tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49881431518992258962024-03-07T22:04:24.648-05:00Personal RantsThoughts on hot topics like abortion and creation science.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-33968072633618199072013-03-29T13:05:00.002-04:002013-03-29T13:07:42.750-04:00Today my firstborn turned 18Today my firstborn turned 18 years old. This is a milestone, not only in your life, but in the lives of your mother and me. Today is the result of years of questioning ourselves, falling on our faces for wisdom, and hoping that God is bigger than our mistakes for your sake (He is, of course). We have also seen the fruit of our labor and faith as you have grown up into the man you are now, though I can take no credit for the grace of God.<br />
<br />
As a child you were always compliant. So much so that we thought other parents must really be doing it wrong to have so many complaints about parenthood...then we had our next child, and understood. To be fair, Todd has grown to become very compliant and hard working but this letter isn't about him.<br />
You have had your challenges to face. You have been knocked down by life at times, and sometimes by your own doing. You have seen hard times and poverty, and yet you have this gift for being able to stand back up, dust off yourself, and continue on as though nothing has happened.<br />
<br />
Today you are a man in the eyes of the law. In my eyes you have been a man for quite a while. Today you can vote. You can claim your independence. You can buy things on credit in your own name. You can have your own checking account with real checks and everything. These are good things but they all carry a responsibility with them. If used incorrectly they can become an insurmountable burden. Don't just save what you have after spending, spend what you have after saving. Living debt free is the best option. Strive to maintain your debt-free status.<br />
<br />
As a parent, the one thing I take the most pride in is something I cannot take any credit for, your faith in God. It has thrilled my heart to count you as my brother as well as my son. We are co-heirs with Christ. We will inherit the Glory of heaven someday. Which is relieving when you consider what I will end up leaving for you on Earth.<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-indent: 16.799999237060547px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Changes in your life are going to start coming like a fireball. Graduation will mark an end of a big chapter and from there you will begin the venture of a career. Don't be concerned that you don't know what that career is yet, in truth, you have already begun your career. You are a follower of Christ. Your job is secondary to that fact. He will guide you to the right place. Not all tasks will be pleasant. Many will stretch you in difficult ways. Many will be well suited and you will easily shine with them. Do all things for the Glory of God and you will find the joy in all of it. "<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">Count it all joy, my brothers,</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 13px; text-indent: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">when you meet trials</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">of various kinds,</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">for you know that</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">the testing of your faith</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">produces steadfastness.</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22px; text-indent: 1.5em;">perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."</span><span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"> (James 1:2-4, ESV)</span></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 16.799999237060547px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; color: #363030; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 16.799999237060547px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; color: #363030; font-size: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;">You are only 8 years away from my age when I had you. In my time between 18 and having you, I joined the Navy, learned some useful skills, and wasted many years away from the Lord. After the military I worked only to support my weekends with my friends. The Lord drew me back to Him in His mercy and brought me your mother, and then You...and the rest of the kids.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 16.799999237060547px;">
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;">I wasted many years trying to do things only to please myself, a trait I still struggle to repress. You have a head start. You are already walking with the Lord. Seek Him first and believe that He wants the best for you even when </span></span><span style="color: #363030;">things</span><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> of this world start looking like more fun. The truth is that sin IS fun. It does satisfy </span></span>the<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> cravings of the flesh, for a season, but the </span></span>repercussions<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> of a foolish decision can be very costly. While sin satisfies the flesh, it does not ever fulfill. It will always leave you wanting more and never fully attaining. It is the carrot on the stick. Always before your eyes but never within reach. Always promising but never fulfilling. I give these warnings, not because of any danger you are in, but because I know of the dangers and temptations that are coming.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;">Further down the road to come the Lord may bless you with a wife. That will be in His timing and of His choosing if you are patient and willing to wait for the best. In preparation for that time, do not invest your time looking for the right spouse, work on being the right spouse. God will bring your wife to you when you least expect it. I will have another letter for you when that time comes.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;">18 years have flown by. I still see the little boy jumping on the bed and singing "You are my sunshine". The boy </span></span>running<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> from a band-aid as though we were threatening amputation. Those first guitar lessons together (you taught me so much). The long haired Emo phase (So glad that is over). The tough transition from the church of glitz and </span></span>glamour<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> and clowns to a church of sobriety, piety, and the Cross. You have grown into a man who I am very proud of. I </span></span>thank<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> God for the </span></span>privilege<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"> of the last 18 years with you. I thank God for the years to come.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;">Happy Birthday son, I love you</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;">Dad</span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 16.799999237060547px;">
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-indent: 16.799999237060547px;">
<span class="extra_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-indent: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="color: #363030;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="footnotes extra_text" style="background-color: white; border-top-color: rgb(199, 197, 197); border-top-style: solid; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; line-height: 16px; margin: 20px 0px; padding: 10px 25px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</div>
Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-36844806691332529552012-08-21T17:33:00.001-04:002012-08-21T17:33:20.402-04:00Republicans care nothing about the poor.Ah the careless and unchecked lies that get spewed all over the internet and other media.<br />
<br />
According to<span style="color: cyan;"> </span><a href="http://philanthropy.com/article/The-Politics-of-Giving/133609/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">this study</span></a> taken from 2008, the states who voted republican tended to be more charitable than the states who voted democratic. The top 8 most charitable states were all republican while the bottom 7 states were democratic. In fact, if you add up all of the percentage points for republican states vs. democratic states, the count comes out to 119.5 Republican vs. 113.9 Democratic, despite the fact that there were only 22 republican states vs 28 democratic states in 2008. That means Republicans were more charitable than Democrats with less states.<br />
<br />
Now one might say that Republicans were able to be more charitable because they have all the money. After all, everyone knows that republicans are all about the super-rich so they must have more money to give away. Well according to<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">this article</span></a></span>, the richest states were largely democratic while the poorest states were largely republican.<br />
<br />
Any chance we can finally put this one to rest? Probably not.<br />
<br />
Truth rarely means much in politics.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-53133736489687744402012-05-25T19:45:00.002-04:002012-05-25T19:45:44.889-04:00PornographyUsing pornography to satisfy God-given sexual desire is like eating Twinkies to satisfy God-given hunger.<br />
<br />
We mistake taste and titillation as being the totality of the purpose for God-given hungers and desires. Junk food may satisfy our cravings but it does not address the intention of hunger which is to nourish our bodies. Pornography is a cheap substitute for intimacy within marriage. It satisfies the craving but it leaves us undernourished sexually.<br />
Sexual desire is intended to bring us together with our spouse and share the unity we have with each other. It is a celebration of intimate relationship. It is a picture of our vulnerabilities before Christ as we share in His intimate love for us. We display ourselves before God, naked and with blemish, and He accepts us and loves us as we are. Every time we join with our spouse, we are celebrating this image.<br />
Pornography leaves us without most of the other benefits of sex. Intimacy, acceptance, protection, bonding, pheromones, Oxytocin, endorphins, etc. God's purpose for the desires he gives us are for our good. It is grace on God's part that he built in these desires. They make it pleasing and easy to do His will. If we can just believe that His way satisfies more fully.<br />
<br />
John Piper has an excellent discussion on this very thing.<br />
<br />
<script src="http://www.desiringgod.org/player.js?height=224&embedCode=RzeHV5OqMKvFyh42w-497za5Z8XZgtFR&width=398&deepLinkEmbedCode=RzeHV5OqMKvFyh42w-497za5Z8XZgtFR">
</script><br />
<br />Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-14817002177763113552011-09-02T03:09:00.004-04:002011-09-02T03:18:55.237-04:00Theistic EvolutionTheistic evolution is the idea that the theory of evolution does not contradict scripture. The account of creation in Genesis coincides with secular scientific theories on evolution. I am puzzled by the concept of the theistic evolutionist. In my mind this is the most difficult position to defend. My issue isn't with their desire to embrace evolutionist thinking, nor their desire to embrace their faith. My issue is that they try to do both at the same time when they are mutually exclusive to each other. The theistic evolutionist has the daunting task of not only reconciling evolutionary theory with scientific data, but then reconciling that theory with scripture. The former issue of defending the theory (or theories) of evolution are not the subject of the post so I will not go into that area here.<br />
<br />
The most difficult area of reconciliation between these two concepts is in the age of the Earth. Standard evolution theory puts the Earth at 4.5 billion(ish) years old. The dating of the Bible puts the age of the Earth at roughly 6500 years. That leaves a lot of reconciling for the theistic evolutionist. Neither the creationist nor the evolutionist have to wrestle with this as they both understand that it can not be reconciled.<br />
<br />
