At Medical Express: First direct evidence that babies react to taste and smell in the womb

Jerry at 235, Another War on Poverty repackaged, with some radical elements. relatd

Diversity, inclusion and equity.

Another site was discussing this earlier today. They said that universities and businesses really don’t believe in it. Because they exclude Republicans from their organizations. To correct this obvious non inclusion or lack of diversity and equity the author was pushing LGBTQR as the new mantra where the R stands for Republicans. Of course the DIE mandates have nothing to do with diversity, inclusion or equity. It’s all about a world government under a few selected and enlightened individuals. jerry

Sure, you are free to do that. But you asked for a definition of TE, which is given in the articles I posted, and shows that one can accept, as a theist, the scientific description of the evolution of humans as physical beings (but not as spiritual beings). Do you accept that it is acceptable Catholic doctrine for one to adopt that view even if you don't, and do you see that TE is an acceptable Catholic position? Viola Lee

VL, I'll stick with special creation for Adam and Eve. relatd

On the thread at https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-did-life-first-arise-by-purely-natural-means/#comment-766264, post 60, I wrote to you, but you did not respond, so I'll repeat here. Post 60 Back at 43 relatd said I was confused, and that he would no longer reply to my posts, although he did reply once. The particular issue we are discussing is whether, according to Catholic doctrine, it is acceptable to believe that human beings, in respect to our physical bodies (but not our souls), are connected by common descent with previous existing creatures of human beings, as opposed to the alternative of special creation. In post 47 I analyzed a key passage from a 1996 document by the Pope that supports my contention that it is acceptable Catholic doctrine to accept the God-guided evolution of physical human beings as part of His all-encompassing providential role in causation. I’ve done some further research to support my position, which I offer here without much further comment. Relatd may not want to discuss this anymore, but I think I’ve established that I’m not confused. He may not agree with my analysis, nor with his fellow Catholics who support a position of what is commonly called theistic evolution, but I think I’ve shown that special creation is not the only acceptable Catholic position, and that theistic evolution is an acceptable Catholic position. 1. From the Catholic Exchange, A Brief Exploration of the Catholic Position on Evolution here John Paul II, in 1986, wrote,

”There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].” John Paul II, “Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings”, April 16, 1986.

2. From the article Adam, Eve, and Evolution, from Catholic Answers:

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. .... Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God [theistic evolution], and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul.... While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

[My emphasis] 3. From CatholicBridge:, How did God create the human body and soul?

The Church does not have an official teaching on the origin of the human body. There are several faithful Catholic positions which are not contrary to Catholic theology. 1. Special creation: God directly created human beings. 2. Theistic evolution: God designs the laws of the universe, so that they will produce the human body through natural processes (like a sculptor uses a chisel as a tool to create a statue - Indirect design). 3. Intelligent design: God designs the laws of the universe and intervenes directly in histor, to create life in general and specifically the human body. A Catholic is free to believe that God formed the human body out of the dust of the earth in an instantaneous action or by a series of steps. Any of these theories may be accepted by a Catholic until God reveals to us otherwise. The important thing is the human soul. Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI says: "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.”

Viola Lee

VL at 230, "...some of which that can be considered “theistic evolution”, that accept the scientific explanation and description of what has happened that are not materialism." Show me an online definition of 'theistic evolution.' relatd

For the record, I don't qualify as one of these "pro-Evolution troops". Again, "pro-Evolution troops" is being used as a synonym for materialist, completely ignoring alternative positions, some of which that can be considered "theistic evolution", that accept the scientific explanation and description of what has happened that are not materialism. This continues to be ignored. Viola Lee

Ba77, I will point out again that the pro-Evolution troops have been deployed here. Their assignment will last forever. Their purpose is to repeat various things related to Evolution but which have no empirical evidence, just claims. This happened this way and that happened some other way, and so on. And the grand conclusion is that it all happened through natural - meaning non-God - means. To sum up the falseness: "There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind." - William Provine relatd

As to:

Darwinian worldview… Oxymoron alert! Darwinian evolution is a biological theory, not a worldview.

Atheistic Naturalism is a worldview that entails Darwinian evolution. It might have been more proper to say Naturalistic worldview. Yet Darwinian worldview gets the same point across with more specificity as to exactly what part of the naturalistic worldview we are talking about. It is definitely not an oxymoron say Darwinian worldview. For crying out loud, Darwinian evolution forms the basis from which to view the entire world. Just ask the late William Provine,

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea." - (late) William Provine - Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University, https://evolutionnews.org/2015/09/william_provine/

On the other hand, Darwinian evolution itself, with the term Natural Selection, does contain an oxymoron right in the heart of its theory,

",, intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose." - William Dembski - Science and the Myth of Progress - pg 294 - 2003 https://books.google.com/books?id=9w53fjGdnAoC&pg=PA294

As to the claim that "Darwinian evolution is a biological theory", well, it is interesting to note that the science of biology itself has very little use for Darwinian ideas,

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000). "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology." - Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. - Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005

bornagain77

Jerry at 225, Yes, the Woke agenda. Or 'social engineering.' I would appreciate it if posters used the actual words as opposed to acronyms. WEF = World Economic Forum. This is their chance to re-form the world to fit their agenda. Helping people is always good. Getting them to think differently about certain things can be bad. relatd

“I’m not up-to-date on these conspiracy theories.” They are not conspiracy theories the WEF has been quite candid about its “Great Reset” agenda it even made the cover of Time magazine awhile back. As for the holy trinity of Critical race theory ( Diversity Equity and Inclusion) and Environmental Social Governance both have been adopted and promoted by the two largest shareholders of virtually every SP 500 company as well as the companies themselves. Vivid vividbleau

Googling DIE

Diversity, inclusion and equity. Every corporation of any size is being forced to promote these two sets of ideologies. jerry

VL at 220 and 221, The only example I'll give is that BlackRock is promoting the Woke agenda. It is promoting ideas that it thinks regular people should be exposed to. To create a world that they want to create. To remake the existing world to their ideas and to make people think like them. I reject this. It is an artificial reality. relatd

I found out what ESG means. Googling DIE doesn't find whatever you are referring to. Google must be in on the conspiracy to not let people know about it, whatever it is! :-) Viola Lee

What is DIE and ESG

Interesting you never heard of it since you claim you are up to date. Wonder why. It’s driving the world these days. Look it up. Is it conspiracy theory? Not when nearly every corporation is preaching it. They are being forced to by BlackRock/Vanguard. jerry

Can you give examples of what you are talking about, relatd. You description is so vague that I have no idea: for instance, what is "social furniture"? That sounds like one of these "new words" that you say you don't use. And what is an example of a fake visual environment? Viola Lee

Can you give examples of what you are talking about, relatd. You description is so vague that I have no idea: for instance, what is "social furniture"? That sounds like one of these "new words" that you say you don't use. And what is an example of a fake visual environment? Viola Lee

Jerry at 217, Gosh, I thought it was run by two Welfare cheats working from a garage in New Jersey. :) I'm very familiar with BlackRock and Vanguard. I am not familiar with DIE or NSG. What I'm talking about involves reshuffling the social furniture by using subtle influences. These include the creation or reuse of words and terms. Creating "new" fake visual environments to give the illusion that certain things have changed. To create dialogue to promote certain ideas and to disparage others. This is an ongoing problem. To counter it, the most effective way is to avoid accepting the words and images. Those words and images that remain are sometimes acceptable, but that is relatively rare. relatd

I'm not up-to-date on these conspiracy theories. (and I'm pretty well in touch with current affairs, I think.) What is DIE and ESG? Viola Lee

The Global Cabal

Run from Switzerland. Controls more economic power than US economy. BlackRock and Vanguard are two US elements. Where do you think the DIE and ESG nonsense is coming from? Controls nearly all the media through corporate boards. That’s why they report in lockstep. jerry

VL at 213, The Cabal I refer to involves those in charge of processing most of what we see and hear, including physical products we buy. The biggest companies use words and images to affect us in some predetermined way. This creates the illusion we are "living in the future" and is meant to expose us to certain ideas and images The Cabal decides are important, including those that can influence behaviors. When I spot these things, I decide why they exist and then I automatically reject them. Those involved in actual manufacturing just produce whatever they're told to produce. relatd

Asauber: lol I’m also a turd. Just ask my wife. Being funny doesn't get you off for having a double standard. If I had said what LtComData said but directed at Christians I would have had a ton of bricks come down on me. But who condemned him amongst the theists on this thread? No one. If you want us to take you seriously then deal with things seriously. And honestly. JVL

So everyone in manufacturing is part of this? I agree with you that the modern world of commercialism, in which producing things we really don't need and that are then constantly changed to stimulate those needs are, in my opinion, a flaw of modern commercial capitalism. However, if this is a "cabal" it incudes a vast proportion of people involved in the modern economy. Viola Lee

So everyone in manufacturing is part of this? I agree with you that the modern world of commercialism, in which producing things we really don't need and that are then constantly changed to stimulate those needs are, in my opinion, a flaw of modern commercial capitalism. However, if this is a "cabal" it incudes a vast proportion of people involved in the modern economy. Viola Lee

