taking an about-face on the issue. Apart from the most Christian of feminists, most feminists are pro-choice. However, if women just knew what abortion was, they wouldn't be getting the procedure done.

The Sixth Commandment states in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

This commandment was interpreted by the Early Church as that only God can take a life. This meant thar abortions were also banned in the Early Church. Abortion is a rare procedure, and was even rarer in the Early Church. In biblical times, abortions came in the form of abortifacient herbs, which were considered contraband in both the Old Testament and the Early Church. Abortifacient herbs were not native to the context of the Old Testament, but they were banned from being introduced. Abortifacients are a class of drugs that induce a miscarriage. When an abortion took place in the Early Church, the mother was excommunicated from the church on grounds of murder, even in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Abortion, in all cases, is a forced miscarriage. Most abortion providers are dishonest about what the procedure is that is commonly called abortion. Most women who get abortions are pressured into the "choice" by a man who does not want to take responsibility for caring for a child. Abortion providers give the most simplistic instructions, usually along the lines of "take this pill and all your worries will go away". 

Most abortions are committed by doctors giving out an abortifacient pill that induces a miscarriage. In all cases, the corpse of the unborn child passes while stillborn. Once that passage of the stillborn child hits home, mothers vow to never again get an abortion.  

I myself am a feminist, but of the Christian variety. I do my part to prevent abortions by not having sexual relations outside of marriage, and not raping women or young girls. Most abortions are a reaction to an unplanned pregnancy. However, women soon learn that they made the wrong choice.

Roe v. Wade was a stretch of constitutional logic to say the least. The Fourth Amendment refers to a specific type of search and seizure - when the police come to raid your house. Apart from that, there is no clear-cut right to privacy in the Constitution. The framers never intended for a constitutional right to get an abortion. The decision of Roe was a clearly political decision that even many feminists oppose. 

The Early Feminists did not support abortion at all, but opposed it with a light touch. Empowered women used to educate their sisters about the dangers of abortion. This all ended with influence coming from eugenic sources that intend to wipe out disabilities instead of be sensitive to them. Most children with Down Syndrome never see the light of day, meaning most of them are murdered in the womb just for having a disability. Abortion is not a form of empowerment for women, as abortion leads to that stillborn baby passing through the birth canal. No woman wants a miscarriage, yet that is what abortion literally is.

Abortion can also benefit men in a way many women don't want. If abortion is made widely available, men will have an excuse to have sexual relations with women without facing the consequences of their sexual behavior. Most abortions happen because a man does not want to take responsibility for fathering a child. That is why women should never get an abortion. 

Abortion is a rare procedure. It is a myth that women are getting abortions "left and right". Most women know based on their maternal intuition to stay away from the abortion clinic and put the child up for adoption anyway. If such a procedure is truly that rare, what is the need for it to begin with? Most women believe personally that abortion is wrong, but "don't judge" a woman for getting an abortion. The next step in a post-Roe America is for women to judge based off of their intuition, not based off of leftist politics. Most women already know that it is wrong at some level, and so I trust women to know the truth about abortion even as a man. 

A man is to take responsibility for any child that they father. That means don't pressure your mistress that you were messing around with to get an abortion. Men can prevent abortions by not having sexual relations with women outside of marriage, and not committing rape at all. The unborn child has half the father's DNA anyway.

It is a myth that abortion is a right a woman has over her body. It is instead an incursion on a body within her body. Most women in biblical times knew this as a fact, with only the very coldest of mothers getting abortions. An unborn child has both the father's DNA as well as the mother's. 

As a Christian myself, I support banning abortion in all cases. However, I also support a safety net for the extra children that would be born, including foster care if the child had no suitable father to care for them. I support the universal healthcare coming from the Affordable Care Act, and support vouchers for college and daycare. However, whenever a woman can, she should quit her job and be the mother that she was meant to be, because young children need their mothers above all else. Being a mother is a woman's highest calling. I support also banning the death penalty and suicide attempts. I am even opposed to war due to my views on human life. I try to be consistent on my views on human life. 

The depraved and entitled women who murder in the womb, and all that aid and abet, will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath day and night forever and ever! Repent!

Abortion: Why abortion should be banned

Many people today support abortion rights, especially after Roe v. Wade was overturned. The woke left keeps pushing the mantra that a woman may need an abortion someday, so keep it legal. Recently, Ohioans voted to basically keep abortion legal. Many women do not understand is that they are disempowering themselves by supporting abortion rights. Killing unborn children is not empowerment. There should be consequences for men gallivanting around and shacking up with women. An unwanted pregnancy deters most men from using women for sexual purposes. 

It says in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

The Greek root word in the New Testament denoting murder is φονος (Latin: phonos) and refers to, partially, any murder of an unborn child. Abortifacient herbs were considered contraband in the Early Church, and any woman using abortifacient herbs was excommunicated from the church for murder once found guilty by the council. Usually, though, abortion was forced on a minor girl by her sexually abusive father, in order to cover up the evidence, and in that case the father was the one excommunicated...and that is the main reasons for abortion today - abortion helps sex offenders cover up their tracks. 

Apart from aiding a rapist in covering up their tracks, abortion is disempowering to women. Men actually support abortion rights, and they support abortion rights for all the wrong reasons. With abortion being legal, all a woman has to do to cover up a liaison is terminate the pregnancy through abortion. Without abortion, the man would have to take responsibility for the child he helped conceive - something men don't want to do. So, they support abortion rights so they can sleep around the town.

Abortion, contrary to popular myth amongst both liberals and conservatives, is a rare procedure. Usually, women are pressured into getting abortions by a man in their life who doesn't want to take responsibility for having a child. Abortions also happen to cover up the evidence of rape, both of adult women and minor girls. A man can have an affair, and if abortion is legal in his state, he can have all his mistresses have an abortion to cover up the evidence of his adulterous moral crimes. 

It all comes down to the fact that an unborn child is a child worth protecting. Abortion is a form of child abuse resulting in death, meaning it is a form of child murder. I support the right of unborn children to live. An unborn child hears his/her mother's voice while in the womb. You can read to an unborn child. Women who got abortions in the Early Church were seen as cold and unfeeling mothers, like a wicked witch.

The depraved and entitled mothers who murder their unborn children in the womb, and all who aid and abet, will be cast into the everlasting lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent!

