A 14 Week Old “Red Pen”

_{Barry Arrington
August 30, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is a “red pen” for all of those who insist that unborn babies are not human.

Deny that baby’s humanity until you are red in the face. Your denial is insane. You know the truth.

Comments

Mahuna - interesting overview. I didn't know that about Jewish teaching. The Catholic view has been consistent since the earliest era (Didache 70 a.d. condemns abortion). I wonder if the Christian view was something new or if modern Judaism changed. Tertullian cites Exodus 21:22-24 as forbidding abortion - but I don't know how that was interpreted. I can't understand how anyone can experience the love of innocent children (as you describe with your own grandchildren) and promote abortion the way they do in our culture today. It's tragic and frightening.Silver Asiatic_{September 1, 2015
September
09
Sep
1
01
2015
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

I spent today with my grandchildren. I've known both of them since the day they were born, touched each of them within an hour of their births (2 years apart), played with them weekly if not daily ever since, smiled as they screamed their little lungs out, changed their diapers, and watched them fall asleep in my arms because they felt safe and comfortable with me. So the facts about killing babies, including pre-born ones, turn my stomach. In Philosophy class, the priest who was teaching the course told us simply that the Catholic position is: The taking of innocent life is murder, and the pre-born child is alive. Thus abortion is a slippery slope that leads to state-ordered euthanasia for an ever-widening pool of people declared excess to the state's current needs. But whilst condemning atheists, you might want to keep in mind that the Jewish position is, and has been for millennia, that a baby is not "alive" or "human" or something until he or she has COMPLETELY exited his or her mother's body. So I guess this means you can kill it without breaking any moral codes if the entire baby has popped out except for the toes... Or, assuming he was coming out feet first, you can kill it before the head comes out. I've never seen anything about a Moslem position on abortion, or Hindu or Confucian or West African... But one can't generalize one of the several Christian positions on the morality of abortion into a GENERAL statement on human morality that was always true. You must also keep in mind that except in communities with modern Western medical facilities, it's safer for the mother to practice infanticide. That is, go ahead with a full-term pregnancy and birth, and then arrange for the newborn to die, by abandonment for example. Slaves of pagan Vikings could not have children. Any child that was born to a slave was left on the shore at low tide. When the Vikings converted to Christianity, the priests forbade the practice, thereby generating an entirely new lower class amongst the Norse. The Ancient Greeks exposed undesired newborns, including any baby with a birth defect, on hillsides. It was also common to kill all but one of the babies when there was a multiple birth. Since it would take them several days to starve to death after being abandoned, I'm guessing most of these babies were killed by crows or wolves.mahuna_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Who has denied that the unborn child is human? I haven’t seen anyone do that here.
I can't count the times I've read the terms "lump of cells", "parasite" or "zygote" in that regard, but very rarely does anyone speak of "human being".
The difference is that some here deny the unborn child has a right to life from when it first comes into existence as an individual human being which is what I and others believe should be the case.
Well, apparently you're at least straightforward about your convictions (which is rare enough) but it still makes you and your fellas a bunch of stupid twats... SebestyenSebestyen_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Deny that baby’s humanity until you are red in the face. Your denial is insane. You know the truth. Who has denied that the unborn child is human? I haven't seen anyone do that here. The difference is that some here deny the unborn child has a right to life from when it first comes into existence as an individual human being which is what I and others believe should be the case.
Seversky_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

"Facts just aren’t your thing." Hmmm, interesting claim coming from a Darwinist/Atheist who is absolutely dependent on the distortion of facts/truth in order to try to make his case for the plausibility of Darwinian evolution:
One Body - animation - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012 Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling . . . and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)" ,,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2 Psalms 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
As to hearing:
There are about.... Ten-trillion levels of intensity to human hearing (from threshold to pain, 0 to 130 decibels). This makes the sense of hearing the widest ranging of all senses. The ear is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than two-ten-thousandths-of-a-millionth of barometric pressure. This moves the eardrum about one-hundreth-millionth of an inch. This threshold of hearing corresponds to a vibration width of only one-hundreth of an hydrogen atom’s diameter. (Hydrogen is the smallest atom.) Under favourable conditions a normal person may actually perceive sound waves with the power of only 10-16 (1/10,000,000, 000,000,000) of a watt. Dead Reckoning in Human Beings: An Example of Excellent Design - By Dr. Eddy M. del Rio - August 24, 2015 Excerpt: the Apollo spacecraft needed a navigation system that could dead reckon without a compass. The task to create one was awarded to the MIT Instrumentation Laboratory of Dr. Charles Stark Draper, remembered as “the father of inertial navigation.” Through careful research and experimentation, Draper’s laboratory developed inertial measurement units (IMUs) that used gyroscopes to measure rotation in each of the three orthogonal axes. Additionally, accelerometers were developed to measure translation through space in the same three axes. With three gyros to detect rotation in the three axes, plus accelerometers to detect linear acceleration (translation) along the same axes, and devices to quantify these measurements, you have an IMU. With these IMUs (redundant systems) integrated with the spacecraft’s flight computer, thrusters, engines, and data on the known positions of Earth and the Moon, you have a complete inertial navigation system (INS). What is remarkable is that the same functional parts described above for the INS have biological counterparts in the human ear.1 http://www.reasons.org/articles/dead-reckoning-in-human-beings-an-example-of-excellent-design Proverbs 20:12 The hearing ear and the seeing eye?— the LORD made them both.
bornagain77_{August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

That might be a more interesting datum if the video weren't looped to make a singular movement look like a coordinated response to music. Watch the progress bar in the right corner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR6POuFfFNU Or consider the coordination of a newborn, and extrapolate back in development. Or consider that hearing develops (I think) at week 18 at the earliest. It really is the summer of manipulated videos. Must be an election year. Go back to huffing and puffing. Facts just aren't your thing.REC_{August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply