Friday, November 13, 2009

If George Bush was an idiot..

Note: This was taken from an email that has been passed around. Author Unknown.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?

Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

In the new series "V", it i said that the most dangerous weapon that the enemy possesses is devotion. Devotion of the people can be a great thing if the object of devotion is trustworthy and unwavering like God is but when you have devotion to a man you tend to give him a pass for questionable actions. This is just further proof that of George Bush and Obama, it is the man who is admired or condemned, not his actions.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Pro-Choice Arguments - Foster Care

While there are variations, the general argument is that if the millions of unwanted unborn were to be born anyways, they would only find themselves in an already over-populated foster care system, and that we should be spending our time advocating for adoptions out of the foster care system before spending time fighting to save the lives of the unborn.

The truth is that according to foster care statistics found at, the average age of children entering foster care is 10 years old. These are not newborns who are sent directly to foster care. Carrying an unwanted child to term would not automatically result in a swelling of our foster care system. Most adoptions take place directly at birth by parents who have spent time on a waiting list with their adoption agency. There is simply no direct correlation between not having an abortion and a rise in foster care. Of the 50,000 newborns annually that are put up for adoption, every single one is immediately placed with a family. There are currently 2 million prospective adoptive parents on waiting lists. There are not enough newborns to meet the demand of potential parents waiting for direct adoptions so many have turned to the foster care system, thankfully. However there are slim pickings within the system too.

At any given time there are about 500,000 kids in foster care. On the average 300,000 enter foster care per year and 290,000 exit the system. Over half are returned to their original families. 15% live with relatives. 10% are emancipated. Only 17% are even available for adoption. Most kids exit foster care within a year of entering it. Less than 10% stay longer than 5 years. For a foster kid to become eligible for adoption the birth parents must first lose their parental rights. Then there is a mandated waiting period if it was voluntary. The whole process takes an average of 3.5 years. With the average age of entering foster care being 10, and a waiting period of 3-4 years for adoption, it is easy to see why many end up being emancipated instead. The low number of foster care adoptions is not due to a lack of demand, it is due to the very long process of making children available for adoption. Nevertheless, there are many eager adoptive parents waiting for children to become available to adopt. While I am not happy with the extended time spent within the foster care system for the child, I am glad it is a difficult thing to lose your parental rights.

A pro-choicer might suggest that the unborn are better off dead than to be born into the foster care system.

These are children who were wanted but taken from bad parents or by over zealous CPS workers. Not one child in foster care today could be said to prefer death to their current existence as evidenced by the fact that they are still alive. Suicides do happen but they are rare and, most importantly, it is the child's CHOICE to take their life, not the mother's.

So what about orphanages? If they don't end up in foster care then surely the orphanages Will swell with over population.

At the 1955 conference on induced abortion held by Planned Parenthood, one expert recalled that "Dr. Donnelly brought out that there are a great many originally unwanted children in this world who have become very deeply wanted after birth, and I don't think this is simply reaction formation. There are women who do not realize how gratifying it can be to mother a baby until they actually have it in their arms, and maternal feelings are aroused by the tangible situation." - Dr. Joseph Lidz, quoted by Mary Calderone, M.D., Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (editor). Abortion in the United States. New York: Paul B. Hoeber, Inc., 1956. Page 127.

This was from a planned parenthood conference that took place in 1955 when abortions were illegal. The panel included such notables as Alan Guttmacher, Alfred Kinsey, Robert Laidlaw, Mary Calderone, and many others. Planned Parenthood advocates themselves recognized the strength of the maternal instinct. Parenthood produces an amazing transformation on new parents. It was also noted at the same conference that many women who sought out an abortion would change their mind after a month if they had not yet secured the abortion. Having a surprise unintended pregnancy is a huge shock especially for the young who have other plans in life. They go through the 5 stages of grief. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Abortion becomes the easy answer to the first 4 stages. Once the woman reaches the stage of acceptance, she embraces her baby and the idea of becoming a mother. I suspect there may be a chemical reaction associated with pregnancy that helps the mother bond to her child but I am not aware of any studies to that end.

There is a pro-choice philosophy that says it is damaging to both woman and child to give your child up for adoption. Typical of this anti-life attitude is a statement in a booklet amusingly entitled "Let's Tell the Truth About Abortion." This booklet, issued by Planned Parenthood to its clients in Colorado, states; "But aren't there alternatives to abortion? Yes, there are. A pregnant women can carry the baby to term and she can then keep it or relinquish the baby for adoption. Relinquishment is often not a very humane procedure." - Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. Fight Back Press, 1985.

Not a humane procedure? Yet in their twisted thinking, burning the baby alive with a saline solution and then sucking it's body apart piece by piece is somehow more humane. They say that it is damaging to the woman to give up her child for fear of not ever having full assurance that their child is being well taken care of. I have two thoughts here; First, the worst case scenario that could happen to that child is a torturous death, something they seek to avoid by giving the child a tortuous death within the womb instead O_o Second, couples who seek adoption have a vigorous application process that tests for home life, finances, secure housing, etc., 60% of children who are adopted out come from single parent, low income situations and move to couples with a higher median income level. An adopted child's foundation for success is very strong.

Banning abortion will not swamp foster care or even adoption agencies. It will cause only a small increase in population as it will cause most people to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place by either making the decision not to engage in sex, or by using protection. Abortion on demand has paved the way to lazy atitudes regarding procreation and a ban on killing the unborn will likely reverse that attitude.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Impossible pro-life questions - The burning house

From time to time I get the "impossible" question designed to trip up the core argument of any pro-lifer thereby rendering his arguments powerless and securing abortion for women for centuries to come, muwahahahahaha!!!!...ahem, sorry.

One such example is the burning house question. It goes something like this; You are passing by a house that is on fire. You know that there is one young child passed out on the floor and in another part of the house are 100 frozen embryos waiting to be implanted. You only have time to save one or the other. Who do you choose to save?

The intention of the question is to get the prolifer to admit that either the embryo is not really as valuable as the born child, or you care nothing about born children in your zeal to protect the unborn at any cost.

On the surface it sure seems like a good "gotcha" question, but I have found that my answer fails to really satisfy the asker. My answer to this is always "It Depends". I am often accused at this point of trying to evade an answer, or trying to change the question, or even at one point I was accused of trying to argue in the hypothetical by questioning the question. (as though the question isn't already in the hypothetical).

So what does it depend on? I'm so glad you asked because few pro-choicers ever let me explain. The question does not provide enough information, as is, to give a definite answer. First let me say that I am not a fan of the IVF industry because of the practice of creating more embryos than are intended on being used. I know the process is costly and the idea is to create a surplus with the expectation that only a few will survive. In my mind this is another example of playing with life and death for financial reasons and that isn't a very large gap from abortion itself. I sympathize with couples who want to have their own child. I don't even need to point out the obvious availability of adoption. But If IVF is going to be attempted then I would have to insist that it is done on a one-at-a-time basis. You simply don't create life and then discard it whether it is in a womb or a petrie dish.

That having been said, when rescuers are sent into situations like this, they have to make life and death determinations. They do that by deciding quickly who has the best chance of survival. That viability is a very shifting sand. Many things come into play with this. How close is the EMT to one victim over the other? How badly injured are both parties? Can one be expected to recover from their injuries better than the other? I feel for anyone who finds themselves having to make that decision.

In this scenario, I would have to ask myself which group was more viable at the time I showed up. I am not trained in cryogenics at all so I would have no idea if the equipment was even still working and if there were any living embryos still inside. Even if I could know that, I would have to know that the embryos had a likely chance of survival outside of the building. Can cryogenics be mobiley supported? Even if I knew that the answer was yes so far, would I know that these embryos were dedicated to a couple? or were they already designated for destruction?

There are many factors involved in this question. Assuming that all things are equal and both the child and the cryogenic container full of embryos had equal chance of survival, I would have to save the 100 lives over the other single lost life. This is of course not realistic as all things would not be equal in my case. Why are there cryogenics in the house anyways? and where are the child's parents? Ah so much for hypothetical.

While I'm at it though let me ask a question of my own. If the unborn are indeed only potential life (despite all scientific evidence otherwise) then we should be able to equate that to other unborn life as being only potential and not actual. Therefore why can I not make my morning omelettes out of eagle eggs? Why do we protect their unhatched while we let our unborn die? If there is no eagle inside the egg but only a potential eagle then the egg should be as available as a chicken egg. Are eagle eggs even tasty?

More on healthcare

Ok, so taxes are indeed higher in France with their healthcare system. What about the cost comparison between the average premium payment for a family of four and the proposed added tax on a family of four? Considering the bulk buying power that could come from a large customer base such as the government, I would have to anticipate that the added tax would be lower than what I am currently paying on my insurance premiums. Not to mention the incredible cost of medical bills that are not covered by my insurance. My mounting debt could certainly be influencing the appeal to healthcare reform.

Consider this, We pay taxes to cover other emergency costs such as Fire, Rescue, and Police. I know emergency rooms must give you basic life saving care but it's not like those costs are just absorbed and forgotten by the hospital. Is it unreasonable to expect basic healthcare to be covered by the government as well? I am certainly not suggesting that we allow the government to cover all "healthcare" such as elective surgery, i.e. abortion, mole removals, augmentations, etc.

So where would the dividing line be? I don't know. The current level of debate on this is far too early. We have government provided services in place already that we can look at for precedence on what should be covered, but there is much to look at. This issue is not ready for a vote. It is not even ready to be drawn up in a bill yet. The fact that it is being rushed through is of grave concern to me. Only corruption can come when there is a reluctance to have full disclosure and debate.

Our system of checks and balances was put into place to make the act of passing laws a very slow process. There is good reason for it. We need time to digest the facts and take in all the information. We need time to set up checks and balances within any new law. We need time to investigate the ramifications of any new law. No good law comes easily.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Do I actually support universal healthcare?

I don't watch the news. I don't read the newspaper. I develop my viewpoints by asking myself questions and then researching my answers. I find that my conclusions most often line up with conservative right-wing viewpoints. So I am surprised to discover that I am actually considering the idea that universal health care may be the right way to go.

I have seen the studies that reflect how poorly things are going for Canada and I have experienced first hand how medicaid is more of a hassle to deal with then simply dying. But I have recently been looking at France's health care system and I am struggling to understand why it would not work here. The WHO has rated them as the top health care system in the world. I don't see the WHO as having any moral compass whatsoever so I always take their statistics with a huge grain of salt. They have been known to have questionable methodology in gathering their data, but the fact that they rated them number one made me want to know why.

I have only begun to research this so I admit I am a novice but I can usually find the holes fairly quickly if the liberals really like something. This time I have not been able to find any negative on the surface with France's health care system. A doctor visit will net a cost of about $28.oo in France. I, on the other hand, have medical bills flying out of my ears. The quality of health care does not seem to be suffering as I would have suspected. There don't appear to be any long waits in line. I can't find evidence of any rationing of health care. About 75% of the doctors and hospitals accept the government health care system in France. I have to search for days with my insurance to find the few doctor's that are not out of network. France also has private health insurance that can supplement if you are not satisfied with the government level of care.

I always assumed that privatized health care drove innovation and competition. Somehow that does not seem to be stopping the French. My gut tells me that there is something that I have not yet uncovered. There must be a negative. Perhaps the taxes are outrages, I haven't looked into the cost yet. I know I pay a pretty penny for my private insurance. I know the French are paying about $7.00 per gallon for gas, but I don't know how much of that reflects on their health care system, if any.

We have no problem paying taxes for Fire and Police protection, I am not sure why doctor care doesn't fall under that same umbrella.

I do know that their government regulates cost. A doctor can expect to make $50 - 100,000 per year. That sounds like a great salary from my perspective but I am not in favor of limiting someones ability to make money. I hold no envy for the Gates, buffets, and Hefner's of our society. They have taken the risks and done well, they should absolutely benefit from their entrepreneurship.

Leftists have been disingenuous by suggesting that we don't want health care reform or that we want things to stay the way they are. My daily phone calls from collectors and my ever-draining bank account tells me that my health coverage is not adequate. But Obama and Pelosi have not suggested a system on par with France. Their solution scares me quite frankly. It seems more on par with what Canada has, and their system is in real trouble.

I also cannot support a system that is intent on supplying the funds to kill hundreds of thousands of children per year. I will gladly take my growing debt over the guilt of coercively partaking in such destruction. Obama has been offered many solutions from the right to make his plan more palatable but he has balked at every one.

Do I want universal health care? I think I actually might.

Do I want what Obama has proposed? I am almost certain that I don't.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Conversations with a pro-choicer - Is the fetus alive?

I am going to do a few posts highlighting different conversations I have had with pro-choicers that deal with specific objections to abortion. My intent is two-fold. First I want to show how the logic is revealed through actual conversation, and second I want to show how a kind word can turn away wrath.
I am frustrated with many in my camp who want to do good by making a pro-life change in this world, but their method is bent on ridicule and insult. I have never seen this as an effective method for changing hearts and minds.
In this conversation I want to show how a respectful tone can do much to set your opponent at ease. This by itself wont change their mind, but it is essential if the logic and facts are expected to do their job to make sure you don't close their ears.

I have included the comments of some of my comrades in arms. Some are beneficial comments, some are detrimental to the conversation. In the end I am glad to say that the point was won on my opposing friend's heart. He is still pro-choice but he is more open now than before to talk things through with me. The conversation may appear disjointed at times, that is just the nature of these message boards.

in all the time i have been posting on this channel, (and others) not one person has been able to show me conclusively that an embryo is a human being. not once! you would have thought that if there was something other than a leap of faith involved, someone would have shown me the evidence?

DBD - not one person has been able to show me conclusively that an embryo is a human being. Admittedly, I am shocked that this would even be in question. Have you ever heard of a woman giving birth to anything other than human?

what has that to do with anything? a fertilised egg might become a human being.

DBD,In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that 'the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being' was a scientific truth. Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception. UVVAct of 2004 defines an UNBORN CHILD as a human being at any stage of development (ZYGOTE, EMBRYO, FETUS) who is carried in the womb of the mother.

I could go and check on your 60 year old report, but every time i do, i find that you have twisted or cherrypicked the facts, (like in the uvv 2004 case below) and that what you say is irrelevent. cutting and pasting BITS of documents and hoping that no-one take the time to check them is not a good debating strategy. and incidentally if what some people said 60 years ago was proof of anything, why did no-one act on it yet?

DBD - why has no one acted on it? You are asking the wrong question, that's why. The abortion debate doesn't bring into question the humanity of the fetus; it is about the right to live for the unborn human being. It is a civil rights fight, not a semantics fight.

no i am asking the question I want an answer to, not the one you want answer, if theres a difference that doesnt mean I got the question wrong.