 

Sex education in schools: Why it needs to be streamlined to fit our nation's values

Many parents are angry at the fact that children are being subjected to sexualized instruction as young as age 6. I do not oppose sex education even for elementary school students, even though I am very much a religious conservative. Sex education should be focused on abstinence, until marriage for heterosexual children, and for life for homosexual and exclusively pedophilic children. It will never be the case that a child should be encouraged to have a crush on a classmate of the same-sex. But, children do have sexualities at that age, and those needs should be catered to with tact. 

Children in biblical times were fully aware of their sexuality, from day one. Starting at age 3, they started having sexual feelings for the parent of the opposite sex, like an uneven criss-cross. Fathers and daughters were attracted to each other, in a mutually unrequited way. Boys had unrequited sexual feelings for their mothers. None of these attractions were allowed to be acted upon under the Law. Children do have a sexuality at an early age, but for their parents, not classmates. 

Sex education should be radically different from how it is being done now. The focus of sex education should be on abstinence, until marriage for heterosexual children, and for life for homosexual students. It is good to help them identify their sexual orientation, in order for them to know their path. Otherwise, children should be told that their sexual identity is a private matter and is irrelevant to anything in life. 

This is all based on the contextual application of the Greek root word πορνεία (Latin: porneia). This Greek word lifts up all of the sex crime laws in Ancient Israel, including the laws against homosexual behavior. Sexual purity values are at the core of our values system, and they need to be preserved by our school systems.

We need sex education for our young children. It would be nice if parents did it at home, but that isn't happening. But, it cannot celebrate sexual perversion. Crushes between two boys or two girls do happen, but they shouldn't be encouraged or praised - children should be encouraged to struggle against such feelings, and re-channel them into masturbation.

Sex education should teach abstinence, not promiscuity! 

Abortion: Why abortion should be banned in ALL cases

Many in the children's rights community know my stance on abortion - it is a matter of child protection. North Carolina is proposing a bill that would ban abortion. Many states have banned abortion, including Texas and Wisconsin. There is a reason why abortion is wrong, and the immorality of abortion comes in levels. 

It says in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

The Greek root word cross-referencing the concept of murder in the New Testament is φονος (Latin: phonos) and refers to death or murder, and was understood in the Early Church as legislating a ban on all abortifacients, deeming abortifacient herbs to be contraband in the Early Church. Any man caught administering abortifacients to a woman was excommunicated. Any woman using abortifacients for herself was excommunicated. 

Why should abortion be banned in all cases? Most of the reasons why women get abortions are not a natural part of being a woman, but are mainstays imposed by men. Abortion teaches men that the consequences of their actions can be erased, and that they don't have to take responsibility for a child that they fathered. 

I oppose all abortion, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, and that is because banning abortion in these cases allows for the consequences of sexually amoral behavior in men to exist, in a hard and fast way so that men can see the damage they have done to a woman and her family, with men hopefully atoning for their sins against womankind. 

A common and compelling reason for allowing abortion in the case of life of the mother is the example of a pregnant 9-year-old. How about if men stop getting 9-year-olds pregnant. All a man has to do is masturbate to thoughts of the 9-year-old that he finds attractive, and then he doesn't have to go the other way and rape his child victim. There is always something mankind can do to protect womankind from his sexual wrath.

What is abortion? Abortion is a cluster of "medical" procedures that involve inducing a miscarriage. Abortion is a rare procedure, usually done in order to cover up for fornication and sexual immorality in men, such a man's sexual liaisons and affairs with women. Those are the reason a woman "needs" an abortion. 

Women in the Old Testament never needed an abortion, and no woman ever asked for one. That is because women were pampered by men, and had much lobbying power with men. Some abortions did take place in the Early Church due to the patriarchal Greco-Roman influence, and they led to the individual responsible being excommunicated. Usually, abortions were forced by incestuous fathers to cover up their depraved and decadent acts, in which case the child was not prosecuted. Sometimes, women were prosecuted by the church, in which case other women shunned them as cold and unfeeling. Abortion in a woman was a sign of coldness and unfeeling attitudes towards children, and such women were not seen as full women.

The depraved and entitled mothers who take the life of their child in the womb, and all those who aid and abet, will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast into the lake of fire and burnings sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Why the left wants to normalize sex with children

I feel this issue deserves relevance in my posts. Most people assume there is one left. As a children's rights conservative, I know there are two lefts, one worth defending and one worth offending (because they get offended about absolutely everything). I support the children's rights left, as we can do better as a society for our children. But, the parental rights left wants to undermine children's progress, and that's why they want to take away our religion and our values as a nation.

Where did the left come from? Many conservatives think children's rights is where the left started, meaning in 1970s with the peace activists. We at children's rights were among the peace activists, but were ostracized when we decided as a movement to only oppose the Vietnam War (I oppose all wars as per my faith values). The left that has taken over this country has even murkier roots. Maybe even sinister roots.

There is a group of researchers called "exist" is the root of the left. "Exist" is a group of researchers with a stated anti-religious bias. On one front, they have a whole team of biblical scholars trying to disprove the existence of God. They have convinced the greater scientific community to consider God a myth. Why do they want to disprove the existence of God?

Without God, you can believe whatever you want, including the belief that sex with children should be legal. The Bible clearly prohibits sex with children as fornication, and so the only way to condition society to go back to having sex with its children is to make society devoid of religion.

For most of human history, religion was non-existent in our nature. We were like other wild animals, only more savage than any other wild animal. Human beings in prehistoric times communicated through rape, inclduing towards children. We all know as Christians the Truth - God saved us from a peacekeeping past. God civilized a group of wild animals that turned their back on Him.

The academic community is now ruled by a radical woke leftist ideology that wants to revert all human beings back to peacekeeping times. They actually could get their way if they get their surface agenda passed, which is a ban on all religion. 

The left consists of a few wacko professors wanting to legalize sex with children, and a safe space full of lost souls preyed on by a mammoth of an agency wanting to take away the values of young people and indoctrinate them. Then, they blame us at children's rights for it all.

I am allied only with the children's rights level of the left. All other levels need to be chopped off due to where it originates, meaning not at children's rights. Anti-religion has always been a leech attached to us as a community. The mainstream children's rights view on religion is religious liberty, as long as your values don't tell you to harm or abuse others, including children.

