The Logic Cop Says It's a Human Baby

Back when the Presidential campaign was in full swing, both Barak Obama and John McCain took part in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. During that forum candidate Obama was asked “When does a baby get human rights?” His answer was:

Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

What does pay grade have to do with the facts?

President Obama stated during his speech at Notre Dame

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.

He is right; this controversy should not be shoved aside. It is a life-and-death matter and someone is wrong about it. That is something everyone should think about, one side of this debate is wrong; but who?

Think about the logic pro-abortionists use to justify their position. That life doesn't start until the fetus is "viable". Early on it is just a mass of cells, not a human. They also hide behind the more socially acceptable title of "pro-choice", rather than calling them selves exactly what they are "pro-death". After all death is the opposite of life, so pro-death is a more accurate description.
I've stated very clearly in the past that if you consider yourself "pro-choice", you are in the same camp as a pro-abortionist, so lets start the debate there. If you are pro-choice, what are you choosing between? You are choosing between eliminating something or keeping something.

The next question is, eliminate what? Is this “thing” an inert globule of organic matter? Or is it a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or a fetus? These latter terms are employed to describe different stages of gestational development. But do they define whether the “it” is human or non-human? It must be one or the other. This is like using the words “baby,” “child,” “teen,” “adult,” and “senior.” Do these expressions refer to humans or non-humans?

Let’s think about this issue from a coldly logical vantage point. Upon what core issues can all sides agree? (1) When a male sperm and a female egg unite, something happens. Something is henceforth there. (2) That something either is living or non-living. Is there a third option? Clearly it is living. It takes nourishment and receives oxygen. It exhibits movement. It undergoes cell replication. This is undeniable. (3) This living thing either is human or non-human. DNA analysis will clearly identify it as human; 100% of the time, no matter the ideology of the scientist. If it were identified as non-human, say it were determined to be an avocado or a duck, then it may be eliminated at any time, at any stage, and for any purpose. We take the lives of plants and animals, to be used for a higher good, without hesitation. The assumption of civilized society always has been, however, that human life constitutes an entirely different category. Therefore by logical examination this "thing" that is being taken is a living human and one must agree that abortion can only be described as an action that is the taking of a human life.

The President clearly believes and supports the theory that the lives of pre-born infants are subject to the choices of society’s democratic process. He obviously chooses not to believe that a living human being is purposefully killed in the abortion procedure. Since this is the case, why does he call for us to “reduce the number of women seeking abortions”?

There is something wrong with this logic and I hope you understand it.

Somebody Explain This To Me

This is one I'll definitely follow, but I do not understand why it even happens. The city has no grounds for this, but I'll bet they will continue to pursue it no matter how much tax payer money is wasted on a defense or how much embarrassment it causes. Elitist, egotistical, loons.

Couple Ordered To Stop Holding Bible Study At Home Without Permit

How did this employee of San Diego county even know about the bible study. Not that it matters, but there is more here than meets the eye.

You cannot tell me Christianity is being targeted for extinction. What is this country becoming?

Same Story Different Day

It's funny, it's sad...no, it's funny. So many people educated beyond their intelligence. As I reported in a piece called "Ida" Don't Know, the latest fossil to be dubbed as the missing link is an ancient lemur like animal. The problem is that science is so focused on proving to the world that a missing link exists, they forget how many times in the past they made the same claim only to see it become a dead end, or worse, a fraud. Here is a list of sciences greatest misses:

1. Every argument used to validate evolution in the famous 1925 Scopes trial was later proven fallacious, and none of them are used today by knowledgeable people.
2. Remember vestigial organs? All supposedly “vestigial” organs are now known to be functional and useful.
3. The Piltdown man turned out to be a fraud.
   
4. Embryonic recapitulation—made popular by a series of manipulated drawings by Ernst Haeckel—has been thoroughly refuted by embryology.
5. Ramapithecus was once considered “the link,” but it was determined to be nothing more than an extinct orangutan-like creature.
6. Homo habilis has likewise outlived its celebrity status. The majority of paleontologists who recognize that it is really just a collection of both ape and human skull fragments are too uncomfortable to present it as a transitional form in textbooks.
7. Peppered moths and Darwin’s finches remain the same moths and finches.
8. Archaeopteryx was just a bird.
   