That’s fine; we can take the long route. The reason no one has acted on what was said 60 years ago is that it doesn't have any bearing on the debate. No one is saying that the fetus is not a human being.

I am

DBD - I am. If that is the case then the onus is on you to present evidence to support your position. It is a position that is contrary to science, semantics, and the medical community. I look forward to seeing your arguments though.

The onus is not on me because abortion is a legal activity, and i am not trying to chance that or stop anyone excercing their legal right, the onus is on you.

DBD - the onus is not on me ...I can see you are having trouble following this. You made a statement that you have the onus to support. If I had said that abortion was not legal I would have the onus to present evidence. The position you took is that a fetus is not a human being. The onus is on you to support that position.

Buy a dictionary mine says "any man woman or child of the species homo-sapiens, no mention of fetus's

1. human being - any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae.
The fetus is a member of the family hominidae.

its not living or a member.

If you are saying the fetus is not alive then I look forward to seeing your supporting evidence.

I told you I don’t NEED to support it, you NEED to prove me wrong. I look forward to that.
unfortunately i have to go out, see if you change the law before i come back.

DBD - you NEED to prove me wrong...Clearly you don’t understand the rules of debate. When you posit an opinion, especially one that is a contrary opinion, the onus is put on you to support your opinion. Otherwise it becomes discarded as merely opinion.

thats what YOU say.

DBD - Are you seriously insisting that I supply evidence that the fetus is alive? Would you like supporting evidence for gravity as well?

DBDPro-lifers do not particularly careabout what pro-aborts consider "good debating strategy".Because you and you kind would rather see pro-lifers as a collection of submissive weeners. That's one dream that ain't going to happen.Ever.

"pro-lifer" dont seem to care about what a lot of people consider

What do a lot of people consider?

a lot of people consider abortion to be ok

The fact that a lot of people consider it ok is not an argument for anything. Mob rule does not always mean right rule. The latest polls show that the majority are pro-life, but again that really means nothing. A lot of people considered slavery to be ok once too.

no they dont

I dont know what you are disagreeing with unless you specify

the majority of americans 75% said in that* poll, that they agreed with abortion, some under certain unstated conditions , (me too), 51% plus or minus 3% the majority you are talking about said they felt more pro life than pro choice when face witha false dichotomy. gallup spokesmenn said they thought the hickup was a kneejerk reaction to obamas recent abortion policy.

what false dichotomy?

are you pro choice or pro lfe.

DBD - and a lot of people don't consider abortion to be ok.

"and a lot of people dont consider abortion to be ok", and i respect their right to not have one.

DBD - No person has the right to take the life of a helpless unborn babe.

actually  undead abortionists do. go and have a look at the facts.

DBD"..undead abortionists.."?You also referred to people (including yourself) as being "undead corpses" last night.Your outlook on life is truly bizarre - it explains a great deal about your pro-abort stance.

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

but that could all be as a result of the conection by umbilical cord to the mother. once these functions can be performed independenty of the mother, (for a n extended period) then a fetus can be said to be alive.

None of the functions of life happen because of the cord. From the moment of conception, the conceptus begins to reproduce thru mitoses, it metabolizes, it responds to its environment. Even the placenta is grown by the fetus, not the mother.

you can apply all of this logic to a vaginal wart.

Really? Does a vaginal wart have its own DNA? Seriously are you here for real debate or just to troll?

why is dna at all relevant?

Why is DNA relevant?Because DNA is one huge way in which we can determine autonomy.

DBD - Human Beings as unto a wart! Your slip is showing.

Independence is also not a criterion for life. A newborn has no independence. It cannot survive on its own. A conceptus exhibits every trait of life prior to attaching itself tothe uterine wall, independent of the mother.

"independence is not a criteria for life", who says so?

Who says so? Biologists who define what constitutes biological life.

biologists say that dna is relevent in defining what constitutes a human being?

Yes biologists do say that DNA is relevant for defining not only a human being but any other animal.

DBD - Re: "once these functions can be performed independenty of the mother, (for an extended period) then a fetus can be said to be alive.'Who do you think you are - the author of life? You, who doesn't even understand the cause of the force which holds him to the ground.Life begins at the moment of conception. Fact.

facts are provable, and please tell me what is the cause of the force that holds me to the floor?

What is the cause of the force that holds me to the floor? Giant magnets

DBD For a person who believes that he knows when life begins - he has to ask Merl as to what the cause of the force is that holds him to the ground? What a joke.

you accused me of being ignorant because I didnt know something and you cant show that you know it? that is a joke

DBD.Don't try to reverse the argument - a typical pro-abort tactic.You claim to know when life begins - therefore, you tell us here tonight, what the cause of gravity is.There's no scientist on earth who knows the answer to that question.Perhaps you do - seeing as you claim that life begins at some moment other than at conception.

shardoin, can we then state categorically that if something were to have its own individual human dna that it is a human being?