Genesis 1 and 2 give the account of creation which is boiled down to this:<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 1:</b> The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 2:</b> Heaven</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 3:</b> Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 4:</b> The sun, the moon and the stars.</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 5:</b> Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 6</b>: Land animals and people.</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b>Day 7:</b> God "rested".</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</div><div class="smaller-text" style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In each account the day is marked with a number and highlighted with a definition of the evening and morning. The Hebrew word "yom" is what we translate to the word "day". Yom is used 1109 times in the Bible to describe a 24 hour period. Only 9 times is it used to describe an era or long passage of time. Every time yom is used with a number such as 40 days, or day 7, etc., it refers to a 24 hour period. Every time yom is used with the descriptor of evening (<em>ereb) </em>and morning (<em>boquer)</em> it refers to a 24 hour period. In Genesis we have the daily account of creation highlighted with both a numerical reference and a description of morning and evening. It seems that the author was especially careful to point out this usage of yom as being literal.<br />
<br />
The most common attempt to get around this issue is with 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and<sup class="xref" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-30514N" title="See cross-reference N">N</a>)"></sup> a thousand years as one day." This passage references Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." The first thing to note here is that 2 Peter is not referencing creation in any way. The context tells the reader to not lose hope in God's promise just because He seems slow in fulfilling it. God is patient and will fulfill His promise in His timing. God is not bound by the anxiety of time as we are. We are encouraged to be patient as well. We should also note that 2 Peter says a day is <strong>like</strong> a thousand years, Peter is using a simile. The correct understanding of a day as a 24 hour period is what makes this simile so powerful in its contrast to the thousand years. This is that same kind of simile we find in Psalm 90.<br />
<br />
The psalmist uses a synonymous parallelism to contrast the thousand years period by two short periods. The usage of this passage to defend theistic evolution is especially difficult. If one accepts the contrast of a thousand years with the day as literal here they must also see the contrast of the thousand years with a watch of the night as literal. I hardly think a watchman could keep his eyes open for that long.<br />
<br />
The contextual understanding of these passages is to highlight how different our perception of time is from God's. We only have 70 or so years to fulfill our promises. God has all of eternity to fulfill His. We can have faith in His promises because of this.<br />
<br />
Another problem with the day of Genesis being 1000 years is that vegetation was created on day 3 and sunlight on day 4. I have trouble imagining vegetation surviving for a thousand years waiting for sunlight.<br />
<br />
That is not the only problem with theistic evolution though. The TE also has to contend with the lack of scriptures defining a day as a million years. There is a lot of years to reconcile between 6000 creation "days" and the 4.5 billion years tauted by the evolutionists. There is also the problem of the fossil record. Evolutionists claim millions of years of animal life before man appeared on the scene based on the fossil record, but there was no death before the fall in the garden. Animal and human fossils should be found very close to each other according to the biblical account.<br />
<br />
I know there is a difference between the theory(ies) of evolution and the origins of the Earth but in the case of reconciling Genesis to secular scientific thought they are so closely related that it makes no sense to approach the topic from two separate paths. The theistic evolutionist has a lot of hurdles to overcome in their understanding of creation, more so than the pure evolutionist. In my opinion there is no way to marry the two. They directly contradict each other. I would advise the theistic evolutionist to consider the large, and growing, volume of science behind creation. There is no need to wrestle with seeming contradictions in scripture and science. The scientific evidence supporting the biblical account is great.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, the Christian must understand that our walk is one of faith. We must believe in order to be saved. Truth will not contradict itself. We may not understand it with our human perception but that does not change truth. God is gracious in that we do have the witness of science to help our belief but "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29b<br />
<br />
Get off the fence my TE friend.</div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-72973587641035948512011-07-05T01:23:00.000-04:002011-07-05T01:23:23.724-04:00The trial of Casey Anthony<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">I admit that I have not been following the Casey Anthony trial at all but of the little I know of it, it is sad that another young life was lost at the whim of her mother. I do have to wonder though, if it were just two years earlier, and the mother facilitated for someone to help birth the baby somewhat, then take a pair of scissors to the back of the baby's skull, then have the baby's brains sucked out before crushing the skull, Casey might have been heralded as a heroine activist for feminine rights.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">Why should two years make a difference? why should 2 months or 7 months inside the womb make a difference?</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">I am confused by the Facebook posts of friends, whom I know to be pro-choice, who beguile Casey. They are dismayed at the brutality with which the baby was killed and the callousness of the mother who went dancing within a week of doing it. Somehow the irony is lost on them when considering how much more brutal an abortion is. </span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">Maybe it took Casey a little longer to decide she didn't want the baby. Maybe she didn't feel the need to hire a doctor at that point since she could do it herself. How can one really decide if they are ready to start a family within 3 or 6 months of getting pregnant? It really takes a few years to make that decision after one has lived through all of the adjustments that are needed with a newborn. How about the terrible twos? Even if the mother survives the newborn phase, surely the government can't force her to go through the terrible twos if that is not her wish, and lets not even talk about the teenage years!</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">When you make life and death a personal decision, you have to validate all reasons that someone would have for doing it. It is their right to decide after all. You can't say that your desire to not want to risk birthing a child at your old age is any more valid than someone else not wanting to look "fat" for the prom. You can't say that waiting until 6 months is more or less responsible than deciding at 1 month to kill the child. How can we then cast judgement on a young woman who took 2 years (and 9 months) to decide whether or not she wanted to keep the baby alive? If we condemn her actions, then on what grounds do we not also condemn the actions of those who legally kill their children at a much younger age?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">I have compassion for Casey. She lives in a world where the lives of our young are valued only on the basis of the mother's consideration of them. How can that philosophy not come to the next logical conclusion? I feel for all of the mother's out there who are, or have, faced this same dilemma. It has been drilled into us for decades that life and death are ours to decide. When there is no absolute basis or policy to regulate the action of that decision then the standard shifts from person to person. Life is meaningless but in the eye of the beholder.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">We scoff at Casey's callousness but proclaim the value of abortion based on the mother's callousness and apparent lack of emotional harm. We marvel at the brutality of this child's death but find live dissection and burning of the unborn child to be "harmless".</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;">God grant us the grace to submit the decisions of life and death to Your hands except where You have delegated that decision to us. May we have wisdom to bear that decision with the weight that it deserves. May we learn to value human life as You do. You value us so highly that You would send Your very Son to pay the penalty for our sin in order to reconcile our sin with Your holiness. If You died for this unborn child, how can we then devalue its life based on the whims of a wicked and foolish heart?</span></span></div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-80408560870413990972010-03-17T02:12:00.000-04:002010-03-17T03:57:10.941-04:00Can we get some insurance reform please?I am all for insurance reform. The cost to the average american taxpayer is becoming unbearable. I would love to see a public option put in place to allow everyone to participate.<div><br /></div><div>I am not referring to the healthcare reform that is threatening to be pushed on us right now. The insurance reform I am speaking of is CAR insurance.</div><div><br /></div><div>Every state in the union requires car insurance. The minimum standards change from state to state but everyone must have some level of insurance. I wish I could come up with a product and have the government mandate that everyone must buy it. I wouldn't have to worry about the quality or the cost.</div><div><br /></div><div>Car insurance largely became mandatory state by state throughout the 1980's and 90's. Prior to that time car insurance might have cost $300.00 per year as insurance companies competed with each other to show value in their product to the consumer. Now, in Michigan, basic coverage can cost $500.00 to $1500.00 per year, or even more. This is only for basic coverage which provides little to no value to the insured other than compliance with state law. Much of that cost comes from the insured absorbing the cost of the uninsured. The uninsured take the risk because a ticket for no insurance may cost a couple hundred dollars. If you are ticketed once a year on average, the cost is significantly less than being insured. If your vehicle is totaled in an accident it was likely already a beater and is easily replaced. If someone else is hurt in the accident, that is what the basic coverage is designed to provide for. The uninsured runs the risk of being sued for medical costs in that case, but like many other areas of life for the poor, the prohibitive costs offer few alternative options. Even with the new driver responsibility fee of $200 per year, on top of the ticket for no insurance, the cost is still cheaper than carrying basic insurance coverage.</div><div><br /></div><div>(As a side note, you would have to be blind to see the driver responsibility fee as anything other than another tax that is designed to bolster the insurance companies and provide revenue for a failing state economy.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Lets assume for the moment that the government really does devise laws and financial mandates for our betterment and not to cover their own ineptitude.</div><div><br /></div><div>I propose that if we had a "public option" to meet minimum state requirements we could ensure full compliance with the law. We could wrap up the cost of the basic coverage in the cost of car fuel. That way you contribute to the insurance as you drive. The bigger users of gas will likely be the ones at the most risk of an accident due to their longevity on the road, therefore the contribution ratio becomes the most evenly divided when paid for through fuel cost. This would also promote "green" cars which is another political drive by the government for our own good.