Ida is following the same as her predecessors. She has been promoted as a “missing link” with widespread media hype. After further study, however, this claim will be quietly rescinded. The most damaging result of this backward publish the story first and ask scientific questions later routine is that evolution is promoted whether or not the discovery provides any evidence to support it. This is not the way ideal science is conducted—it’s closer to propaganda.

Is The Abortion Debate Changing?

I read an article in the Denver Post by David Harsanyi titled "Harsanyi: Abortion Debate Changing". I've read some of his articles before because, as he states up front in this article, he's an atheist, is secular and practices moral relativism. So, he provide very good insight into the world view of a person like that and the logic they use to make their agrgument.

This article is very good because he uses very concrete real reasons for oposing abortion. Most pro-abortionists and pro-choicers if they would take the time to think their position through to it's logical end would see that what they support and why they support it has many contradictions.

I'll close with a quote from super model Kathy Ireland which I wrote about in an article called Abortion: Open Mindedness and Reasonable Thinking. In that article the pro-choice Ms. Ireland reversed her position and chose to be pro-life through careful examination of the issue. In her investigation she was confronted by the "is a fetus a human being?" question,

Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life. "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time.

"Ida" Don't Know

I've seen a lot of media hype about the fossil of an ancient monkey known as "Ida". The reports are that this is definitive proof of a transitional species showing that modern man evolved from earlier primates. As the link to an article states, we've heard this before. Wild hype about a historic discovery and then after further examination it turns out to nothing new. The news about the actual truth of the discovery gets buried. Ego.

I'll be looking for more on Ida, but in the mean time read this and this.

Hmmmmm...

Nuance.

Perspective? No, It's Yellow Journalism

Words fail me at the moment as to just how unfair this is. Watch the first video, a news report about how Christian soldiers (forgive the pun) are guilty of proselytizing Islamic Afghans.



After watching that I would bet that the military would punish those that the video clearly shows violating Army rules, and who also risk the delicate balance of relations we have worked so hard to achieve in that country.

But wait! Could it be that through creative editing the situation was actually something completely different? - Disgusting.

Obama's Speech at Notre Dame

So many thoughts...none make me feel less anxious.

I am really beginning to fear where our country will be in fours years, or perhaps after eight if he is elected to second term. He has commanded such a loyal following of the blind. It comes down to people not caring about right or wrong any more, but if Mr. Obama says it, it must be right.

I could write a lot about some of the things he said in his speech, but I'll restrict it to only two, plus a couple of links to two articles I've read so far today.

Two quotes with my comments:

"Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions" - Tell me Mr. President, exactly how much deciding, heart-wrenching or otherwise, does it take to make that which is wrong, right?

"So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions..." - Mr President, we are men of action; lies do not become us and you making it look like you are willing to reduce the number of women seeking abortions is an outright lie. You have had numerous opportunities in your political career to do just that and every time, 100%, you have always voted against any kind of restrictions and voted for removing restriction. You vowed to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which does just that; it removes all state imposed restrictions on abortion, things like parental notification (wouldn't that stand to reduce some abortions?). You voted against the Infant Born Alive Act which would require doctors to administer life saving medical attention to a baby born alive due to a botched abortion. Sir, you are a liar and a deceiver.


Links to articles:

US News & World Report - Obama's Notre Dame Speech Was an Alarming Violation of Church-State Separation

National Review Online - Obama and the 'Real Catholics'

To Get Jello You Need a Cook

I post this stuff, but honestly am amazed by how it defies logic. Honestly.

The article Chemists see first building blocks to life on Earth, is yet another glimpse at how science works so hard to 'wrench' data to fit an already pre-decided result. In the article US molecular biologist Jack Szostak hailed the research saying

It will stand for years as one of the great advances in prebiotic chemistry

Read the article and see if you think what they are doing deserves this praise. Speaking of the three base chemicals that form an RNA strand, one very good objection written in the article states

...doubters have been comforted by the failure to find any feasible chain of chemical events to explain how the three components all came together.

I just found another article on this same subject, but the title is much better: Molecules of Life Emerges From Laboratory Slime.

Review what I've written in the past about this in an article called Upside-Down and Backwards and then tell me if all of this experimenting of trying to recreate the primordial soup and zapping it with electricity, then heating it and cooling it and finding some chemicals joined together can account for THE VOLUMES OF GENETIC INFORMATION CONTAINED IN OUR RNA AND DNA!!!

Honestly, if take some chemicals and zap it with electricity, heat it and then cool it I get lime flavored Jello. When you see Jello do you think it got on the cafeteria line by way of the blind forces of chance? It just appeared there without the assistance of the cook?