You are putting the cart before the horse. Genetic tests identify the being already present before you. It can define that being as being human, or the DNA can identify the type of animal that the item came from as in a hair which would be a byproduct of that being.

so dna shows only that it is a part of something that is/was alive?

DNA identifies the owner of the item in question. Be it an arm, a hair, an entire body. DNA doesshow that whatever is being tested was once alive though, you are correct on that. DNA requires life to exist.

"[DNA] shows only that it is a part of something that is/was alive?"DNA shows a great deal more than that. It shows which particular species it is, among other things. FBI DNA evidence has been being used to prove cases in court for decades.The DNA of an organism determines what species that organism is.

so what we have ascertained thus far unless I am mistaken, (which is not impossible) is that a fertilized egg, has its own human DNA, which shows indisputably that it is or was at some point alive? is that right so far

So far we seem to be on the same page ...continue please.

" continue please" I got nothing, I 'm trying to remember why it was relevent?

lol, that's fine. We can pick it up later if you want to take a break.

thanks but what i mean is that you now now convinced of the facts that I oulined, and i have nothing more to add to or question on that subject. I cant remember (or never knew) why the matter would be of any signifigance.

I'm not sure why it is significant either; you started the line of questioning.

"you started the line of questioning" so where were you before you were so rudely interupted?

" To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or is plain experimental evidence".The "Father of Modern Genetics" Jerome Lejeune....Univ. of Descarte, Paris.

Everyones life begins at fertilization. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. No matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being.

The criterion for biological life has been established. It is not opinion; it is a consensus of scientific study. The conceptus fulfills every criterion for biological life.

biological life does not mean a human being though right?

Biological life only means human biological life if it is biologically human.

biological human life does not mean a biological human being though right?

Biologically speaking...yes

yes it does not?

lol yes it does mean a biological human being. Biologically it can'tbe anything else.

so to recap again, shortly after conception, a fertilised egg contains its own human dna and is biologically a human being? is that right?

not shortly after conception, but AT conception. Otherwise we are in agreement.

"a [fertilized] egg, has its own human [DNA], which shows indisputably that it is or was at some point alive? is that right so far"Never thought of it that way, but I have no disagreement with that statement. The DNA is used to determine species and individuality. Life is determined by the characteristics of the organism, those characteristics being, cellular division (growth), metabolism, autonomous movement and reaction to stimuli.

and is an independent life.

Dependency is too loosely defined; I would say an individual life.

individual will do for me.

ok :)

1 more question (which I dont expect you to be ble to answer) why, after commenting on this vid for months and repeatedly asking, is this the first time anyone has told me all this?

ur right, I can’t say why that is but I hope I was helpful to you.

" but I hope I was helpful to you" not really, because now i will have to endure pro.lie merl and ignatious costantly ranting that human life begins at conception, because technically speaking they are right, but thanks for trying.

Well you could always join us :)

thanks for the invite but i dont like the company you keep.

There are all kinds in both camps. Life at conception is just the beginning. There are plenty of arguments to work thru from that starting point. I don’t hang my hat on that argument alone. Hopefully we will be able to hash thru these together again.

DBD,You still deny the basic scientific facts.Your opinion does not change the scientific facts -- You lie and you lie nothing more nothing less.Embryology, Fetology, Obstetrics, and Biology have clearly confirmed that human life begins at conception. And that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are unborn children who are human beings, carried inthe womb of the mother (UVoVAct of 2004; 1981 Senate Report, S-158 of 97th Congress).

"you still deny the basic scientific facts" really? oh and as you know the uvv act 2004 specifically excludes abortion

The exclusion of abortion is a political act. It doesn’t mean that they thought these were human beings, UNLESS the mother wanted to kill them. They were being political cowards.

“they were being political cowards" maybe, they still excluded abortion, and it is unreasonable to select some information and and ignore other pieces of information from the same document because you say it is unreliable.

What information was being ignored? They did not deny the humanity of the fetus when they gave exclusion for abortion.

"they did not deny the humanity of the fetus" and neither did I, (after you explained it to me), the fact being ignored is the fact that that documents states that that protection is not extended to abortion.

I agree to the limits of that document in protecting the unborn, but I believe He used that document to show that the fetus was officially classified as a human being legally. There are certainly plenty of inconsistencies in the law when it comes to protecting the unborn.

hey i wouldnt wanna be the next person to ask me "which came first the chicken or the egg?"


*next day*

DERBULL: You said in you post"Life begins at conception, technicaly THEY ARE RIGHT ! "Thankyou for that :D

dont thank me thank sardoin (sp?)

Ummmmmm page 9 der it was definatly you my dear,pop your specks on and go look,,but hey its a good day ,der has admitted something he has been denying to be true,,well done der,,see it didnt hurt did it ! XD

ha ha!, why you have to be rude? typical. what I meant was, dont give me the credit for saying that, thank sardoin(sp?) he explained it to me.