</div><div><br /></div><div>We would have to lock down the use of the funds to cover the cost of the insurance to ensure that the government would not be allowed to dip into the funds for other reasons as they are prone to do.</div><div><br /></div><div>This "public option" for car insurance would also still allow private insurance companies to continue their benevolent work of providing comprehensive coverage at an affordable and competitive rate. Car loan providers would still require comprehensive coverage to protect their investments, but the consumer would benefit from competitive rates as insurance companies try to win the customer with the best value. This can only happen when the consumer is not mandated to buy their product.</div><div><br /></div><div>And best of all there is no reason to fund abortion through car insurance so even this congress should have no problem getting this passed.</div><div><br /></div><div>As always I am open to alternative thoughts on this. What do you think?</div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-44647127821733184142009-11-13T21:12:00.000-05:002009-11-14T09:59:29.524-05:00If George Bush was an idiot..<div>Note: This was taken from an email that has been passed around. Author Unknown.</div><div><br /></div>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?<br /><br />If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?<br /><br />So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?<br /><br /><br />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.<div><br /></div><div>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.</div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-19064527339317577272009-09-15T02:16:00.000-04:002009-09-15T05:43:46.349-04:00Pro-Choice Arguments - Foster Care<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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.</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">The truth is that according to foster care statistics found at <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">childwelfare</span>.gov, 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.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">A pro-choicer might suggest that the unborn are better off dead than to be born into the foster care system.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">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.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">So what about orphanages? If they don't end up in foster care then surely the orphanages Will swell with over population.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">At the 1955 conference on induced abortion held by Planned Parenthood, one expert recalled that "Dr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Donnelly</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Lidz</span>, quoted by Mary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Calderone</span>, M.D., Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (editor). </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">Abortion in the United States</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">. New York: Paul B. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Hoeber</span>, Inc., 1956. Page 127.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;">This was from a planned parenthood conference that took place in 1955 when abortions were illegal. The panel included such notables as Alan <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Guttmacher</span>, Alfred Kinsey, Robert <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Laidlaw</span>, Mary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Calderone</span>, 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.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">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.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;">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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">having</span> full assurance that their child is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">being</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">application</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">child's</span> foundation for success is very strong.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px;"><span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Banning</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">using</span> 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.</span></span></div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-56182929335963255002009-08-31T05:12:00.000-04:002009-09-01T12:18:11.303-04:00Impossible pro-life questions - The burning houseFrom time to time I get the "impossible" <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">question</span> 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, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">muwahahahahaha</span>!!!!...ahem, sorry.<div><br /></div><div>One such example is the burning house question. It goes <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">something</span> 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?</div><div><br /></div><div>The intention of the question is to get the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">prolifer</span> to admit that either the embryo is not really as <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">valuable</span> as the born child, or you care nothing about born children in your zeal to protect the unborn at any cost.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the surface it sure seems like a good "gotcha" question, but I have found that my answer fails to really satisfy the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">asker</span>. My answer to this is always "It Depends". I am often accused at this point of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">trying</span> to evade an answer, or <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">trying</span> 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).</div><div><br /></div><div>So what does it depend on? I'm so glad you asked because few pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">choicers</span> ever let me explain. The question does not provide enough information, as is, to give a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">definite</span> answer. First let me say that I am not a fan of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">IVF</span> industry because of the practice of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">creating</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">availability</span> of adoption. But If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">IVF</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">petrie</span> dish.</div><div><br /></div><div>That <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">having</span> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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 m<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">obiley</span> 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?</div><div><br /></div><div>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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">hypothetical</span>.</div><div><br /></div><div>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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">omelettes</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">available</span> as a chicken egg. Are eagle eggs even tasty?</div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-30089819705802324542009-08-31T04:45:00.000-04:002009-09-15T05:44:17.778-04:00More on healthcareOk, 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.<div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div> 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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div>Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-17972625633077144892009-08-06T09:40:00.000-04:002009-09-15T05:44:35.790-04:00Do 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">oo</span> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Pelosi</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">their</span> system is in real trouble.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">coercively</span> 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.<br /><br />Do I want <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">universal</span> health care? I think I actually might.<br /><br />Do I want what Obama has proposed? I am almost certain that I don't.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-28224045827082101222009-07-02T01:54:00.000-04:002009-07-02T02:58:49.618-04:00Conversations with a pro-choicer - Is the fetus alive?I am going to do a few posts <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">highlighting</span></span> different <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">conversations</span></span> I have had with pro-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">choicers</span></span> that deal with specific <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">objections</span> to abortion. My intent is two-fold. First I want to show how the logic is revealed through actual <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">conversation</span></span>, and second I want to show how a kind word can turn away wrath.<br />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.<br />In this <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">conversation</span></span> I want to show how a respectful tone can do much to set your <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">opponent</span> 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.<br /><br />I have included the comments of some of my <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">comrades</span> in arms. Some are beneficial comments, some are detrimental to the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">conversation</span></span>. 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">conversation</span> may appear disjointed at times, that is just the nature of these message boards.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />in all the time i have been posting on this channel, (and others) not one person has been able to show me <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">conclusively</span></span> 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?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - not one person has been able to show me <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">conclusively</span></span> that an embryo is a human <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">being. Admittedly</span>, I am shocked that this would even be in question. Have you ever heard of a woman giving birth to anything other than human?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />what has that to do with anything? a fertilised egg might become a human being.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/ignatiusofantioch2"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">IGNAT</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span>,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. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">UVVAct</span></span> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />I could go and check on your 60 year old report, but every time i do, i find that you have twisted or <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">cherrypicked</span></span> the facts, (like in the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">uvv</span></span> 2004 case below) and that what you say is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">irrelevent</span></span>. cutting and pasting BITS of documents and hoping that no-one take the time to check them is not a good debating strategy. and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">incidentally</span></span> if what some people said 60 years ago was proof of anything, why did no-one act on it yet?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />no i am asking the question I want an answer to, not the one you want answer, if <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">theres</span></span> a difference that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesnt</span></span> mean I got the question wrong.