We are living in a world of lies. That is because the world is not God's domain, but that of Satan. Even within the Christian Church, there exists lies, as all churches were created by men, and none by God. The perfect church was the Early Church, and we as a Christian Church have strayed away from the pro-child tenets of the Early Church. One of the reasons the Christians were hated in Rome was because they were too "soft" on their children. God primarily rules over His Kingdom, not the world, and thus Satan is allowed to play around until the very last day - when his fate is sealed, and he is captured and cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices. As a child advocate, I say that any "Christian" who speaks against the rights of the child is an accomplice of Satan. Same with anyone who abuses a child in any way and defends it. 

The depraved and decadent academics who want sex with children to be legalized will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them descend into torrents of Hell-fire! Repent!

Abortion: Why abortion is murder (and not protected by the Fourth Amendment)

A federal judge ruled that an abortion pill commonly used in abortion procedures is unlawful to use. The plaintiffs in the case are appealing the case, perhaps to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The fact of the matter is that abortion is murder, and not a right under the Fourth Amendment.

It is a myth that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" restrictions on abortion. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This Amendment clearly discusses a specific situation - when the police come to search or raid your house. This obviously does not talk about a legitimate law that protects an unborn child inside the mother's uterus. Laws such as the Constitution are written word for word, to the historical context that it was written to. It can be advanced to some degree, but not by much. 

The Sixth Commandment is stated in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

The Greek root word in the New Testament for murder is φονος (Latin: phonos) and refers to all forms of unlawful killing, as defined under Early Christian ordinance. 

The Early Church prohibited all forms of abortifacient herbs from entering the church community, as they were known to induce murder of an unborn child. Most abortions in the Early Church that were prosecuted were done to cover up child sexual abuse, and were ordered by the father. It was rare for a woman to get an abortion in the Early Church, and the only reason it was legal under the original Law of Moses was that no woman ever got an abortion. The concept was hated even then. 

Abortion is a rare procedure, meaning women end up rarely getting abortions anyway. So, why not do away with a rare procedure? Most abortions today are done to cover up sexual impropriety or even cover up sexual violence, not to further the life and health of the mother like the abortion industry claims. It is a shady avenue of medicine, and most women know this to some degree intuitively, but aren't listening to their maternal instincts fully when they support abortion.

The depraved and entitled mothers who murder their children in the womb, and all who aid and abet, will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Sstan and his accomplices! Repent!

 

 

POSITION STATEMENT: Shooting in a Christian school in Nashville, Tennessee

Many of my left-wing colleagues will continue to blame guns. I don't. I blame Audrey Hale, the shooter and murderer of CHILDREN. May her name be in infamy for all time. We hear the excuse for her from the left who wants to ban guns instead of pond scum like her - "she had a religious trauma". Then Hale shouldn't have dealt with her religious trauma in an encouraging way if she knew it would make her prone to violence.

Gun control just won't work. There are too many guns to control using the law. Banning even assault weapons could land them into the wrong hands, in which case it could contribute to gun crime of another sort. It is unfortunate that we have so many guns on the market, including the black market, but the genie is out of the bottle. We can't defeat guns, so lets focus on the gunman - and how to prevent one from being raised by entitled parents.

Most mass shootings are trauma-related, at least at some level, in the perpetrator. That is because most people have trauma, usually parent trauma like I have. Sometimes, the trauma comes from a church or religious school. But, you better be sure that religious trauma does not turn into a grudge. 

What would change things would be easing out punitive parenting and effecting a ban on all punitive patrenting. That sort of parenting models the sort of entitlement that breeds a school shooter. 

But, once you have that trauma, it is YOUR responsibility to take care of that trauma instead of seeth in anger over that trauma. I wasted years of my life engulfed in anger about my lawfully abusive upbringing. It made me defiant in my attitude. Now, I have put my trauma to bed. When your trauma leads you to shoot up a school, YOU alone are responsible.

This is a personal case of a mass shooting to my platform because children - the group of people I represent - were unfairly and unjustly targeted by an adult shooter, and had no way of defending themselves. May the name Aubrey Hale be in infamy forevermore.

What is a criminal?: How to solve America's crime crisis with attachment parenting

Many parents think that punishing a child will keep them from becoming a criminal. Most American parents take up the attitude that punishment will keep children from becoming criminals. This is a common attitude amongst American parents. However, the fact of the matter is that most parents do not know what a criminal is, or else they wouldn't be punishing their children.

What is a criminal? A criminal is a person who is dependent on punishment in order to function in society. It is a cognitive impairment of sorts where the person did not internalize the morals of society. They grew a little too used to their parents punishing them, and thus today can't think for themselves in terms of morality. All Americans, by default, are capable of committing a crime under the right/wrong conditions, especially if they had a pro-spanking upbringing. That doesn't mean everyone will. Most crimes are situational offenses.

How does a parent make the effort not to raise a criminal? The key is to model the avoidance of entitlement to children. The Greek root word denoting entitlement in the New Testament, and cross-referencing the Tenth Commandment, is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and is defined as, officially speaking, want, to the point of imposition. Unofficially speaking, entitlement is the slightest of unattainable want. Most entitlement comes from a deserving attitude, where the individual believes that they deserve things in life. The key to avoiding entitlement is to get an attitude adjustment, meaning declaring oneself a depraved and decadent sinner who is deserving of absolutely nothing, thus is grateful for absolutely everything. Children are watching your every move. If you show entitlement around or towards them - including showing parental entitlement - they will learn to be entitled in order to get their way, creating an entitled child. 

A non-entitled, disciplined example will keep your child away from the streets and away from crime. However, a good example needs to be backed up by something. Punitive parenting only alienates children, and drives them away from the Truth, creating strife and resentment in the home. Attachment parenting is the only way to back up a good Christian example. Christian attachment parenting can be understood using the Christian doctrine of mutual submission. See Colossians 3:20-21 KJV:

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "obey" is υπακουο (Latin: hupakouo) and refers to secure, vulnerable rest in the love and grace of parents. Children are to rest securely in the sacrifice of parents, jusr as parent believers rest securely in the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Parents are to be extensions of Christ in the family home, dutifully and selflessly submitting to children just as they would to God, expecting absolutely nothing in return, with children resting safely and securely in the submission of parents. Parents are to submit to their children as their enemy, from beneath yet from above, revering and fearing children as vulnerable extensions of God. 