This topic is certainly a hot topic and it takes a great deal of patience to keep from attacking your opponant, rather than their facts or logic. I slip often enough but I am also easy to acknowledge it if I am called out or if I recognize it myself. When you engage someone on this topic remember why you are talking to them about it. What is your ultimate goal? Are you there to just cast stones or do you care to change their heart and perhaps change enough hearts to save 50 million babies a year?

Abortion is the leading cause of death for the unborn. We cant afford to be the reason for losing this fight. Present the facts, present your sound reasoning and then just get out of the way.

Monday, June 29, 2009

God supports abortion Part 2

In this post I want to deal with Numbers 5:11-31:

A Test for Adultery
"11And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 12"Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, 13if a man(A) lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her,(B) since she was not taken in the act, 14and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, 15then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour.(C) He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance,(D) bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16"And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the LORD. 17And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD and(E) unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. 19Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, 'If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. 20But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, 21then' (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman)(F) 'the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. 22May this water that brings the curse(G) pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say,(H) 'Amen, Amen.'
23"Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. 25And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand(I) and shall wave the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26And the priest(J) shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. 27And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman(K) shall become a curse among her people. 28But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.
29"This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife,(L) though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 30or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law. 31The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman(M) shall bear her iniquity."

This passage is another one, aside from Exodus 21:22-25, that pro-choicers like to parade about as biblical support for abortion. One major piece is missing from this passage to be used as a support for abortion though; the woman is not pregnant. There is no fetus to abort. There is nothing in this passage that explicitly mentions a fetus either before or after the procedure.

There are some, more clever, pro-choice commentators who suggest inference or a logical conclusion of the existence of a fetus. I would like to explore those suggestions.

The NRSV says in verse 21b "when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge;" This has been used to suggest that the discharge must be that of a baby. Other translations say "when the LORD makes your thigh fall away and your body swell."

In Hebrew the passage reads "Yahovah nathan yarek naphal beten tsabeh" Yarek can be translated thigh or loins, the root of the word means soft. It can refer to your side, it is even translated breast once. In this context, "loins" seems most fitting. Naphal is a primitive root meaning to fall. It is used contextually in other passages alongside death or a defeat. The idea here being that the loins have failed and died. Beten is translated womb, belly, figuratively as bosom, or body. and Tsabeh simply means to swell.

Naphal is the word in question here. I am frankly at a loss as to how the NRSV gets discharge from Naphal. I cannot find any place where Naphal is ever translated discharge. I can only guess that by implication of fall, they take that to mean that the loins fall which might look like a discharge, I'm not an expert in Hebrew by any stretch of the imagination but I can't see the association. Even further, to take from that weak association that a miscarriage has taken place is even harder to substantiate. A better case would be made to say that the loins have been completely discharged from the body because Naphal here refers back to Yarek, not to a baby, or fetus.

So the case cannot be made that the scripture explicitly reflects a miscarried pregnancy. The next attempt is made by suggesting that a pregnancy could be the result of the adultery, theoretically, and making the woman barren at that point would also kill the fetus. While I enjoy hearing absolute statements being made solely on theoretical arguments, This one fails to take a few things into account.

1) God is the author of life, If he knew he was going to make a woman barren, he could just as easy, theoretically, keep her from becoming pregnant.

2) Assuming she were pregnant, God is also within His rights to dictate death. The bible records times when God used death as a punishment for another's sin. David suffered the loss of his child because of his adultery, Egypt suffered the loss of many children because of their disobedience. One can't make the case that, because God gets to do it, we get to do it too. You would also have to conclude that murder is supported by God because he punitively took the lives of adults who disobeyed as well. One person died because he tried to steady the Ark of the Covenant. Two people died when they misreported their tithing. Imagine the influx of tithes we could expect in the church today if we could cast similar punishment.

Some will say that the potion given to the woman is an abortifacent. The potion is made up of water used by priests to cleanse themselves, tabernacle dust off of the floor, and ink from the book in which the oath was written. Ink was composed of powdered charcoal or soot mixed with water. I have ingested much worse things as a teenager. Clearly this concoction would not be enough to render a woman barren or to cause a miscarriage.
Even if this were a recipe for an abortifacent, one then has to acknowledge that it would make all women barren who drank it. This passage clearly exonerates the innocent. How could the innocent be free from punishment if this abortifacent had to be drunk by any woman who was accused and brought before the priest?
Also how could the husband ever be sure that this abortifacent would not kill his own child? What father would take that risk if a miscarriage was always the result of this trial? Surely this cannot be a simple medical procedure that has been romanticized by Hebrews in their attempt to justify God's existence.

Other cultures had interesting variations on this test. In the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1720 BC.), women who were suspected of this type of infidelity were required to throw themselves into the Euphrates river--if they drown, they were guilty; if not, they were innocent! I am reminded of Monty Python's test for witches.

The passage is describing a supernatural trial that takes place in the natural. A jealous man can take his wife before the priest and have an instant answer to his question of her faithfulness. Likewise the wife has a sure way of proving her fidelity to her husband and squelching any spirit of jealousy that would seek to tear this marriage apart. The elements used are symbolic. The test itself is of divine revelation.