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />I am<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span> - 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />The onus is not on me because abortion is a legal activity, and i am not trying to chance that or stop anyone <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error">excercing</span></span> their legal right, the onus is on you.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />Buy a dictionary mine says "any man woman or child of the species homo-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error">sapiens</span></span>, no mention of fetus's<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />PERSON<br />Noun<br />1. human being - any living or extinct member of the family <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hominidae</span></span>.<br />The fetus is a member of the family <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error">hominidae</span></span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />its not living or a member.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />If you are saying the fetus is not alive then I look forward to seeing your supporting evidence.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />I told you I don’t NEED to support it, you NEED to prove me wrong. I look forward to that.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error">unfortunately</span></span> i have to go out, see if you change the law before i come back.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_47" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_48" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_49" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_47" class="blsp-spelling-error">thats</span></span> what YOU say.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_50" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_48" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_51" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_49" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - Are you seriously insisting that I supply evidence that the fetus is alive? Would you like supporting evidence for gravity as well?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_52" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_50" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBDPro</span></span>-lifers do not <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_53" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_51" class="blsp-spelling-error">particularly</span></span> careabout what pro-aborts consider "good debating strategy".Because you and you kind would rather see pro-lifers as a collection of submissive <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_54" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_52" class="blsp-spelling-error">weeners</span></span>. That's one dream that ain't going to happen.Ever.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_55" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_53" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />"pro-lifer" <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_56" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_54" class="blsp-spelling-error">dont</span></span> seem to care about what a lot of people consider<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_57" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_55" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />What do a lot of people consider?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_58" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_56" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />a lot of people consider abortion to be <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_59" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_57" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span></span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_60" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_58" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />The fact that a lot of people consider it <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_61" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_59" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span></span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_62" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_60" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span></span> once too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_63" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_61" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />no they <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_64" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_62" class="blsp-spelling-error">dont</span></span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_65" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_63" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_66" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_64" class="blsp-spelling-error">dont</span></span> know what you are disagreeing with unless you specify<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_67" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_65" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />the majority of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_68" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_66" class="blsp-spelling-error">americans</span></span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_69" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_67" class="blsp-spelling-error">witha</span></span> false dichotomy. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_70" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_68" class="blsp-spelling-error">gallup</span></span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_71" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_69" class="blsp-spelling-error">spokesmenn</span></span> said they thought the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_72" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_70" class="blsp-spelling-error">hickup</span></span> was a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_73" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_71" class="blsp-spelling-error">kneejerk</span></span> reaction to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_74" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_72" class="blsp-spelling-error">obamas</span></span> recent abortion policy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_75" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_73" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />what false dichotomy?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_76" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_74" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />are you pro choice or pro <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_77" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_75" class="blsp-spelling-error">lfe</span></span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_78" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_76" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - and a lot of people don't consider abortion to be <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_79" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_77" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span></span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_80" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_78" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />"and a lot of people <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_81" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_79" class="blsp-spelling-error">dont</span></span> consider abortion to be <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_82" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_80" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span></span>", and i respect their right to not have one.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_83" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_81" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - No person has the right to take the life of a helpless unborn babe.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_84" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_82" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />actually undead <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_85" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_83" class="blsp-spelling-error">abortionists</span></span> do. go and have a look at the facts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_86" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_84" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span>"..undead <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_87" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_85" class="blsp-spelling-error">abortionists</span></span>.."?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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_88" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_86" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />The property or quality that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_89" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_87" class="blsp-spelling-error">distinguishes</span></span> living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_90" class="blsp-spelling-corrected"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_88" class="blsp-spelling-error">reproduction</span></span>, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_91" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_89" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />but that could all be as a result of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_92" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_90" class="blsp-spelling-error">conection</span></span> by umbilical cord to the mother. once these functions can be performed <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_93" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_91" class="blsp-spelling-error">independenty</span></span> of the mother, (for a n extended period) then a fetus can be said to be alive.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_94" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_92" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />None of the functions of life happen because of the cord. From the moment of conception, the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_95" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_93" class="blsp-spelling-error">conceptus</span></span> begins to reproduce <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_96" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_94" class="blsp-spelling-error">thru</span></span> mitoses, it metabolizes, it responds to its environment. Even the placenta is grown by the fetus, not the mother.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_97" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_95" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />you can apply all of this logic to a vaginal wart.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_98" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_96" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />Really? Does a vaginal wart have its own DNA? Seriously are you here for real debate or just to troll?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_99" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_97" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />why is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_100" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_98" class="blsp-spelling-error">dna</span></span> at all relevant?