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to damages or offenses, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, including, but not limited to, the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. This commandment was intended by the Apostle Paul, and also understood in its original context, as a moral statute prohibiting all forms of punitive parenting, including any punishments or controlling demeanor towards children. In the Old Testament, punitive parents were put to death by way of bloodletting, after punishing their children one last time. Parents who punished their children were charged with kidnapping, with "kidnapping" being defined as the slightest of damages or offenses stemming from hostage-taking - child punishment was seen then as holding your child hostage merely for things that they did wrong, thereby treating their child as a quartered slave. Paul here was lifting up this legal context in order to convict a group of Greek Christian parents who brought their pagan custom of spanking and punishing children into the church. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punishment of a child.

Children, in biblical times, wore absolutely no clothing, at all, until they became adults. Women only wore clothing when outside the home, and otherwise went in the nude, in order to serve both their husbands and their children, separately. Mothers served their children by way of providing for them nourishment and sustenance, namely attachment parenting items such as breastfeeding and skin-on-skin comfort. Children, up until age 6, never left the side of their mothers, ranging beside mothers when at home, clinging to her when crying or upset. When crying or upset, mothers held children close to their bosom in skin-on-skin mammary closeness. When out and about, mothers wrapped up their children next to their bosom in swaddling blankets, maybe offering for the child to suckle her teat if the child was milk-hungry. By night, mothers co-slept next to children in skin-on-skin format, order to form a secure attachment, and also to protect children from all predatory threats, including the sexual entitlement of fathers. Fathers also formed a secure attachment with children by way of witnessing skin-on-skin closeness between mother and child, with the father wanting in on the action by way of a sexual attachment to the child. Fathers imprinted on their children by way of masturbatory orgasm, with the pro-social fantasy leading to a stronger bond between father and child, especially with daughters.

Solving America's crime crisis starts at home. Children need a non-entitled, disciplined example that imparts Judeo-Christian values. Children will then absorb those values coming from that example, and will internalize the morals they are taught by their parents. The problem with punitive parenting is that all the child learns is to avoid punishment, when the child is in a punitive parenting environment. When a child sees a parent's Christian example in an attachment parenting environment, they absorb the values of their parents on their own, at their own pace, usually with the parents having to instruct children little, with instruction usually in the form of redirection. When a child is raised with that kind of discipline, they don't commit crimes, because they know in their heart of hearts that committing crimes is wrong, even if there is a zero percent chance of them getting caught. 

Most criminals operate on the false confidence that they won't get caught, meaning a criminal is someone who depends on punishment, or the threat thereof, in order not to commit crimes. Many criminals commit crimes just to go back to prison. Why is this? Prison provides the same kind of structure that they had growing up, meaning they grew dependent on the structure their parents imposed on them, instead of finding their own structure like in an attachment parenting home. A child in an attachment parenting home, when all grown up, does not need to be policed, because they police themselves and control their own actions.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast in to the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend in to the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Gaslighting: Why gaslighting is a form of entitlement in and of itself

Many people do not understand how policing works today. Policing has gone hi-tech, particularly in the Northeastern states. This is an issue that isn't on my priority list, but one I do want to speak about. Most people who oppose the police on gaslighting are anti-police civil libertarians who don't like the idea of combing. I am not one of those people. I personally support combing for evidence as opposed to putting suspects on a rink.

The Greek root word denoting entitlement, including gaslighting entitlement, and cross-references the Tenth Commandment, is πλεονέκτης (Latin: pleonektés) and refers to wanting to control another person though gaslighting means, to the point of imposition. The Bible mentions gaslighting entitlement specifically when speaking of gaslighting one's parents. See Leviticus 20:9 KJV:

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

"Curseth" here, in context, refers to a gaslighting curse. Adult children frequently administered gaslighting curses upon their parents, and God hated it all. God hates gaslighting so much that He protected parents from it specifically. God, however, hates all gaslighting. Even if you are guilty of a crime, God instead says to "love thy enemy", and true Love does not allow for gaslighting, at all. Due to this commandment, I do not want my abuser, the parent, to be gaslit, even if they show every sign of guilt. Comb their a**, assuming something is there, in which case, we don't care. 

I am a proponent of family values policing, also known as anti-entitlement policing, which presume innocence in abusers beyond a reasonable doubt. Believe me, if you are guilty in front of the family values police, they will find out, and they will catch you. I want my abuser to be presumed innocent, and even be rehabilitated if they show remorse instead of entitlement. But, if they show entitlement, I want the parent scum to hang from the highest tree - bloody! Just like they did it in the Old Testament! Maybe I don't want my abuser to hang literally, as I am against the death penalty, but I'll take all of the prison time the legal system affords and give it to my abuser, and a form of Christian help, because they are sick in the heart for wanting to hurt a child as a means of teaching. 

The way that family values policing works is that parents are "innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt". This means that the police doubt the guilt of parents, until they can doubt no more, and then the parents are arrested. The massive heap of evidence is then rammed through the court. Picture parents literally shaking in the courtroom, as the judge has already decided their fate. Maybe the entitled parents kill themselves. Good for them! Let them burn in Hell for all eternity!...But don't gaslight my abuser. THAT is going too far. I protect my abuser the best I can from gaslighting.

I practice family values policing as a private citizen, being a righteous judge, on a high plane above a sinful world predestined for destruction. Family values policing is one of those policing styles that even a civillian can pick up, and possibly use in order to assist the police. Just gather all of the evidence, and turn the suspect in with the evidence to the local police department. 

For Northern police, the effects of gaslighting have been disastrous. The main problem is that nobody wants to talk to the police anymore. They are afraid of being gaslit if they get too close to the police. The police here in Berks County, Pennsylvania literally have to do a battery of intrusive questions, and even encamp themselves at the doorstep of even witnesses, in order to get one morsel of evidence from the witnesses. Gaslighting was a mistake of this movement from the start, and now, trauma survivors are lobbying their local police to end predator policing.

We will end this segment with one question - what about the pedophiles? Why is it wrong to gaslight a pedophile? It is in fact a myth that gaslighting falsely incriminates pedophiles. But, most pedophiles have religious sexual trauma of the sexual shaming sort. Some parents gaslight their own children as a form of overhead control, and sometimes the child happens to be a pedophile. Most pedophiles are atheist or agnostic, and one can merely infer the reasons behind most pedophiles being anti-religious. The actual reason for the anti-religious streak in most pedophiles? They were abused, in the same way non-pedophilic children were commonly abused. Do we want to revictimize them, because that is what we are doing by gaslighting them? Or, do we want to keep them on their toes, and make them shake like a dog before the judge handing down the sentence.