Follow The Evidence

I wrote a number of weeks back about how a hiker in Australia came upon grove of trees that were thought to be extinct. It was likened to finding a living dinosaur.

Today I read about yet another discovery of a dinosaur fossil found with soft tissue intact. Two T-Rex fossils had been found previously, this time it's a Hadrosaur and the tissue includes blood cells and collagen.

While I find it amazing, especially because these discoveries are being made by typically pro-evolution scientists; for me it begs another question. Strict creationists, like myself, believe the earth is only several thousand years old. Evolutionists state that the earth is 4.5 billion of years old and the first microbial life appeared some 3.5 billion years ago. My question is why such a large delta between the two camps conclusion in the age of earth and of the first life? I'm going to start reading........

Hartache: Abortions Based on Gender

I came across this article: Sweden Allows Sex-Selective Abortions

For the life of me I cannot understand the rational behind being pro-abortion or even pro-choice. I know my saying that seems odd. I understand how odd it sounds because I used to be pro-choice. So, in an attempt to provide understanding, I honestly believe one can only be pro-abortion if you have elevated yourself to be a god. And I think you can only be pro-choice if you have your head in the sand and refuse to really understand what this is all about.

I Am a Recovering Pro-Choice Liberal Democrat

I turned 18 in 1978 and honestly I can’t remember what election year was my first time to vote. I can tell you that when I did begin to vote it was for Democrats. Why was that? I’m not sure other than my parents were generally politically uninformed, so that carried over I suppose. If asked what party I align myself with I would have told you (with nose raised in the air) that I don’t (didn't) vote along party lines, I “vote for the person not the party”. When in reality if you looked at the actual “persons” I voted for…they were all Democrats.

In 1999 the presidential campaign was well underway and the leading Democrats in the race were Al Gore and Howard Dean. I started souring on Dean because he seemed extraordinarily arrogant, so Gore was my man. Time for Confession: If you had asked me why I liked Al Gore over all other candidates and including why I thought he was better that George Bush, I would have answered because I thought he was smarter. Yup, that was my reason for voting for Al Gore. There was no substance behind my choice, I didn't choose because I determined what issues were most important to me. Nope, I liked him because he was “smarter”. Not my proudest moment.

I voted for Gore in that election and, well, Bush became President after a historic set of events in Florida. You remember the hanging chads and all. But this was my political involvement. Basically to not know anything about real issues and then vote Democrat. But, I also have to say that even though I was completely uniformed I did have opinions; most importantly an opinion on abortion. I was completely pro-choice and was one of those people who would say "Well I would never suggest a women should get an abortion, but who am I to tell another person what they can or cannot do with their body."

In late 1999 and early 2000 I was struggling in life, and while this is not the topic of this post, I have to say I had a spiritual awakening and committed my life to Jesus Christ in February of 2000. After that conversion I began questioning my thoughts and actions, and asking "who am I?"

Then in 2002 came the Governor’s race in Massachusetts, where I was living at the time. It was Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket and State Treasurer Shannon O'Brien on the Democrat ticket. Now 42 years old I decided for the first time to actually pay attention to what the issues were and decide on a candidate who best matches what I most strongly believe in. What I found was a Democratic candidate that didn't care to have a substantive debate. She had an attitude that oozed elitism and well, made me want to take a shower after hearing her speak. The attitude that came across from Ms. O'Brien was if you align with my thoughts you are a progressive thinker, and if you disagree with me I will simply tear you down while never actually debating you on the merits of my position. I didn't like it at all. I actually hadn't made up my mind until the very last debate they had. Mitt Romney gave clear and concise answers to why he stands where he stands on the issues. Ms. O'Brien was a condescending, nasty person who had no clue what she was about. The final straw for me was when the topic of abortion came up. Mr. Romney stated he was pro-life, but honestly stated that since the Massachusetts state house is a vast majority Democrat, he was not planning on attempting to challenge current law in Massachusetts. Ms. O'Brien on the other hand stated she did want to change to current abortion laws to make them easier to get an abortion at anytime during pregnancy and for any reason, INCLUDING for minors WITHOUT parental consent. It was like a dagger in my heart. Was this what I was supporting all those years?

I voted for Mitt Romney. And I did so on the issues.