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_101" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_99" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />Why is DNA relevant?Because DNA is one huge way in which we can determine autonomy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_102" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_100" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - Human Beings as unto a wart! Your slip is showing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_103" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_101" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_104" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_102" class="blsp-spelling-error">Independence</span></span> is also not a criterion for life. A newborn has no <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_105" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_103" class="blsp-spelling-error">independence</span></span>. It cannot survive on its own. A <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_106" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_104" class="blsp-spelling-error">conceptus</span></span> exhibits every trait of life prior to attaching itself tothe uterine wall, independent of the mother.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_107" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_105" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />"<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_108" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_106" class="blsp-spelling-error">independence</span></span> is not a criteria for life", who says so?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_109" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_107" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />Who says so? Biologists who define what constitutes biological life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_110" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_108" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />biologists say that <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_111" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_109" class="blsp-spelling-error">dna</span></span> is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_112" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_110" class="blsp-spelling-error">relevent</span></span> in defining what constitutes a human being?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_113" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_111" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />Yes biologists do say that DNA is relevant for defining not only a human being but any other animal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_114" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_112" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span> - Re: "once these functions can be performed <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_115" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_113" class="blsp-spelling-error">independenty</span></span> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_116" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_114" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></span></a><br />facts are provable, and please tell me what is the cause of the force that holds me to the floor?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_117" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_115" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></span></a><br />What is the cause of the force that holds me to the floor? Giant magnets<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_118" class="blsp-spelling-error"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_116" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span> For</span> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_119" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />you accused me of being ignorant because I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_120" class="blsp-spelling-error">didnt</span> know something and you cant show that you know it? that is a joke<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Merlin2Stage2Speed">Merl</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_121" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span>.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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_122" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_123" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span>, can we then state <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_124" class="blsp-spelling-error">categorically</span> that if something were to have its own individual human <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_125" class="blsp-spelling-error">dna</span> that it is a human being?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_126" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_127" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />so <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_128" class="blsp-spelling-error">dna</span> shows only that it is a part of something that is/was alive?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_129" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/MetaphysicalPolitics">Meta</a><br />"[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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_130" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_131" class="blsp-spelling-error">indisputably</span> that it is or was at some point alive? is that right so far<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_132" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />So far we seem to be on the same page ...continue please.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_133" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />" continue please" I got nothing, I 'm trying to remember why it was <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_134" class="blsp-spelling-error">relevent</span>?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_135" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_136" class="blsp-spelling-error">lol</span>, that's fine. We can pick it up later if you want to take a break.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_137" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />thanks but what i mean is that you now now convinced of the facts that I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_138" class="blsp-spelling-error">oulined</span>, 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_139" class="blsp-spelling-error">signifigance</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_140" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />I'm not sure why it is significant either; you started the line of questioning.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_141" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />"you started the line of questioning" so where were you before you were so rudely <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_142" class="blsp-spelling-error">interupted</span>?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Lorra41"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_143" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lorra</span>41</a><br />" To accept the fact that after <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_144" class="blsp-spelling-error">fertilization</span> has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_145" class="blsp-spelling-error">experimental</span> evidence".The "Father of Modern Genetics" Jerome <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_146" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lejeune</span>....Univ. of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_147" class="blsp-spelling-error">Descarte</span>, Paris.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Lorra41"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_148" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lorra</span>41</a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_149" class="blsp-spelling-error">Everyones</span> life begins at <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_150" class="blsp-spelling-error">fertilization</span>. 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_151" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />The criterion for biological life has been established. It is not opinion; it is a consensus of scientific study. The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_152" class="blsp-spelling-error">conceptus</span> fulfills every criterion for biological life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_153" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />biological life does not mean a human being though right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_154" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />Biological life only means human biological life if it is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_155" class="blsp-spelling-error">biologically</span> human.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_156" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />biological human life does not mean a biological human being though right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_157" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_158" class="blsp-spelling-error">Biologically</span> speaking...yes<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_159" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />yes it does not?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_160" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_161" class="blsp-spelling-error">lol</span> yes it does mean a biological human being. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_162" class="blsp-spelling-error">Biologically</span> it can'tbe anything else.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_163" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />so to recap again, shortly after conception, a fertilised egg contains its own human <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_164" class="blsp-spelling-error">dna</span> and is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_165" class="blsp-spelling-error">biologically</span> a human being? is that right?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_166" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />not shortly after conception, but AT conception. Otherwise we are in agreement.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/MetaphysicalPolitics">Meta</a><br />"a [fertilized] egg, has its own human [DNA], which shows <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_167" class="blsp-spelling-error">indisputably</span> that it is or was at some point alive? is that right so far"Never thought of it that way, but I have no <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_168" class="blsp-spelling-error">disagreement</span> with that statement. The DNA is used to determine species and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_169" class="blsp-spelling-error">individuality</span>. Life is determined by the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_170" class="blsp-spelling-error">characteristics</span> of the organism, those <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_171" class="blsp-spelling-error">characteristics</span> being, cellular division (growth), metabolism, autonomous movement and reaction to stimuli.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_172" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />and is an independent life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_173" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />Dependency is too loosely defined; I would say an individual life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_174" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />individual will do for me.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_175" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_176" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span> :)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_177" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />1 more question (which I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_178" class="blsp-spelling-error">dont</span> expect you to be <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_179" class="blsp-spelling-error">ble</span> to answer) why, after commenting on this <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_180" class="blsp-spelling-error">vid</span> for months and repeatedly asking, is this the first time anyone has told me all this?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_181" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_182" class="blsp-spelling-error">ur</span> right, I can’t say why that is but I hope I was helpful to you.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_183" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />" but I hope I was helpful to you" not really, because now i will have to endure pro.lie <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_184" class="blsp-spelling-error">merl</span> and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_185" class="blsp-spelling-error">ignatious</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_186" class="blsp-spelling-error">costantly</span> ranting that human life begins at conception, because technically speaking they are right, but thanks for trying.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_187" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />Well you could always join us :)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_188" class="blsp-spelling-error">DBD</span></a><br />thanks for the invite but i <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_189" class="blsp-spelling-error">dont</span> like the company you keep.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin"><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_190" class="blsp-spelling-error">shardoin</span></a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/ignatiusofantioch2">ignatius</a><br />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).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />"you still deny the basic scientific facts" really? oh and as you know the uvv act 2004 specifically excludes abortion<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin">shardoin</a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />“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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin">shardoin</a><br />What information was being ignored? They did not deny the humanity of the fetus when they gave exclusion for abortion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />"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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin">shardoin</a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />hey i wouldnt wanna be the next person to ask me "which came first the chicken or the egg?"<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/shardoin">shardoin</a><br />lol<br /><br /><br />*next day*<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/kirstiedale3">kirs</a><br />DERBULL: You said in you post"Life begins at conception, technicaly THEY ARE RIGHT ! "Thankyou for that :D<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />dont thank me thank sardoin (sp?)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/kirstiedale3">kirs</a><br />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<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/derbulldog">DBD</a><br />sHardoin<br /><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-56224676632171844662009-06-29T04:15:00.000-04:002009-07-02T02:55:03.790-04:00God supports abortion Part 2In this post I want to deal with Numbers 5:11-31:<br /><br /><br /><br />A Test for Adultery<br />"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 title="See cross-reference A" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3806A">A</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,(<a title="See cross-reference B" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3806B">B</a>) 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 title="See footnote a" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#fen-ESV-3808a">a</a>] of barley flour.(<a title="See cross-reference C" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3808C">C</a>) 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,(<a title="See cross-reference D" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3808D">D</a>) bringing iniquity to remembrance.<br />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(<a title="See cross-reference E" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3811E">E</a>) 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)(<a title="See cross-reference F" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3814F">F</a>) '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(<a title="See cross-reference G" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3815G">G</a>) pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.' And the woman shall say,(<a title="See cross-reference H" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3815H">H</a>) 'Amen, Amen.'<br />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(<a title="See cross-reference I" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3818I">I</a>) and shall wave the grain offering before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26And the priest(<a title="See cross-reference J" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3819J">J</a>) 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(<a title="See cross-reference K" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3820K">K</a>) 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.<br />29"This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife,(<a title="See cross-reference L" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3822L">L</a>) 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(<a title="See cross-reference M" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205:11-31;&version=47;#cen-ESV-3824M">M</a>) shall bear her iniquity."<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />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."<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><br />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.<br />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?<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-13494560640566319202009-06-22T03:36:00.001-04:002009-07-02T02:55:52.780-04:00God supports abortion Part 1I 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">develop</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">consistent</span> with scripture to be anti-abortion but again, I have not found any scripture that would specifically ban the procedure.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I have seen two scriptures used to support the idea of God <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">supporting</span> abortion; Exodus 21:22-25 and Numbers 5:11-31.<br /><br />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." <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">ESV</span>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Pro-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">choicers</span> 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.<br /><br />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˚<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">yase</span> û ye <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">ladêhâ</span> in the Hebrew. It’s a combination of a Hebrew noun--<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">yeled</span>--and a verb--<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">yasa</span>--and literally means “the child comes forth.”<br /><br />Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">didn</span>’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.<br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Yasa</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’t mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">yeled</span> with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">yasa</span> suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated “miscarriage.” Why? Because the word <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’t mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.<br /><br />The Hebrew noun translated “child” in this passage is <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">yeled</span> (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">yeladim</span> in the plural), and means “child, son, boy, or youth.” It comes from the primary root word <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">yalad</span>, meaning “to bear, bring forth, or beget.” In the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">NASB</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">yalad</span> is translated “childbirth” 10 times, some form of “gave birth” over 50 times, and either “bore,” “born,” or “borne” 180 times.<br /><br />The verb <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">yasa</span> 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">NASB</span>--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.<br /><br />it’s common for <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">yasa</span> to describe the “coming forth” of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">yasa</span> 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!”<br />Note here, that we don’t infer the child’s death from the word <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">yasa</span>, 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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">doesn</span>’t die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.<br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">Yasa</span> is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case.<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error">ok</span> 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?<br /><br />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 <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">equivalent</span> passage that offers legal protection for a woman who is not pregnant.<br /><br />Th<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error">e truth</span> 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.<br /><br />I will deal with Numbers 5:11-31 next time.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-91299199971473823422009-06-15T00:33:00.000-04:002009-06-15T09:47:37.021-04:00Is 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://ehealthforum.com/"></a><br />Temporary parasites.<br />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 <a href="http://www.icp.ucl.ac.be/~opperd/parasites%20/types2.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://www.icp.ucl.ac.be/~opperd/parasites%20/types2.htm</a><br /><br />Here is a much clearer scientific description of parasitism in the Encyclopedia Britannica: (emphasis added)<br />parasitism<br />Encyclopedia Britannica Article<br />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. <a href="http://ehealthforum.com/health/jump_confirm.php?url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058426/parasitism" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://ehealthforum.com/health/jump_confirm.php?url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058426/parasitism</a> (free temporary subscription required)<br /><br />And here is a definition from Online Medical Dictionary: (emphasis added)<br />parasitism<br />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. <a href="http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?par" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?par</a><br /><br />And here is another from the U of Penn Vet School: (emphasis added)<br />Parasitism<br />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. <a href="http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/merial/i%20ntroduction/intro_1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/merial/i%20ntroduction/intro_1.htm</a><br /><br />And here's another one from the U of MN (emphasis added)<br />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. <a href="http://www.cvm.umn.edu/academics/course_we%20b/current/CVM6201/stromberg_I.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://www.cvm.umn.edu/academics/course_we%20b/current/CVM6201/stromberg_I.htm</a><br /><br />And here is a definition from Aberystwyth University, Wales (emphasis added)<br />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. <a href="http://ehealthforum.com/health/jump_confirm.php?url=http://" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://</a> <a href="http://www.aber.ac.uk/~mpgwww/Edu/Para_ism/PaIsmT%20xt.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" k9oko="0" quho_="0">http://www.aber.ac.uk/~mpgwww/Edu/Para_ism/PaIsmT%20xt.html</a><br /><br />MedicineNet.com defines parasite as<br />Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />Note this quote from a parasitology textbook:<br />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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Let me clarify a few things about parasite just to make sure we can put this to rest.<br /><br />A parasite is always from another kind of species.<br />A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.<br />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.).<br />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).<br /><br />also, with few exceptions, a parasite will remain a parasite for it's entire life. It cannot survive without a host.<br /><br />It is not scientifically accurate to associate a human fetus with a parasite.<br /><br />Let me go one step further, Is it accurate to associate a Zygote, Embryo, Fetus with a baby, or a child?<br /><br />Let me give you a definition of baby.<br /><br />n. pl. ba·bies<br />1.<br />a. A very young child; an infant.<br />b. An unborn child; a fetus.<br />c. The youngest member of a family or group.<br />d. A very young animal<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Let's look at "child"<br /><br />n. pl. chil·dren<br />1. A person between birth and puberty.<br />2.<br />a. An unborn infant; a fetus.<br />b. An infant; a baby.<br /><br />Again we see that the unborn are included among the proper applications for the word child.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I will stand corrected:<br />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.<br /><br />or If I can be shown a credible source of parasitology that specifies gestating unborn as meeting the criteria for classification of parasite.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-80989731912105098482009-04-30T04:51:00.000-04:002009-04-30T05:06:22.785-04:00A word about ViabilityIn this American society we have the privilage of great medical advances, good hospitals, sanitary conditions, etc.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-35784857360074822782009-02-23T22:32:00.000-05:002009-07-02T02:56:18.037-04:00Judge NotIn this society of tolerance the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. How often the christians are silenced from speaking about the evils in this world by the invocation of those magical words, "Do not judge". This invocation most often comes from those who would not think twice about judging you. After all, isn't it a judgement call to say that you are guilty of judging someone else? I see this tactic very often when talking to pro-choicers about abortion. They tell me not to judge the actions of the woman who has an abortion. But are they really invoking Jesus' words? What does the entire passage say?<br /><br /><br /><br />Matthew 7:1-5 says "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."<br /><br /><br /><br />Jesus tells us to make sure we are clean first before we take on the role of judging other's actions. But that does not mean that we are never to judge. So long as I am not guilty of hypocracy I am free to lovingly judge the actions of those around me. The bible speaks often of judment beginning at home.<br /><br /><br /><br />1 Peter 4:17 "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"<br /><br /><br /><br />We are told that judgement begins with God's people first, then to the rest of the world. As it pertains to abortion, I am not guilty of aborting my child nor am I guilty of coercing my partner to abort my child. Being that this "beam" is not in my own eye, I can see clearly that the speck still exists in my brother's eye. My duty is to try to remove the speck from my brother's eye.<br /><br /><br /><br />The bible not only has no commission to avoid judgement, it rather commands that we do judge.<br /><br />Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."<br /><br /><br /><br />Matthew 7:15-16a "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits."<br /><br /><br /><br />We are told to judge with discernment in order to protect the church from false prophets. We are told to check ourselves to make sure we are free of guilt, but once having made our own eye clean we are to use that clean eye to help our brother remove the speck from his eye. We are called to judge as christians.<br /><br />Don't let these futile attempts by the half-hearted deter you from your commision. We should protect the innocent. We should judge those who will not listen to the call of God in order to bring them to repentance and right standing before God. In the usual case where the pro-choicer likes to evoke this cry against judgement, we are to cast judgement on the woman who make a foolish decision to kill her unborn. Casting judgement does not mean we cast sentance on her, that is for God to do. We are to cast judgement in order to help this poor woman find her way again, whether she is contemplating abortion, has already committed abortion, or is suffering from an abortion long ago. Judgement is compassion at it's highest.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-53543189690609394082009-02-09T22:58:00.000-05:002009-02-09T23:42:58.287-05:00Abortion results in the killing of a unique, living, human beingSuch an emotionally laden statement that is. It is a profound truth for many and fodder for ridicule and angry backlash from others. We need to understand what is so offensive about this statement though. The pro-choicer would likely take offense to the "human being" claim. Some others might object to the "living" aspect of this statement. I agree this is an emotionally charged statement but is it disingenuous? Let's examine this more closely to see if there is truly anything misspoken here.<br /><br /><strong>Abortion</strong><br />Abortion is the ceasing of an act in progress, such as aborting a mission, aborting an idea, aborting a pregnancy. Abortion is also known as a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy and expels the fetus. Though abortion is intended to terminate the pregnancy of a non-viable fetus, it is currently legal in all states to terminate a viable fetus due to the "mental health" of the mother clause.<br /><br /><strong>Killing</strong><br />As I stated, abortion will result in the termination of a pregnancy which is intended to also terminate the life of the unborn, thus killing the unborn. Killing is not to be confused with murder which is an illegal act. Killing a fetus can only become murder if elective abortion is banned.<br /><br /><strong>Unique</strong><br />The unborn from the point of conception is an entity distinct from the mother. The conceptus has it's own DNA containing both sets of chromosomes which is required to be considered a human being. While the gamete cells (egg and sperm) contain 1 set of chromosomes each, they are not a human being themselves because they lack the other necessary set. The fetus has it's own blood type distinct from it's mother. The fetus even grows it's own placenta. The fetus is NOT a part of the mother as a kidney is. The fetus has a symbiotic relationship with the mother.<br /><br /><strong>Living</strong><br />There is a consensus on the basic standards for biological life. This is not to be confused with the metaphysical and philosophical discussion of qualitative life, or "personhood". The biological standard for life is as follows:<br />Homeostasis, Growth, Reproduction, Absorption, Metabolism, Secretion, Irritability.<br />The conceptus maintains it's own shape in homeostasis, the cells will become larger in growth until the need to reproduce by splitting. The conceptus takes in nourishment and metabolises that nourishment to prepare itself for growth. The conceptus gives off heat, and as all single celled animals will do, the conceptus will instinctively move away from a source of irritation. The later stages of the unborn will follow this same pattern but the biological standard for life is met right from the very beginning.<br /><br /><strong>Human</strong><br />This should certainly be the easiest to comprehend and yet the obvious will often evade the closed heart. Any DNA test done on the unborn, even at the point of conception, will reveal that this is human DNA.<br />A legal, medical, and general dictionary will all show that the definition for human is: any living or extinct member of the family homonidae. The conceptus, and older gestations, all fit this description.<br /><br /><strong>Being</strong><br />This also should be too obvious to require explanation but I find myself compelled to discuss even this trivial matter. One only has to exist in time and space to fit the description of "being". To exist is to be in a state of being. To deny the unborn are beings is to deny their very existence in any variety.<br /><br /><strong>Abortion results in the killing of a unique, living, human being.</strong><br /><br />Certainly this is an emotionally charged statement as well it should be. There is nothing dishonest about it except for those who would define words on their own terms. Whether you take this statement as a matter of unemotional fact or as a slap in the face of the benign message you would prefer to hear, The statement is true. There can never be progress as a people until we accept reality for what it is.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-23315926478825059722009-02-09T18:20:00.000-05:002009-02-09T18:56:37.279-05:00Of Earth and EaglesI have been told by pro-choicers that there is no life worth protecting in the womb until it is born. I have been told that "potential life" is not "life". I have been told that abortion does not take a human life.<br /><br />Of course I can offer plenty of facts and statistics and logical reasonings that readily disprove all of these assertions but I find it more fun to point out an inconsistancy in the law and watch how rabid pro-choicers will become in their defense.<br /><br />If we take an eagle egg and compare it to our own gestation in the womb, we should be able to take from the pro-choicers arguments and apply them to the eagle egg. In other words, there is no life worth protecting in the egg. "potential life" is not "life". Making an omellette out of eagle eggs does not take an eagle's life. So why does the law place so much protection over an eagle's unhatched and so little protection over our unborn?<br /><br />This turning of the tables will bring about a lot of fun interaction. They will bring up extinction, but again, if there is no actual eagle in that egg then there is no danger of extinction by enjoying the egg before it hatches. They will then bring up the fact that we are in no danger ourselves of extinction, in fact this is the point where they wil begin the self-loathing cry of overpopulation. See my earlier blog on this subject.<br /><br />The truth is that we do protect eagle eggs because there would be no hatched eagles otherwise, and we need to protect the fetus for the same reason.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-55877645858293549292009-02-09T05:32:00.001-05:002011-01-26T04:54:11.496-05:00Young Earth?There is much debate, or maybe none in your worldview, concerning the age of the Earth. Evolutionists claim the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. Creationists claim it to be no more than 10,000 years old and probably closer to 6500. Why do creationists and evolutionists disagree so drastically on this? We can assume that one of us isn't using science to back up our claim, instead using a dogma of ideology to support our position. But which one of us if being the religious zealot?<br />
<br />
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. In other words, as time goes by the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Perhaps that's because all of our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood, about 4600 years ago? Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.<br />
<br />
Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived. And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth. Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old, then it does seem a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.<br />
<br />
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.<br />
<br />
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.<br />
<br />
One evolutionist <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Nobel</span> prize winner admitted at a symposium that when the sample matched their assumption they would include it in their writings. When there was some marginal error, they would add a footnote. When the sample was way off, they would exclude it completely. Does this sound like someone who <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">relies</span> on scientific data for their findings, or does it sound more like a zealot who will extrapolate from the evidence to support their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ideology</span>?Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-53125322160142245382009-02-06T20:29:00.000-05:002009-05-06T05:44:57.775-04:00What overpopulation problem?One tactic used by pro-<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">choicers</span> in their defense of abortion is the argument that if abortion were <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">banned</span> there would be so many people on the Earth that we could not feed, much less, house everybody. The planet would be overpopulated. Although this reasoning fails to defend abortion on it's own merit, allow me the liberty of further <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">denigrating</span> the argument to oblivion.<br /><br /><br /><br />There are currnetly 6,706,993,152 (July 2008 est.) people in the entire world.<br /><br />Rhode Island has the Surface area of 1,214 square miles.<br /><br />This means that the entire world population could fit in the U.S. state of Rhode Island leaving 4.5 sq, ft. per person. Now look at a globe and see if you can pick out Rhode Island. As you scan the rest of the globe in search for this tiny speck, you will certainly notice how much land that leaves available for livestock, agriculture, fresh water, and especially elbow room. Africa has the potential to supply enough agriculture to feed the whole world by itself.<br /><br />Now this isn't meant to be a real world scenario, by all means go find a ranch and a few acres to retire on and stretch your legs. It does show how little use we are making of the land available to us though.<br /><br />You may ask why is there famine, especially in Africa? The problem is with the government, not the resources. The Dictatorial governments squander the food supplies as well as the relief supplies for themselves and allow their own people to starve.<br /><br />So maybe there isn't a problem right now, but what about future generations?<br /><br />That is a fair question. It is estimated that by 2050 we will have a population of nearly 9 billion. In response I offer the nearby state of Maryland. Feel free to expand. There is still much land available. But what about 50 years after that? Or 100, or 1000 years down the road? The movie "Logan's Run" comes to mind. Their solution to population control was to demand the suicide of everyone at the age of 30. Turns out there was a huge world available right outside their little bubble.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-34913747006832929402009-02-03T17:46:00.000-05:002009-02-09T14:07:50.606-05:00The writing on the wallI believe I have now seen the writing on the wall. I have seen a glimpse of the true intention of the pro-choice movement.<br /><br />I frequent the comment sections on <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">youtube</span></span></span> videos, especially those pertaining to abortion. I had a conversation recently with one young female about the topic of abortion in relation to the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">perceived</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">supposed</span> overpopulation problem. When I revealed that I have 4 boys and would love to have even more children, her reply was one of shock and disdain.<br /><br />Large families are no longer celebrated but rather scorned. My mother came from a family of 14 children. My father came from a family of 6 children. I came from a family of 9 children, and I now have a family of 4 children. I couldn't imagine having only 1 or 2 children. It would seem somewhat incomplete to me. That is not to say that I am suggesting that small families are inferior in any way, but that is to say that large families are still something worth celebrating.<br /><br />This is my own personal choice in family planning. Others make a different choice. I thought that we were still celebrating choice when it came to family planning. I thought our country had shifted to a stance of reproductive freedom. We have paved the way for all women and couples to choose to have or not to have a family, at least that is the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">mantra</span> I keep hearing from the pro-choice crowd.<br /><br />I see through their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">mantra</span> now though. I see that choice is only meaningful if you choose what they want you to choose. Interesting that pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">choicers</span></span></span> seem to point to pro-lifers as the ones <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">persistant</span> in taking away choice but let's look at what they mean by choice.<br /><br />What is choice? choice is the ability to choose your own path. It is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">impossible</span> to deny choice. This has been proven over our history when many men and women made a choice for their own life that was against common thinking, common decency, maybe even against the law. Sometimes it was for the betterment of mankind, sometimes it was to that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">individual's</span></span></span> detriment. But they all had the ability to make that choice. Banning abortion will not take away any choice, anymore than banning murder has taken away the choice to commit murder.<br /><br />No, what the pro-choice crowd means is choice without consequences. This would fall right in line with the idea that pregnancy is a consequence of their <strong>CHOICE</strong> to have sex. The vast majority of abortions began with a choice (except when rape was involved, but let's talk about the other 99% of abortions for the time being.), If you are not aware of how babies are made then there is really no good reason for you to be engaging in something so life changing as sex. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Contraceptives</span></span> fail. They all have a posted failure rate printed right on the packaging. It is a gamble if you are going to depend on a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy. If I choose to gamble my paycheck and I lose, I cannot abort my mortgage payment.<br /><br />I like large families. I have many friends with large families. Why have Pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">choicers</span></span></span> looked down on my reproductive choice to have a large family? Isn't the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">exercise</span> of my choice the thing that should be celebrated, Or is only the choice to abort that is worthy of celebration among pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">choicers</span></span></span>? My recent experience has revealed to me that it is only the choice to abort that will cause pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">choicers</span></span></span> to rally with you. Congratulating a couple who has only one or two kids gives the pro-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">choicers</span></span></span> the ability to save face in defending their stance of "choice" but when they meet one with a large family, they claim us irresponsible.<br /><br />Beware people, the pro-choice goal isn't just choice. There is something much bigger and much more subtle going on here. I haven't quite figured out what it is and truthfully I am not sure that they entirely know either. It may just be that they are all becoming like the wild hogs that follow the first ones off the cliff.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4988143151899225896.post-40926123902214914472009-01-26T23:41:00.000-05:002009-02-03T23:11:31.441-05:0072% of America is pro-lifeAccording to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Aug. 29-31, 2008. N=1,031 adults nationwide. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">MoE</span> ± 3.<br />When asked "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"<br />53% answered pro-choice and 45% answered pro-life. On the surface it would seem the the country is split in half, leaning slightly towards pro-choice. How can I say then that America is vastly pro-life? The answer is in the question asked by the poll. Most people consider themselves pro-choice because they don't understand what pro-choice is. It is the popular politically correct answer to give nowadays.<br /><br />To be pro-choice one must want choice for abortion to be legal in all situations, at all times. Any desire to restrict abortion is a desire to restrict choice. I ask you why any pro-choicer would want to restrict abortion at all if it is only a blob of tissue living inside the mother. If there is no harm to any human being then there is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">truly</span> no reason to restrict abortion anymore than there would be reason to restrict a mole removal. Therefore the only reason, realized or otherwise, for restricting abortion for any reason is that one believes, at least at some point in the pregnancy, that there is a person living inside that mother that is worthy of protecting. To find that there is life inside that mother worthy of protecting is a pro-life position.<br /><br />There are various restrictions that people would like to see on abortion. Some simply want less abortions. But why desire less abortions if there is no harm to anyone? <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Some</span> want <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">restrictions</span> at later stages of pregnancy. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">This</span> is a pro-life position at a later stage of pregnancy. Some want restrictions except for rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Ok</span>, let's talk about these.<br /><br />Abortion that saves the life of a mother from imminent danger has always been legal, even when general abortion was illegal. If the mother is in danger of dying and the fetus is not viable, of course we want the mother to live. We just want to make sure that the fetus is given a chance to live too if it is at all possible. Let's be clear though, depression is not imminent danger. hardship is not imminent danger, fear of your boyfriend leaving you is not imminent danger.<br /><br />Rape and incest exceptions are seemingly <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">inconsistent</span> with a viewpoint that there is a human being inside from the moment of conception. I would agree with that perception. Even with these exceptions there is still a pro-life viewpoint. The reason these exceptions come up is because they are emotionally based. The thought of the pain and unfairness of these situations override the feeling that abortion would be killing a person. Logically it is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">inconsistent</span>, but the rape and incest exceptions are emotionally driven.<br /><br />When other polls are given that ask more <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">in depth</span> questions like "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" You see a different picture.<br />According to the Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">MoE</span> ± 3.<br />28% want abortion legal under any circumstance, 54% want it legal only under certain circumstances (a pro-life position), 17% want abortion illegal in all circumstances.<br /><br />Only 28% of the country is pro-choice where there are no restrictions on choice. Remember, any restriction on choice is not pro-choice. The only reason for desiring restrictions of any kind is because of a pro-life stance. You are pro-life if you believe there is a person inside the pregnant woman worthy of protection at any time during the pregnancy.Shardoinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05290941622936259031noreply@blogger.com1