Most pedophiles will be gaslit on the victim rack, not the abuser rack, and will not disclose their pedophilia to the police at all in the process (for understandable reasons). A great amount of pedophiles suffer from gaslighting trauma. Let that sink in...

Family values policing: Why anti-entitlement policing is the way to enforce a corporal punishment ban

Many people have no clue how the police system operates. I myself as an advocate for children have been under investigation by the City of Reading Police Department and the Pennsylvania State Police Reading Barracks, on suspicion of child-on-child sexual abuse. In the gaslighting tape that is the investigation, I have learned a lot about policing (which is a sign of innocence). How would I want my abuser to be investigated. My main abuser is the parent. I support family values policing, meaning anti-entitlement policing, but with a focus on attachment parenting family values.

Family values policing is something you can find in the Bible. It says in John 7:24 KJV:

Judge not by the appearances, but judge righteous judgment.

"Righteous judgment" then referred to a specific standard of judgment that presumed innocence in everyone and everything, beyond a reasonable doubt. The way moral crimes were judged then was that if there was any doubt as to the validity of the allegation, the suspect was deemed innocent until the righteous judge ran out of doubts, and then the offender was deemed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The way family values policing would be used to enforce a corporal punishment ban would be that the child's statement would be taken, and then the parent would be confronted alongside caseworkers to test for entitlement, and if the parents defended themselves in any way, they would be charged. Another way parents would be confronted would be hacking into electronics to monitor parents, as every electronic device has a camera installed in it so that law enforcement can monitor activity and abuse patterns within a home.

I myself, as a children's rights vigilante, judge like a family values policeman, meaning I presume innocence in everyone and everything around me, beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt the guilt of an individual until I can doubt no more. I sort out the world into who is entitled versus who is not entitled, meaning you can be guilty yet not entitled, in which case I cut you a break just as Christ does.

It started out that everyone here in Berks County, Pennsylvania, was under the jurisdiction of a family values police officer. Ardent leftists did not like the police, usually mentioning how "helpy" they were, and wanted gaslighting police instead. So, they put the police "on a diet" where they were promised a rape as a reward for catching a criminal, with this known as predator policing, which is now the standard statewide here in Pennsylvania. This came with gaslighting in a way that was entitled in and of itself. Gaslighting entitlement is generally a form of control entitlement, sometimes also a form of sexual entitlement, and it has since eroded away all trust with the police. Nobody wants to talk to the police anymore. Everyone is afraid of getting gaslit themselves just for talking to the police.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!  

POSITION STATEMENT: Why woke should stay out of the classroom

Many parents these days are outraged. Our schools are becoming stations for woke indoctrination. Where I draw the line as an advocate is when the concept of racial or gender privilege is brought into the classroom. 

I can think of children's rights concerns regarding woke indoctrination. Calling out the privilege of a large amount of students in a classroom is offensive to white male students who are accused of that privilege, and also prejudicial to such students. When you bring up privilege in the classroom, it creates division in the classroom.

Schools should remain politically neutral places of learning. The problem is that the left believes that they are OBJECTIVELY right, not subjectively, meaning they have no humility of opinion. Leave it to children to explore their political views on their own time. Not school time. School is for learning basic academic and life skills that will last them a lifetime, not useless social justice drivel. 

As an alternative to the education reform that we see from woke activists today, why not get rid of homework to start out with? Why not make ALL instruction in American public schools - PK-12 - play-based in terms of mode of instruction. There is such a thing as self-education under such a setup, and THAT is where children can learn about the history of social justice. Not on school time. 

On the issue of sex education in elementary schools, I do not support giving children sexual choices. Children shouldn't even be having sex. I support instead instilling messages of abstinence in young children from an early age. Yes, most parents don't want to talk about sex to children at a young age, but it has to be done somewhere, and children need to know the established sexual norms of society, as the God's Law instates. 

POSITION STATEMENT: Proposed legislation barring minor children from access to drag shows

This platform was founded upon a set of Christian family values, with such values prohibiting same-sex sexual relations and outward behavior. It is the opinion of me, Maxwell Clark Scheibner, that presenting to a child in drag is just as inappropriate as masturbating in front of a child. 

Dressing in drag is a form of masturbatory desire known as autogynephilia, where a man wants to be admired in the sexual arena, and appear attractive, as a woman. Thus, due to the link to homosexuality, cross-dressing of this type is only acceptable when walking through the house, meaning only the privacy of your own home. Not in a club. Not in a library. Not in a school.

Fornication by way of obscenity is any public act coming from one's person with intent to arouse, alarm, or offend another, or else recklessly does the same. Usually, when you wear drag, you have the intent to arouse both others and yourself, so keep that tendency to yourself. Let's call it what it is - transvestitism. It is okay to be a transvestite, but do it privately, where you can imagine your own audience. Don't go to a book club with a bunch of innocent children in such a defiled state. 

It is one thing if you simply have same-sex attractions, which a lot of people do. But, to act on them in a way that involves minor children is another story. If you do something like dress in drag where children congregate, that is a form of child sexual abuse. I am okay with men dressing in drag in the privacy of their own homes, when nobody is looking, with an imaginary audience. But, doing it in front of children is simply obscene and should not exist. I am all for the right of someone with same-sex sexual attractions to indulge in masturbatory fantasy, but anything that involves other people should be prohibited under the law.

This platform supports child protection legislation limiting or prohibiting access of minor children to drag shows. 

Gun control: Why gun control won't stop gun violence (and why banning punitive parenting will)

Many people these days support extreme measures of gun control. Usually, this involves looking to a gun control "utopia" and applying it to the American legal context. Most American leftists and liberals doubt the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is a reason why we don't interfere with that right. If we regulate guns too much, they will end up in the wrong hands. Gun violence does not stem from the existence and availability of firearms, but from childhood abuse that models violence to children.

According to GunPolicy.org, there are approximately 200,000,000 to 300,000,000 guns in America. There are around 300,000,000 people in America. Thus, you basically have a gun for every person in America, but with not everyone owning a gun. Thus, at least some of these guns are illegal guns. Do we really want to push more gun legislation in this kind of environment? Chances are, all these new gun laws will do is drive guns underground, leading to more guns getting into the wrong hands. New gun legislation that bans any class of firearm is not the answer, even if it is true that you don't need an AR-15 (I sure don't need one). All types of guns should be legal, but regulated in a way that someone who wants to buy a gun can get one easily the legal way, competing with the gun traffickers that smuggle guns into the country.

