Thursday, March 14, 2024

The End Stage Of France?

 You probably already heard about it, too? 

Monday's vote by the two houses of the French parliament enshrined in Article 34 of the French constitution that "the law determines the conditions in which a woman has the guaranteed freedom to have recourse to an abortion".

Abortion rights are more widely accepted in France than in the United States and many other countries, with polls showing around 80% of French people back the fact that abortion is legal.

Before WWII there was death penalty for abortion in France. 

It's not enough for Macron, though. Every knee should bow:

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday that he wants the European Union to guarantee the right to an abortion in its Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Those are the Western values I keep hearing about so often right? Which make us so superior? You know what they also make us? Extinct.

"We're going to lead this fight in our continent, in our Europe, where reactionary forces are attacking women's rights before attacking the rights of minorities," he told the crowd attending the ceremony in Paris, in front of the Justice Ministry.

Last time I was in Paris, 13 years ago it hardly looked like a European city at all. Something tells me the situation isn't getting any better, because, minorities Mr Macron so cares about, don't use this fundamental right, unlike silly ethnic French women. 

At this point I'm past caring anyway. If the people collectively decide to eradicate themselves to please women and give space to foreigners, so be it. This is just terminal. I simply object of them forcing it on others.


  1. I stopped caring when I heard that in my country, over 50 % of the aborts done by "social reasons" (e.g. comfort aborts for lazy women who have never heard of contraception) are done to WOMEN WHO ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN. They can even be in a happy relationship, they just feel that "Well, I love Mary on Joseph, but I just wont love this Douglas, so better just kill him".

    I can understand some scared teenager girl wanting an abortion. But a MOTHER? Who has actually felt her baby moving under her heart? Who KNOWS by that same heart, that it is a living being, not a clumps of cells?

    An concidering how may contraceptive options there are today... How it is even possible to get pregnant if you do not want to? Pregnancies started by rape are practically non-existent.

    It seems our society is willing to do anything that women do not need to face the concequences of their actions.

    1. Blanka, to answer your question how it is even possible... I guess it has something to do with eggs and sperm as usual. I have a child that wanted to be born despite of the preventative means used. My sister has one like that as well (different kind of contraception). I know someone who had her period all the way through pregnancy, which made it quite difficult for her to believe, until it was obvious. I know someone who had a miscarriage, had a scraping, and found out next month that she was pregnant as if she never had a miscarriage. Real life is full of strange and miraculous stories like these.

  2. I must apologize, I can't comment on this article. Oh I want too, I so want too. However three tries in and every single "comment" immediately turns into a multi page rage filled rant against these satanists and murderers.

    So I'll try to be as brief as possible to avoid as much of the rage as I can.

    This is institutionalized murder. Macron, his cabinet, and anyone in the government of France who did not vote against this are guilty of institutionalizing murder. At the very best they should be considered traitors to the French as a people, and the nation as a whole.

    There is no situation that calls for abortion. No matter how many straw-men these satanists prop up in their quest to spill more innocent blood. I don't care if the child is conceived of rape, or of incestial-rape, the child is innocent. Hang the rapist, but the child should be born and sent to a orphanage if nowhere else.

    Quite frankly the closer we get to the Rapture and the Great Tribulation the more I understand why the Lord will pour out his wrath upon the world. - W

  3. Blanka, what I noticed is that many modern women don't really like their own kids. They'll get one or two because everybody does and then can't wait till they can pass them off to a daycare or a sitter. They don't want to breastfeed. A cat would be a better mother...

  4. W., methinks that's exactly the attitude which brought us these problems in the 1st place, the fact that too many Christians expect to be raptured out of this mess. Rapture is not a traditional Christian belief, btw. How about stand and fight for what is right? (figuratively speaking, in Minecraft etc)

  5. About contraception. Apparently, pull out method is safer than condoms, and is comparable to artificial anti-conception, and yet we keep hearing how "irresponsible" it is to use it while they prescribe synthetic hormones to the young girls of 15 (who shouldn't be having random s8x at all at this age) and iud to older women which both methods have plenty of side effects.

    1. I say random because theoretically a girl of 15 could be married, though obviously not in the West. The age of consent here is 16 btw.

    2. You know, up until recently I didn't really think too much about the age of marriage and age of consent being pushed higher and higher. Now though after everything that is being exposed. I'm starting to wonder if at least some of the drive to push marriage to 30s and consent to 20 isn't deliberate. Hear me out for a second if you would.

      Despite the fear mongering, the best time for a woman to have children is 16-25, probably its closer to 14/15-25. It is easier for birth, as she is young, she has plenty of energy to keep up with the children, and there is plenty of time to expand the family if so desired. Compare this to what is pushed today. Women are told they can wait till their 30s/40s to have children. Except that once she reaches 30/32 the risk of problems starts skyrocketing. Once she gets past 35, its extremely difficult to have children, and again the risks to both mother and child go way up. If you wait till your 30s, you will most likely only have a single child, as it will become to hard to conceive, and you don't have the energy you had in your teens/twenties.

      Then there is the auxiliary things being pushed. You can freeze your eggs, and have it all. Boss babe, and mother at 40. Except that there is a 10% chance each time, and it costs thousands each time its attempted. The 40 is the new 20. Except you don't have the energy and drive you had then.

      I didn't really think about it before recently, but why is there such a huge push, not just here, but everywhere. To try to drive the ages up. Why is there such vivid hatred for people who want to get married young. It makes no sense by itself, but if considered part of an agenda it starts making more sense. - W

  6. This is an interesting topic. I know that here you could get married at 15 with parental consent (usually if the girl was pregnant), and I heard about one such case. They keep changing these laws so I'm not sure where we stand now.

    Women obviously are more fertile as they are young. However, even in the past not every girl married at 16. For instance, Charles Darwin's wife married him at 30 and they went on to have 10 children together, she got the last one at about 48.

    I think modern women are in general less fertile due to the fact that they are taught to live and behave as men. Sports, career, lots of stress, s8x with random strangers, artificial contraception, smoking and getting drunk, recreational drugs, it all takes a tremendous toll on their fertility.

    As for age of consent, especially in the USA where it's generally higher (18) it's the only way for parents nowadays to control their daughters' sexuality and to protect their sons if you know what I mean. It doesn't refer to marriage any more, but rather to the age when they are allowed to go out and bang random people if they wish to.

    In the times past the age of consent in Europe was quite low, in Rome girls married around 12, by Vikings 14-19, in medieval Europe they practiced child marriages, though they usually waited to consummate. But if you meddled with some guy's daughter outside this context, he could very well kill you.

    But even now you can still marry at 16 and at 18 in most places in the world, and yet nobody in the West is doing it.

    1. True..... well kind of .... While technically you can still marry at 16, I think its called Romeo and Juliet laws, its not really seen as an option. Same for 18. What I mean by this is that parents, media, politicians, companies, etc. All of these push to wait later and later for marriage. I don't think your point here,

      "As for age of consent, especially in the USA where it's generally higher (18) it's the only way for parents nowadays to control their daughters' sexuality and to protect their sons if you know what I mean. It doesn't refer to marriage any more, but rather to the age when they are allowed to go out and bang random people if they wish to."

      Really applies; if this was the case we would see both premarital sex, as well as "underage" sex getting hammered heavily from all directions. Except we don't. At best you have girls who are getting pregnant when they should be, 16-20 being ridiculed and people trying to convince them to kill their kids. It would appear society doesn't have a problem with teens having sex, just getting married or having kids.

      Parents I don't think are the problem other than pushing what was pushed on them. They want the best for their kids even if they themselves were taught wrong.
      Churches which should be much more involved in raising kids, and in the community in general. Generally seem to be pastored by men who have the right intentions, but are also bought into the marry later bit. Rather than the Lord telling us to go forth and be fruitful, which is really hard if you wait till your mid to late 30s. Also the wife of your youth, not the wife of your midyears. Kind of telling really.
      Then there are the Media, the Government, and the Companies. All of which do the bidding of those who pay the most. It is in none of their interests for women to be married, have lots of kids, and be happy. If women were married with kids and happy, why would they be reading the media about how to find a husband in your 30s. If they were already married, why would then need to constantly buy the newest and best makeup to try to find a man. Or have a high paying job to afford to live on their own, instead of living together with their husbands, saving on expenses? If these women were happy, and busy in the house with kids, who would vote to give more power to the government?

      Please note, I doubt there was some evil group rubbing them hands cackling saying we've got them now. However I do think there was a lot of powerful groups who are highly incentivized to keep women single and childless as long as possible. - W

  7. Anon, but they do hammer underage sex, hence the statutory rape laws. Well, at least, some people do. I agree that late marriage lowers TFR, but I am not sure whether this is the main reason behind it.

    You see, there is a difference between Americans and the rest of the world, even Europe. In many countries it is or was normal for older men to marry younger women. I'm not talking here about 20 years difference but 10 years used to be nothing special. In fact, I just finished reading a British 1950s novel where the man is 32 and his love interest is 17. They do marry in the end.

    The reason behind such arrangements is quite pragmatic. A girl of 17-18 is in her prime physically and capable of producing healthy offspring, while a man of 18 is hardly capable of earning an income/supporting his family. Also girls at this age tend to be young and innocent, and there is more chance they will be virgins. An older, more experienced man naturally will take a dominant position in such a marriage.

    Feminists HATE all these things. They keep attacking perfectly legal relationships between women in their early 20s and older men as "pedophilia". They think it disgusting that men like youth and beauty. Have you not noticed how they keep scolding men for having sexual preferences for attractive women?

    That said, I'm not sure early marriage for women is desirable in the age of easy divorce as statistics show the girls who marry young also divorce more, simply because they have more options. You can't change all these things without changing divorce laws and punishing adultery first.
    And btw, you can throw stones at me, but a man visiting wh8res is not adultery (though it's obviously not ideal). The Bible defines adultery as married woman having relationship with another man. Married man having a relationship with unmarried woman is fornication, which is a less serious offence.

    1. Of course its quite pragmatic for there to be an age difference. I mean it's practically baked into us as a species. Men desire young, fit, fertile, virgins. Quite frankly if most of us were honest we would say we would prefer to marry a girl that was in her teens. Likewise women have never been shy about their desire to marry older men. That's not even taken the financial situation into consideration.

      What I was pointing out, is that there seems to be a drive to push the age of marriage up and up. The results of which are doing damage to family formations.

      Likewise, while it might be different in Europe, what I am seeing in America is this. Politicians talk about how bad teen pregnancy is. (Which is ironic because that is precisely when girls should be having kids, as can be seen by the fact that is their most fertile years.) So we get a lot of people and media talking heads saying how bad this is. They then push abortion. They push new laws to stop underage sex. They keep pushing for more women to go to college for even longer, for getting a carrier, for living the YOLO life.

      My point is that it's odd how .... organized isn't the right word, maybe how all this is going in a single direction. Any voice of descent is immediately shamed and shut down. Even as I am writing this, I'm thinking how utterly unnatural the way this is going is. When something is organic, there is back and forth, no true unity even in the same party. However when it comes to marriage age and for women to waste their years of fertility, it seems to be extremely unified, no matter if its political talking heads, news media, magazines, or teachers in school. It's just odd.

      To your last point, I don't think it is just early marriage that has a problem with divorce, it is marriage at any age that is currently rife with divorce and other issues. That needs to be fixed, before anything else can. But everything I've seen says a lot of men after the last 60 years of this are at the point of just not caring anymore, and that is extremely dangerous.

      I'm not sure why your last point was there. They both seems like sin to me, the fornication and the adultery. As far as I know sin is sin and without salvation any of it will condemn you to hell. - W

  8. Of course, all the politicians are united on this issue, as both parties support feminism. You need the third party, or dare I say the third way;)

    Considering early marriage and divorce, there has been some research which shows that women with at least college education divorce less that women with only a high school diploma. There are speculations that it's because they're older and know they have less options in finding a new husband.

    It could also be a class problem since college/university education is a class marker and lower class families are simply more dysfunctional. Also, many men of higher social position simply won't look at a woman without higher education as a marriage prospect.

    Concerning my last point, of course, both are mortal sins, however, adultery has always been treated more severely. For instance, in UK in the past infidelity committed by the wife was grounds for divorce while the husband keeping mistresses wasn't, he had to do something else besides, like cruel treatment, refusing to support her etc.

    Also, in many countries the law even allowed honour killings for adultery as I've written before (yes, I'm speaking about Europe/USA) so the distinction is important.