There simply is not any justification within this passage to suggest that God supports abortion. There is not even a pregnancy to abort here. Even if there was it would not change the fact the God is the one casting judgement. A miscarriage is not an elective abortion. Life and death are His alone to command.

Monday, June 22, 2009

God supports abortion Part 1

I rarely invoke religious based arguments in the fight against elective abortions. The American court system would ignore all religious based arguments so I find it more profitable to develop pro-life arguments based on secular reasoning. The bible is generally silent on the topic with only implication, at best, being the source of biblical standard against abortion. I personally believe it is consistent with scripture to be anti-abortion but again, I have not found any scripture that would specifically ban the procedure.

Having said that, I also will not sit back and ignore the pro-choice camp when they invoke scripture to defend a belief that God supports abortion. While this argument would never have an affect in the court of law, it does have an affect on me. The idea of twisting, or perhaps only misunderstanding, scripture to support such a repulsive statement demands that it be reproved and dismissed.

I have seen two scriptures used to support the idea of God supporting abortion; Exodus 21:22-25 and Numbers 5:11-31.

Exodus 21:22-25 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." ESV.

In this passage we have a pregnant woman who has been beaten, seemingly by accident from two men who were fighting. The pregnant woman, being hit, has a premature birth. A fine is levied against the one who hit her depending on the degree of damage done.

Pro-choicers will suggest in this passage that the premature birth has nothing to do with the punishment. When it says "there is no harm" or " there is harm" they suggest it is referring to the woman alone. They also suggest that the premature birth is assumed to have caused a death for the child. Some texts will say the woman miscarries.

Let's look at the aspect of the premature birth. Does scripture say that the child always dies in this case? The relevant phrase in the passage, “...her children come out...,” reads w˚yase û ye ladêhâ in the Hebrew. It’s a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means “the child comes forth.”

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn’t use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.
Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.” Why? Because the word doesn’t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.

The Hebrew noun translated “child” in this passage is yeled (yeladim in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.” It comes from the primary root word yalad, meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.” In the NASB yalad is translated “childbirth” 10 times, some form of “gave birth” over 50 times, and either “bore,” “born,” or “borne” 180 times.

The verb yasa is a primary, primitive root that means “to go or come out.” It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It’s translated with some form of “coming out” (e.g., “comes out,” “came out,” etc.) 103 times, and some form of “going” 445 times.

it’s common for yasa to describe the “coming forth” of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!”
Note here, that we don’t infer the child’s death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth (“whose flesh is half eaten away”), and doesn’t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.
Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case.

Also, consider this. If the passage deals only with fines levied for the benefit of the woman's injuries, then why have her be pregnant in the scenario at all? Why is there not another passage that deals with injuries sustained by a non-pregnant wife? Is the bible suggesting that it is ok to injure a woman as long as she isn't pregnant? If God doesn't care about the baby then why levy a fine or punishment for a pregnant woman but not for any other woman?

To suggest that Exodus supports abortion, or reveals that the fetus is not important to God, brings about a lot more questions concerning how God feels about women if the passage is to be interpreted according to the pro-choice view. They suddenly have to accept that if the pregnant woman is the only one to be legally protected then God actually places MORE value on the fetus than He does on women because there is no other equivalent passage that offers legal protection for a woman who is not pregnant.

The truth is this passage supports the value of the fetus as much as it supports the value of the woman who is beaten. The fines and punishment levied against the attacker is due for injuries sustained by both the woman and the baby. This offers legal protection for both because God values all life.

I will deal with Numbers 5:11-31 next time.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Is the Fetus a Parasite?

There is apparently some question as to whether or not the fetus qualifies as a parasitical animal. I am just as surprised as you are at this notion but in the interest of fairness, I am willing to present my thoughts as to why the fetus does not qualify as a parasite.

The first step is to define the criteria for what classifies a parasite. One of the most important criteria for a parasite is that the parasite is always a different species from it's host. When I look up the definition for parasite I find the following.

Temporary parasites.
These parasites spend only part of their lives as a parasite and another part as free-living organism. Examples are: Fasciola hepatica (Liver fluke (douve)) Schistosoma Ascaris Haemonchus

Here is a much clearer scientific description of parasitism in the Encyclopedia Britannica: (emphasis added)
Encyclopedia Britannica Article
Page 1 of 1 relationship between two species of plants or animals in which one benefits at the expense of the other, sometimes without killing it. Parasitism is differentiated from parasitoidism, a relationship in which the host is always killed by the parasite; parasitoidism occurs in some Hymenoptera (ants, wasps, and bees), Diptera (flies), and a few Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths): the female lays her eggs in or on the host, upon which the larvae feed on hatching. (free temporary subscription required)

And here is a definition from Online Medical Dictionary: (emphasis added)
A type of symbiosis where two (or more) organisms from different species live in close proximity to one another, in which one member depends on another for its nutrients, protection, and/or other life functions. The dependent member (the parasite) benefits from the relationship while the other one (the host) is harmed by it.