In every election since then I have voted for pro-life candidates because I have seen that liberals have taken on a personality of arrogant elitism, and has continued to move more and more left so that they cease to recognize any standard of what is right and wrong. All is permissible and if you give us your money we’ll make it happen for you. Thanks, but no thanks.

I am so glad that I started paying attention. One last word; many so-called republicans want us to move more to the left as a way to achieve better election results. Thanks, but no thanks.

I was reading an article about the malicious attacks made on the character of Miss California Carrie Prejean by the self-righteous liberals and a really good point was made that goes along with my conversion from liberal to conservative. Here is the quote from an Anne Coulter article that describes exactly where I came from (liberal view of religion) and actually becoming a Christian:

Christians aren't people who believe they are without sin; they're people who know they're sinners and are awestruck by God's grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve. This is in contradistinction to liberals, all of whom believe they're on a fast track to heaven on the basis of being "basically good" people -- and also believe that anyone who disagrees with that theological view is evil.

Pray On!

Triangular Triads

I said that this was inevitable. The debate over "same sex" marriage is not a gay-lesbian issue. It has nothing to do with gays or lesbians but rather the definition of something. Marriage is defined as something and once you change the definition of that something, it ceases to be that something anymore. It becomes nothing for everybody.

Read Threesome Marriages

If you can think up a relational combination, then you can bet that those who want to include that into the definition of marriage will be lining up very soon.

Creation vs. Evolution: Know Why!

Watch the videos.

Why does the congressman not just come out and say what he believes? Because he has not prepared himself to debate why he believes what he believes.

As for Chris Matthews, listen to the way he phrases his argument. His questions are ripe with the preconception that, as he stated evolution is fact. He asked "Do you believe in science or creation?", clearly showing the creationism is not a scientific endeavor. He asks, "Do you believe in the scientific method?", clearly to show that the scientific method proves the truth of evolution.

Congressman Pence missed a great opportunity because he wasn't prepared to give a defense, which by the way we are instructed to do in God's Word.




If Chris Matthews had asked me if I believe in creation I would have said yes. When asked if I believe in the scientific method I would have answered yes. Mr. Matthews' next step would have been to question me on how I can believe in the scientific method when it clearly proves evolution is fact. That would have been my spring board into showing how the theory of evolution actually breaks apart under the scrutiny of the scientific method, starting with how do you get something from nothing?

Follow Up: Here is another video with Chris Matthews on the same subject. You've got to listen carefully. Problem one, his CATHOLIC school taught, or allowed the possibility, that men descended from apes. This stuff just drives me crazy....

A Great Man With A Great Message

Watching this video is a must. Yes, it's nearly 30 minutes long, but it is eye opening; like discovering a time capsule.

How we need this man and his message today.



By the way, I don't think this is the Republican National Convention as the video is titled. I've read elsewhere that it is actually the 1964 CPAC Conference, but I could be wrong.

I've Got A Funny Feeling (Funny-Bad)

It's been building for awhile and it looks like it's coming together. Ultra liberal congress, super-liberal President, soon to be liberal supreme court, and right around the corner legislating "Hate speech".

I'll be keeping an eye on a few things, but most importantly whether or not S.909 and HR1913 the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passes congress. The ambiguous wording of this bill would allow for special prosecution of people who commit crimes that are

..motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Ttribal hate crime laws.

This means that someone convicted of a crime against a person who is considered a member of a special "protected" group of people will receive a stiffer penalty than if the same crime is committed against a person who is NOT in that group of specially protected people. Who are some other these specially protected groups of people? Some 30 groups of sexually perverse people! Read the list right here.

On the ACLU website you'll find this as the opening of their information concerning hate speech:

In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States.

I just happen to read an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that described a meeting in Fort Worth where the motives of American Muslims was being discussed. The article started with:

What are the intentions of Muslims in America? A local activist told a Republican club Monday night that Muslims are intent on overthrowing America. But the Tarrant County medical examiner, who is Muslim, denounced such remarks as hate speech.

I'm getting a real bad feeling about this. Anyone who "feels" like what I say is hateful can sue me or have me arrested? What if the preacher at Church speaks out against homosexuality? What if I write on my blog that I think Asians can't drive worth a crap, all Italians are crooks, women are notorious liars or all Jews are money grubbers. I don't really think that, but I'm making a point. Is not my speech free under the first amendment?

Again, the first amendment provides me the freedom OF speech, NOT freedom FROM IT. The first amendment provides me with freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM IT.