Gun violence, in terms of causation, is not rooted in the availability and existence of firearms in a given jurisdiction. Gun violence is rooted in the legality and social acceptability of punitive parenting measures, especially corporal punishment. In the United Kingdom, guns are pretty much banned, and are banned completely for personal protection. But, in the UK, corporal punishment and other punitive measures towards children are legal on a national level, and on a local level are only prohibited in Scotland and Wales. The social acceptability of punitive parenting is still high in the UK. Did gun violence go down? Sure, GUN violence is down, but violent crime is still the same in terms of rate. Most violent criminals use knives, with there being mass knifings in the UK, as well as knife fights. Violent crime hasn't gone away. It is just perpetrated using a different weapon, and one that is more difficult to defend onself against. Many trauma survivors in the UK want to be able to use guns in order to protect themselves against their abuser.

However, in neighboring Iceland, the same kind of gun laws apply, but with a ban on all punitive parenting. Violent crime is pretty much non-existent in Iceland. The only exception is sexual violence, and that is because of sexual repression in a society that stigmatizes male sexuality. Most other violent crime, including mass murders, are non-existent in Iceland. It is actually safe to walk the streets of Reykjavik at midnight, meaning you can expect not to get shot or mugged. This is because most adults were not modeled violent behavior in Iceland. 

In America, punitive parenting such as child punishment is already prohibited under the unwritten law of the land. See Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to damages or offenses, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, including, but not limited to, the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by a child, stemming from entitlement. This commandment was intended by the Apostle Paul, and understood in its original context, as a moral statute prohibiting all forms of punitive parenting, including any punishments or controlling demeanor towards children. In the Old Testament, puntiive parents were put to death by way of bloodletting, after punishing their children one last time. Parents who punished their children were charged with kidnapping, with "kidnapping" being defined under the Law as the slightest of damages or offenses stemming from hostage-taking - child punishment was seen then as holding your child hostage merely for things that they did wrong, thereby treating them as a quartered slave. Paul here was lifting up this legal context in order to convict a group of Greek Christian parents who brought their pagan custom of spanking and punishing their children into the church. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punishment of a child.

Gun control won't help us with gun violence in America. The answer is to ban the type of parenting that conditions children to grow up to be violent in the first place. Punitive parenting models the type of entitlement that leads to gun violence, because it models to children that it is okay to incur onto others and be violent with others. Violence begets violence, and usually, entitled adults who are violent with others learned it from somewhere.

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke children to anger will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death preprared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning lake of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Abortion: Why abortion is sin

North Carolina recently passed a "heartbeat" bill into law, only to get it struck down by the North Carolina, claiming a right to privacy that isn't in the North Carolina state constitution. Most people who support abortion support it as a form of privacy rights. The fact of the matter is that privacy rights do not exist in the United States.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment, judging by the language, is clearly talking about one specific event - when the police come to raid your house. This whole passage has to deal with police raids, meaning they must clearly have probable cause to search anything, and they must prove it in court. Thus, Roe v. Wade was a political decision.

Why is abortion immoral. It says in Exodus 20:13 KJV:

Thou shalt not kill.

This concept of murder is repeated in the New Testament by the Greek root word φονος (Latin: phonos) and refers to unlawful killing, meaning any killing whatsoever apart from individual self-defense and defense of others. This included, by Early Church teaching, killing in the womb. 

The Early Christian church prosecuted any man who impregnated a woman in an unplanned way that led to abortion. Usually, abortion only happened in the Early Church in a specific instance where the father forced his daughter to get an abortion to cover up child sexual abuse, meaning father-daughter incest. Otherwise, women who got abortions then were seen as cold and unfeeling, akin to witches. 

Women who are in touch with their primal nature as mothers, like mothers were then, do not get abortions. The driving excuse for abortions is the discomfort of an unplanned pregnancy. Most women in touch with their intuition and instincts don't feel that way about an unplanned pregnancy. They are just grateful to be able to have a baby, and they cherish that unplanned baby. Mothers in biblical times would dote over such a child hand and foot

Abortion is a rare procedure. Most women who are put in the position to choose end up putting up the baby for adoption, even if they call themselves pro-choice. Most women are pro-choice for other women, and state that they would never get an abortion themselves. This is because most women are following their instincts, and know intuitively that abortion is a forced miscarriage. You end up having the baby anyway, but it ends up dead. This is ultimately a trap for women. Abortion is bad for women, not just unborn babies. A lot of women agree with me quiet.

Abortion is murder, and murder is sin! 

The Second Amendment: Why banning guns is not the answer (banning punitive parenting is)

I am a Christian conservative, as well a children's rights advocate, of the Christian dominionist type. I am pro-gun, in an anti-gun stance, due to being a Christian pacifist who does not want to, under any circumstance, take a human life. I value human life, but think modern-day calls for gun control are downright dangerous.

Why are extreme forms of gun control dangerous? According to GunPolicy.org, a left-leaning website that shows the gun policy nation-by-nation, states that there are approximately 200,000,000 to 300,000,000 guns in the United States. If we severely restrict gun purchases, all of the guns will go underground, and then we cannot regulate them. It is good instead to keep guns legal so we can regulate them, and thus so they don't fall into the wrong hands.

What can we do about the recent spike in mass shootings? Let's look at two countries with strict gun laws, and see how their rates of violent crime in general are faring. These two countries are Iceland and the United Kingdom. 

In the United Kingdom, where guns are pretty much banned, there still are mass knifings, and also knife fights. The rate of violent crime has not gone down in the UK. A few years back, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, proposed a law regulating knives. The violent crime problem in the UK is pretty bad.

In Iceland, the fastest growing form of violent crime is sex crimes, with all other forms of violence dwindling in terms of number of offenses. Sexual offenses usually come from a sexually repressed mindset, usually in sexually repressed environments, and so we can set that aside as spurious data. All other forms of violence against the person is pretty much non-existent. 

Most violence, except for sexual violence, is caused by the perpetrator experiencing violence as a child, thereby continuing an intergenerational cycle of violence. In Iceland, corporal punishment was banned in 2003, and was socially unacceptable since the late 1970s. In the UK, there is no ban on corporal punishment on the national level, and only Scotland and Wales have a legal ban on all corporal punishment. Corporal punishment still happens on a widespread societal level throughout the UK. 