And here is another from the U of Penn Vet School: (emphasis added)
The term parasitism may be defined as a two-species association in which one species, the parasite, lives on or in a second species, the host, for a significant period of its life and obtains nourishment from it. This is a commonly accepted working definition of parasitism and using it we can emphasize several important features of the host-parasite relationship. Parasitism always involves two species, the parasite and the host.

And here's another one from the U of MN (emphasis added)
A Parasite is by definition any organism which lives on or in the body of another organism of a different species (i.e., the host). This definition allows the name 'parasite' to be attached to many living species, including bacteria, fungi and viruses.

And here is a definition from Aberystwyth University, Wales (emphasis added)
Parasitism is, like most other animal associations defined in terms of two different species, who form a regular association, although this seems sensible, and it does exclude consideration of the mammalian foetus as being parasitic upon its mother, there are some very interesting immunological parallels between the mechanisms the foetus uses to avoid being rejected by the immune response of its mother and the ways in which the parasites of mammals seek to avoid their hosts immune response. http:// defines parasite as
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

Notice that in that last definition there is an omission of the technicality that the organism is from a different species. Is this significant to you? When I discuss this topic with a pro-choicer they are quick to point out any definition that has this omission. The question though is whether or not this really is a factual omission or an editorial omission.
An editorial omission would be done for the sake of brevity. Certain elements of a definition may be glossed over when it is considered to either be common knowledge, or secondary to what the author considers important information.

Note this quote from a parasitology textbook:
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a hetero specific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

This comes from an authority in the field. With so many sources citing the criteria of differing species, it is disingenuous, at best, to take a generalized definition and submit it above all of the other highly credible sources as the only source that matters.

The fetus is the same species as the mother so biologically speaking, the fetus is not a parasite. Now it is acceptable if one wants to make the case that a fetus exhibits parasitic behavior. There are certainly limited similarities. The fetus also shares some similarities to a car but it would be scientifically inaccurate to say that a fetus IS a car.

Why is this even being brought up in serious debate? The answer is that pro-choicers object to the usage of terms like child, or baby, when describing the fetus. They accuse us of emotionalizing the debate needlessly. So they have brought their own term for the fetus into the discussion in their own attempt to emotionalize the debate. The parasite argument is nothing more than a strawman meant to distract from the real issues of abortion.

Let me clarify a few things about parasite just to make sure we can put this to rest.

A parasite is always from another kind of species.
A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.
A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).
A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

also, with few exceptions, a parasite will remain a parasite for it's entire life. It cannot survive without a host.

It is not scientifically accurate to associate a human fetus with a parasite.

Let me go one step further, Is it accurate to associate a Zygote, Embryo, Fetus with a baby, or a child?

Let me give you a definition of baby.

n. pl. ba·bies
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal

From the online free dictionary we see that the unborn are considered a proper application for the term "baby'. A Google search will reveal many sources that list the unborn as a proper definition.

Let's look at "child"

n. pl. chil·dren
1. A person between birth and puberty.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

Again we see that the unborn are included among the proper applications for the word child.

So where does that leave the pro-choicer? Well, they have every right to use the term parasite metaphorically, but they have no grounds to use it scientifically. However, pro-lifers still seem to be on very good ground for referring to the fetus as a baby or a child.

I am all about accuracy when it comes to this debate. I seek truth no matter what the implications are for me. I am open to correction on this, or any other topic.

I will stand corrected:
If I can be shown an example of a parasite in nature that is the same species as it's host. I suppose one might bring up the Angler fish as an example. This is not a true parasitic relationship though because it is their reproductive method, which means that it is a symbiotic relationship.

or If I can be shown a credible source of parasitology that specifies gestating unborn as meeting the criteria for classification of parasite.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

A word about Viability

In this American society we have the privilage of great medical advances, good hospitals, sanitary conditions, etc.

When I hear about viability as an argument for determining when a fetus becomes a person, I have to ask why that fetus can be a person at 22 weeks today becasue of our advances in preemie care, but that fetus would not be a person 100 years ago when we could not support such an undeveloped infant.

The argument for viability says that personhood is only a consideration for the fetus at the earliest stage at which we have seen preemies survive. Prior to that point the fetus is just a blob of cells. Well as a current mature blob of cells I can attest to the fact that I am a person.

The idea of viability tells us nothing about the fetus itself. Viability is not dependant on the fetus. It is dependant upon the conditions in which the mother and child find themselves in. If the mother is pregnant in a third world country where medical treatment is rudimentary, viability is found at a much later stage of development than for the mother who is pregnant in an industrialized country where medical care can better care for a preemie. Viability even changes for the fetus from hospital to hospital. Differences in pediatric staffing, equipment, cleanliness, can all have a drastic effect on viability.

So viability depends on quality medical care, advancement in medical technology, the mother's care of her body during pregnancy, but not one bit of viability has anything to do with the fetus itself.

As an additional note, an infant is not anymore autonomous than the unborn. If you leave an infant alone to fend for itself, it will die.