Some of the depths that those in the so-called trans community stoop to in order to imitate the opposite sex can shock and horrify us individually, but there's more to it than that. It's a reduction of the human dignity of those that are being imitated.
Thanks for exposing the depravity of the trans culture. Recently I was taken aback by an article that asserted that only recently have Christians been concerned about abortion. Perhaps that's because only relatively recently have elective abortions been pushed as normative behavior. Here is some important background: The Classic Hippocratic Oath (circa 400 BC) required doctors to swear, "Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child." That oath protected the unborn until 1964 when Dr. Louis Lasagna (Tufts University) rewrote it removing the abortion clause and inserting in it place, "But it may also be within my power to take a life." Whenever we see this text in a doctor's office, we should inform the doctor that it should be called the "Lasagna Oath." Bit by bit our values are being eroded. Keep up the good fight.
Thank you for looking down the rabbit hole and reporting back to us. Perhaps you'll take a peek at Boston Hospital's hysterectomy program for young girls, next? That rabbit hole is going mainstream right before our very eyes.
So good Sarah. I love your thoughts on having compassion for the suffering and toils of others, but intolerance for their acts of perversion. Also great is your clarification of who the real victims are in this charade.
An ongoing attempt to eliminate their Creator God and put themselves on the throne. But in the background is satan who they are knowingly or unknowingly serving. They will inevitably serve God or serve satan.
As always Sarah hit the nail on the head and this is the agenda Governments across the world should employ, normal MORAL values that have served us well in the past.
Good job, Sarah. The only thing I can think of that can halfway rationalize this nonsense is the ultimate goal to replace natural sexual reproduction with artificial reproduction; the kind of dystopian reality about which Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World. We do not possess the technology to do this yet, but the research is underway. Some researchers claim that we are ten years away from producing an artificial womb that will assist in the treatment of human fetuses who are in serious jeopardy in their mothers' wombs. But the research will not stop there. In fact, in a recent article, The Guardian seriously asks, "Will out of body gestation ever replace the experience of human birth?" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/27/parents-can-look-foetus-real-time-artificial-wombs-future.
At first glance, this may seem absurd. But it cannot be doubted that public polices and social attitudes that are currently erasing women, substituting "birthing persons" for "mothers" and "chest feeding" for "breast feeding," seem directed toward eliminating any connection between women and the bearing of children, which has been the irreducible biological characteristic that has been recognized--since the dawn of the human race--as the primary physical distinction between women and men. Even in the face of this scientific biological fact, nonetheless, people claim that they are non-binary. They affirm that their genotypes and corresponding phenotypes are somehow irrelevant to their feelings and emotional choices. In fact, they claim that their choices should be normalized, not their genetic makeup. Despite this, at least at the moment, the next generation depends upon the binary heterosexual sharing of genes. Without this heterosexual sharing, the next generation will simply not be possible. For some reason, when the LGBTQ+ activists talk about normalizing their choices, they never want to talk about this.
So, unless some foresee--and are taking practical steps toward--a future in which childbearing can be mechanized and genetic mixing strictly controlled artificially to produce human characteristics on the assembly line, it is difficult to understand why women are being erased in this way. It is disrespectful. But if sex can be separated from the birth of, care for, and education of children, then the creation of a family becomes irrelevant to a couples' pair bonding. Pleasure becomes its only purpose, and nothing beyond that. Moreover, if children become irrelevant to the sexual act, then so do the sexes of the coupling partners. In fact, potential partners can mix and identify in any way that they wish as long as they have no intention to procreate. After all, procreation would be the province of some state managed bureau. Perhaps Aldous Huxley saw the secular vision with more clarity than we realized last century.
Thanks for exposing the depravity of the trans culture. Recently I was taken aback by an article that asserted that only recently have Christians been concerned about abortion. Perhaps that's because only relatively recently have elective abortions been pushed as normative behavior. Here is some important background: The Classic Hippocratic Oath (circa 400 BC) required doctors to swear, "Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child." That oath protected the unborn until 1964 when Dr. Louis Lasagna (Tufts University) rewrote it removing the abortion clause and inserting in it place, "But it may also be within my power to take a life." Whenever we see this text in a doctor's office, we should inform the doctor that it should be called the "Lasagna Oath." Bit by bit our values are being eroded. Keep up the good fight.
Thank you for looking down the rabbit hole and reporting back to us. Perhaps you'll take a peek at Boston Hospital's hysterectomy program for young girls, next? That rabbit hole is going mainstream right before our very eyes.
So good Sarah. I love your thoughts on having compassion for the suffering and toils of others, but intolerance for their acts of perversion. Also great is your clarification of who the real victims are in this charade.
Amen!
Excellent analysis, superbly written.
Very sound article!
An ongoing attempt to eliminate their Creator God and put themselves on the throne. But in the background is satan who they are knowingly or unknowingly serving. They will inevitably serve God or serve satan.
Right you are Sarah. Ever so eloquent!
Excellent article; very well written and expressed. Best wishes from the UK.
As always Sarah hit the nail on the head and this is the agenda Governments across the world should employ, normal MORAL values that have served us well in the past.
Good job, Sarah. The only thing I can think of that can halfway rationalize this nonsense is the ultimate goal to replace natural sexual reproduction with artificial reproduction; the kind of dystopian reality about which Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World. We do not possess the technology to do this yet, but the research is underway. Some researchers claim that we are ten years away from producing an artificial womb that will assist in the treatment of human fetuses who are in serious jeopardy in their mothers' wombs. But the research will not stop there. In fact, in a recent article, The Guardian seriously asks, "Will out of body gestation ever replace the experience of human birth?" https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jun/27/parents-can-look-foetus-real-time-artificial-wombs-future.
At first glance, this may seem absurd. But it cannot be doubted that public polices and social attitudes that are currently erasing women, substituting "birthing persons" for "mothers" and "chest feeding" for "breast feeding," seem directed toward eliminating any connection between women and the bearing of children, which has been the irreducible biological characteristic that has been recognized--since the dawn of the human race--as the primary physical distinction between women and men. Even in the face of this scientific biological fact, nonetheless, people claim that they are non-binary. They affirm that their genotypes and corresponding phenotypes are somehow irrelevant to their feelings and emotional choices. In fact, they claim that their choices should be normalized, not their genetic makeup. Despite this, at least at the moment, the next generation depends upon the binary heterosexual sharing of genes. Without this heterosexual sharing, the next generation will simply not be possible. For some reason, when the LGBTQ+ activists talk about normalizing their choices, they never want to talk about this.
So, unless some foresee--and are taking practical steps toward--a future in which childbearing can be mechanized and genetic mixing strictly controlled artificially to produce human characteristics on the assembly line, it is difficult to understand why women are being erased in this way. It is disrespectful. But if sex can be separated from the birth of, care for, and education of children, then the creation of a family becomes irrelevant to a couples' pair bonding. Pleasure becomes its only purpose, and nothing beyond that. Moreover, if children become irrelevant to the sexual act, then so do the sexes of the coupling partners. In fact, potential partners can mix and identify in any way that they wish as long as they have no intention to procreate. After all, procreation would be the province of some state managed bureau. Perhaps Aldous Huxley saw the secular vision with more clarity than we realized last century.