Thus, the answer to gun violence is to not be a violent country at all. This means banning all punitive parenting, including corporal punishment. God's Law already prohibits all forms of punitive parenting towards children. It says in Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to damages or offenses, namely the slightest of personal offense perceived by a child, including, but not limited to, the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by the child, stemming from entitlement. This commandment was intended by the Apostle Paul, and understood in its original context, as a moral statute prohibiting all forms of punitive parenting, including any punishments or controlling demeanor towards children. In the Old Testament, punitive parents were put to death by way of bloodletting, after punishing their children one last time. Parents who punished their children were charged with kidnapping, with "kidnapping" being defined under the Law as the slightest of damages or offenses stemming from hostage-taking - child punishment was seen in biblical times as holding your child hostage merely for things they did wrong, thereby treating your child as a quartered slave. Paul here was lifting up this legal context in order to convict a group of Greek Christian parents who brought their pagan custom of spanking and punishing children into the church. Paul, contrary to popular legend, was anti-spanking, and opposed any and all punishment of a child.

The Second Amendment is here to stay. The root causes of violent crime have nothing to do with the availability of guns. No person simply comes up with the idea to buy a gun and shoot up a group of people. Usually, a mass shooter has a grudge, and that grudge is rooted in childhood trauma. Also, we have way too many guns in this country to even try and ban them all. Gun control just doesn't work. Instead, we need to look at the root causes of violence, and that requires more brains than it does to ban guns. 

The depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger and raise a mass killer through punitive parenting will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Let them be forever cast into the lake of fire and burning sulfur, which is the second death prepared for Satan and his accomplices! Let them descend into the abyss which is the ever-burning Hell of fire and torment, suffering God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

The Second Amendment: Why banning punitive parenting is a good alternative to massive gun control legislation

Many people think that gun control will reduce incidents of gun violence in the United States. This is a common argument from those on the political left. I myself, as a child advocate, work alongside the left, but do not identify with the left as a children's rights advocate. I support the Constitution, including the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

There are about 300,000,000 guns in the United States, according to GunPolicy.org, with some estimates numbering more guns than people in the United States. Almost no other country has this unique problem, but where countries have passed gun control legislation while having a similar gun culture to the United States, guns simply went underground. 

In Russia, they have the same gun culture as the United States, but there, massive gun control measures were passed in 2016. Only then, guns went underground. That is likely what is going to happen in the United States if we pass massive gun control legislation.

What is the key to ending gun violence? What is the key to purging society of all violent attitudes? Banning all punishment of children, including corporal punishment, in the United States. In the United Kingdom, guns have been banned for a long time. However, violent crime still persists, in the form of knife fights or even mass stabbings. This is because the UK has not yet banned corporal punishment nationally, with only Scotland and Wales passing unpopular laws against punishing children physically or otherwise.

However, Iceland also passed massive gun control legislation, but also banned all corporal punishment of children in 2003. Dating back to the late 1970s-early 1980s, punitive parenting was long considered socially unacceptable in Iceland's history. There are actually years in Iceland where there are no murders, at all. The most common cause of violence in Iceland today is alcohol, meaning the rare murders that occur in Iceland are due to drunken brawls at bars or outside bars. Most violent crime has gone the wayside thanks to the fact that violence isn't being modeled in Icelandic parenting methods.

God's Law is above the law of the land, and thus punishment, including corporal punishment, is already banned in the United States. See Colossians 3:21 KJV:

Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

The Greek root word translated "provoke...to anger" is ερεθιζο (Latin: erethizo) and refers to damages or abuse, including child abuse in this context. Child abuse, as defined under biblical law, at minimum, is the slightest of personal offense perceived by the child, including, but not limited to, the slightest of offensive touch or speech perceived by the child, coming from entitlement. This commandment was intended by the Apostle Paul, and was understood in the context it was given to, as prohibiting all punitive parenting, including any punishment or control in parenting. Patrias potestas translates to "power to the father" or else "power to the parent", and refers to a Greco-Roman legal defense that allowed for fathers to police their homes as they saw fit. No analogous law existed under Jewish law, including Christian ordinance. Punitive parents, in the Old Testament, were put to death by bloodletting for kidnapping, with kidnapping being defined as any damages that resulted from hostage taking - punishing your child was likened by the Law to taking your child hostage over something they did wrong. The false and abusive teaching of "biblical spanking" does not come from the Bible, but from the Roman Catholic Church absorbing Greco-Roman parenting values, and using them to pander to European cultures that beat and whipped their children into submission as a means to keep them down. The original Law had no concept of parents punishing children except with adult children, and only after a conviction in a criminal court of law.

The evidence is clear that gun control legislation does not work, and simply drives the problem underground. What will work is strong anti-spanking legislation that both bans corporal punishment and criminalizes it. Until then, we will repeat this cycle of mass shooting after mass shooting, and then we will devolve to mass stabbings once we ban guns - and then we'll consider regulating knives. Gun control laws are reactionary laws that ultimately are a slippery slope to banning everything that could kill someone. Why not just ban beach water or swimming pools while we are at it, as a person can drown in 3 feet of water? We can't ban all ways of committing a murder. We can ban the parenting that leads to a murderer being raised, however. Then, we can have our cake and eat it too - we will have a generation of gun owners raised without violence being modeled to them, thus the most responsible generation of gun owners ever. And, we would need no massive gun ban to make gun owners more responsible. 

Let the depraved and entitled parents who provoke their children to anger and discourage them BURN in everlasting Hell and torment, suffering God's Wrath forever and ever! Repent! 

Roe v. Wade overturned: Why abortion is sin

Roe v. Wade has been overturned. This marks a new chapter in the history of abortions in the United States. Most people who are pro-choice think that the Bible allows for abortions, if they identify as progressive Christians - they say that the Roman Catholic Church made up the ban on abortion to "control women's bodies". I can think of a whole bunch of feminist arguments against abortion being legal - and the Bible supports those arguments.

Exodus 20:13 KJV states:

Thou shalt not kill.

The Greek root word denoting murder in the New Testament is ψονος (Latin: phonos). Abortion has existed in ancient societies since the beginning of time, usually as an herbal "remedy" for ending pregnancies that the mother could not afford to come to term. The Early Church took a higher moral stand than the Ancient Israelites in the Old Testament, and deemed a man putting a woman in a position where she had to choose a murderer by way of triangulation. It was seen by the church community as an evil act where the man pit a woman against her own child, usually due to fleshly moral crimes such as rape and fornication. Thus, abortion is murder, if you go by the New Testament.