I don't think we'll have these freedoms for much longer. I'm not saying...I'm just saying.

Case in point, I've written a little about the fall out from Miss California simply stating her opinion on same sex marriage. The liberals and the gay-lesbian community are tearing her apart and doing everything they can to destroy her reputation. In the very near future they will have laws on their side to prosecute!

I could go on and on. I read another article today that described how over 30 colleges and universities in the US have adopted same room co-ed living arrangements and the reason for this is "to create a more welcoming atmosphere for transgender and homosexual students". Don't believe me? Here is the article and you can read many more just like it with a simple web-search.

Relativism in the Highest

The article I just read is so pregnant with quotable quotes I decided to just post a link to it below.

What’s at issue here is the same thing I’ve been writing about for awhile; the relativistic world view of liberal “progressive” people. To anyone who subscribes to that world view there is nothing concrete. No objective Truth, no idea that stays True for all time, for all people in all places. The liberal thinkers in our country apply that same ideology to our US constitution. Our constitution was written as a model for government that was to withstand the test of time.
President Obama’s view and the view of liberals is that the constitution is a changeable document that should be molded to fit our time. And this is exactly what we will get with the Presidents upcoming pick for the US Supreme Court.

It is destroying our country; LORD have mercy on us.

Here is the link to the article. Just think about what this potential Supreme Court Justice stands for.

Top 10 Tips For a Better Community Garden

#10 - If no rototiller is available, just do donuts with your car to loosen the soil.
#9 - Obtain "starter plants" by raiding outdoor cafe flower pots.
#8 - For residents that aren't into gardening, try installing vending machines.
#7 - Don't allow local pot heads to plant pizza slices as there is no such thing as a pizza tree.
#6 - If someone plants a flesh-eating plant, kill it before it has babies and takes over the neighborhood.
#5 - Allot adjacent spaces, one to a working class immigrant family who actually need the food they grow and the other to an affluent organic gardener opposed to non-native plant species; sit back and watch the class conflict grow and flourish.
#4 - Ignore the "fruitcake" and "fairy" comments being yelled at you.
#3 - Let the ugly dowdy people take the lead on the project.
#2 - Never eat the vegetables grown in your community garden. Are you kidding? That plot of dirt used to be the parking lot for the public works truck fleet.

...and the #1 tip for a better community garden...

Although bobcat urine is a good method to repel rodents that eat vegetables, it will also turn your garden into a place overrun with volatile, dangerous bobcats.

You're welcome.

The New Direction of Science Under President Obama

During his April 27, 2009, address at the National Academy of Sciences’ annual meeting, President Barack Obama called for focused scientific research aimed to improve the daily lives of American citizens. Among the advances that Mr. Obama said he would love to see come to fruition are “solar cells as cheap as paint; green buildings that produce all the energy they consume; learning software as effective as a personal tutor; prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again; [and] an expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge about ourselves and world the around us.”

Some of the loudest applause Mr. Obama received occurred when he said,

Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.

While the president refrained from commenting on any issues where people have used science’s ability to alter or destroy life as the justification for doing so, does Mr. Obama really believe that science is not influenced by the ideology of atheistic and evolution-only researchers? His decision to use federal funds to destroy human embryos for research made plain his scientific ideology, which is robustly supported by the scientific elite.

The closest science gets to operating free from ideological sanction is in the focused, experiment-based research and development that is doggedly fixed on producing the kinds of useful items the president appropriately detailed in his speech. Mr. Obama should redirect his influence to fully promote scientific achievement that really does foster good stewardship of this earth.

Progressive?!!!!!!!!

I have to admit I am writing this in anger.

I can only assume that by now you know what went down at this years 2009 Miss USA pageant. Miss California was asked about her view on same sex marriage and she gave an answer that was based on her opinion. I wrote about it a week or so ago and you can see the video by clicking here.

Below I've posted two other videos that show the tactics of the supposed "progressives". They either cannot or will not engage in substantive debate. They hate you if you have a different opinion and will stop at nothing to get you to shut up. They bully you with insults and personal attacks and scream to the world how you are a hypocrite and hateful, close-minded, etc.

Frankly it pisses me off. I have no problem with opinions other than mind. I enjoy good debate; I am not afraid of it. I hate bullies and hypocrites.

Note the factual and substantive argument in support of their point of view. That was sarcasm. They are hateful and call those who think differently from them hateful.