Abortion is bad for women. It takes responsibility away from men. How many politicians covering up their affairs with forcing their mistresses to have an abortion do we need to learn that abortion is bad for women? It usually isn't even her choice, but is something she is pressured into having, because a man won't man up and take up the responsibility of being a father. So, a woman gets an abortion because she was raped? Who should be punished there, the unborn baby or the rapist? I say punish the rapist instead, and take measures to prevent rape from occurring. 

Now, there is a problem with Roe v. Wade being overturned, but it is a minor one - the WOMAN would be charged, at least to some degree. I oppose that, but at the same time, we need to take what we can get. This Supreme Court decision sends a strong message that abortion is wrong. It just blames the wrong person, but it is a step in the right direction.

Ultimately, my ideal anti-abortion law would blame ME if I got a young girl dangerously pregnant. I myself am a pedophile, and would deserve to be called a murderer if I got, say, an 11-year-old girl pregnant where giving birth could end her life - making abortion medically necessary. Then, lock me up for life if I ever do anything like that.

Let the murderers who steal a child away from a mother through triangulation BURN in everlasting Hell and torrents! Repent!

What is the children's rights agenda?

What is our agenda here at children's rights? Many people do not support us because they haven't gotten the memo about what we really want as advocates - which is to include children in the national discourse, namely though child self-advocacy.

Children advocate for their own needs from day one. They cry when they want something, and they whine as an older child when they want something. It is in the nature of children to self-advocate for themselves, and so we should listen to the voices and opinions of children as a society.

I myself am a survivor of childhood. When I was a child, nobody cared about my opinion, and people dismissed or even censored my opinion. If a child has too much of an opinion, they are punished for it.

Children are meant to be listened to, not preached to - and that is our agenda in one simple phrase. 

The way to get there is to judge all parental entitlement towards children, meaning any want from or of children to the point of imposition. Entitled parents and adults will be judged. Then, the law will follow a gradual change in public opinion. Things are improving for children, but it will take a long time for children to have true justice for the atrocities imposed upon them, which constitutes a national emergency. It is urgent that we make aware the harm of corporal punishment and other forms of punitive parenting. Only then will children have a voice of their own.

Children have a voice when in my vicinity or care. I let children have a will or opinion of their own, and I let them boss me around, and then I am subordinate to children and their every vulnerable need, struck with reverent fear. My relationship with children, thus, is clear and transparent, and they feel free to call me out on things that make them uncomfortable. If every adult was like me, we'd be at full child acceptance in no time, and children would have a platform to be self-advocates more than they do today. A child owes me nothing, as I am entitled to nothing from a child, and grateful for all the respect and trust I get from them, expecting nothing more.

Children's rights and patriarchy: The source of the movement hatred of pedophiles

Many people think that trauma survivors hate pedophiles, period. This is a common form of help entitlement held by outsiders towards children's rights survivors, usually alongside the belief that survivors alone cannot defend themselves from their own abuser. The fact of the matter is that a specific type of survivor hates pedophiles - men, meaning the type on watch in a children's rights movement. 

Patriarchal men hate pedophiles and women in a triangulating way. The way it works is that a children's rights movement usually starts out being attacked by antisocial pedophiles, usually with gaslighting leaflets abound. Usually, survivors announce that they want a pedophile, but just the right kind that will get along with the survivors and be dedicated to serving the children they love. 

But, as time goes on, men infiltrate and misrepresent the identity of the individuals with more classic pedophilia, which is associated with autism and not narcissism. These men are usually politically on the right, but in a nihilistic way where they can spin their ideology to woo survivors and then deceive them into thinking their friend is actually their enemy, when their proposed enemy is actually their friend.

Pedophile inclusion is necessary for a successful children's rights movement. This is because a pedophile, in the modern day, portrays an anti-spanking trauma in a shocking way in terms of brute candor, meaning among any group of people today, the pedophiles of the world are more likely to be vocal about their anti-spanking trauma. I myself am a pedophile, and I also identify in this very context as an anti-spanking survivor. 

The children's rights movement has her pedophile allied with her. We are now going to move on from pedophiles, and focus on parents and other adults, knowing that all adults are guilty for orchestrating the child abuse epidemic, not simply a few adults because of what diagnosis/self-diagnosis that they have. Pedophilia is going to be accepted as a sexual orientation, but the act of child sexual abuse will never be acceptable, in any time period. Most children's rights societies also accept pedophiles, meaning see it as a valid mental illness that an individual struggles with. Pedophiles are accepted on the same level as children, and so accepting a pedophile might help you accept your child. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, but the pathological kind due to where it is pointed. 

Before 2012 and the advent of the Virtuous Pedophiles support community, there was very little mental health services for pedophiles, and the only services that existed in the United States existed in a forensic setting such as a prison, meaning pedophiles who wanted mental health supports and services had to commit a sex crime against a child in order to enroll in services. Now, there are many prevention projects and other services for pedophiles within the borders of the United States alone, and more and more professionals are being trained by organizations such as the Association for Sexual Abuse Prevention (ASAP) and the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). Now, the support bubble for VirPed has reached the children's rights community in the United States. I organized much of that support, by the way, meaning my presence in this movement helps children's rights advocates from around the world understand pedophilia as a developmental condition. Trauma survivors want you, the reader, to know that pedophiles are not really their enemy - abusers are, period. A pedophile can be a victim of abuse, and children with the disorder can be targeted by sexual predators for their pedophilia.

Patriarchy doesn't exist universally anymore. You'd have to be a leftist to believe that, and I'm not one. Most American women have it good compared to countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, though things aren't perfect - some jobs don't offer maternity leave like in other countries, so poorer women still have a burden to carry. Patriarchy exists today pretty much only in children's rights circles, where gangs of men herd women survivors like cattle, and claim to be "of help" in a way that acts as a middleman for any children's rights information. We know clearly of that patriarchal force, and call it pro-spank. What isn't known much among adults is that pro-spank is even better at organizing against children, period, meaning no matter where a child goes, he/she has to answer to adult authority, whereas that authority exists nowhere in our founding documents as a country. Women who identify by their trauma get a taste of how children have been treated since time immemorial, lined up against in military fashion. Other women are well-off, including survivors not associated with children's rights, and refuse to even believe children's rights survivors about their ordeal with the pro-spankers.

Let the depraved and entitled pro-spankers BURN in everlasting torment! Repent!