"you were such a coward" JVL, lol I'm also a turd. Just ask my wife. Andrew asauber

Asauber: My only claim was that LCD’s comment about atheists could be valid. You are all riled up for no reason. I really must apologise. I didn't realise you were such a coward about stating and standing up for your moral standards. My bad. JVL

VL at 209, Of course there is. The same people are involved in product design and labeling. The guiding idea is this: "Make sure it doesn't look like the old stuff." relatd

relatd: do you you really think there is a "The Global Cabal"? Viola Lee

JVL, Interesting though, that we are way off the topic of the OP. That's living with Trolls, I guess. Andrew asauber

"I guess that’s true if you’re just going to avoid addressing moral issues where you claim to have the higher ground." JVL, My only claim was that LCD's comment about atheists could be valid. You are all riled up for no reason. Andrew asauber

Asauber: There’s no point in trying to have a conversation with you about anything other than prog rock. I guess that's true if you're just going to avoid addressing moral issues where you claim to have the higher ground. We could have actually addressed some real issues. But you bailed. Too bad. JVL

JVL, There's no point in trying to have a conversation with you about anything other than prog rock. Andrew asauber

VL at 203, If God guided a process involving the development of life, then Darwinian processes as described in Biology textbooks don't exist. The process is controlled infallibly by God. But most people were not exposed to that in school. "Dog whistle" is a fake term created by The Global Cabal of Relabelers and Repackagers. All such "new" words/terms automatically go on my Words to Never Use List. The job of the Cabal is to give people the illusion they are living in "the future." relatd

I'm pretty sure you know what dogwhistle means, relatd. The dogs in this cases are those ID supporters who believe that anyone who supports the basics of evolutionary theory is a materialist, and who reject all those, such as theistic evolutionists (to name one viewpoint), who accept the science in the context of their theistic viewpoint. Accepting the science of evolution, with a proper understanding of the limits of what that means does not equal materialism, but "Darwinian viewpoint" is a dogwhistle that reaches the ears of such ID supporters. Viola Lee

Asauber: Don’t cast your pearls before swine. Are you the swine then? Why won't you commit to a stance? You claim to have the grounded, solid moral and ethical standard. And when I ask you to apply that standard to a particular, simple situation you punt. Why is that? JVL

JVL, Don't cast your pearls before swine. Andrew asauber

VL at 199, dog? What dog? Where is the dog? relatd

FYI: "“Darwinian worldview” is code/dog whistle for materialism. Viola Lee

@195 First of all not an oxymoron “Darwinian worldview” is not a phrase that contradicts its self and you’ve been on this site long enough to know what it is referring to, so you are nitpicking just like you did when you argued the DNA is not code it’s an organic compound, being literal to the point of silliness. AaronS1978

Asauber: It could. Are you asking my to judge LCD’s Christianity negatively based on 3 sentences about the way atheists behave? Based on the Christian doctrine please. JVL

Now a debate about "love." What is "love" today? Sex with whoever? True sacrificial love is about truth. Those who know this cannot accept falsehood, ever. “These people who are always talking, reading, and thinking about sex are like singers who think more about their larynx than about singing. They make that which is subordinate to a higher purpose so all important that the harmony of life is upset.” - Fulton J. Sheen, Victory Over Vice “Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it. It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin. Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.” - Fulton J. Sheen relatd

...Darwinian worldview...

Oxymoron alert! Darwinian evolution is a biological theory, not a worldview. Alan Fox

VL at 174, Another one who judges God. The "human condition" is based on right and wrong. Children are taught right and wrong. We, meaning human beings, don't make it up as we go along. There are strict limits. relatd

"do you think his opinion exemplifies a true Christian worldview?" JVL, It could. Are you asking my to judge LCD's Christianity negatively based on 3 sentences about the way atheists behave? This is boring, JVL. Andrew asauber

Asauber: LCD is allowed to have an opinion. Quit whining. Of course he is. But you didn't answer my question: do you think his opinion exemplifies a true Christian worldview? As a moral-less, unethical, materialistic, Darwinist who can't possibly understand what true love means I'm curious whether or not the comment made was a loving, caring sentiment. JVL

"Do you think the comment made by LtComData (162 above) came from a loving and caring worldview?" JVL, Your idea of a loving caring worldview might be completely distorted. LCD is allowed to have an opinion. Quit whining. Andrew asauber

Those who are anti ID, defend an alternative. My guess is they can't because there is no alternative. I have never seen one based on evidence, logic and reason. But they will try to take shots at anything they can that is associated with ID. They live for the gotcha. But that's all they have, an occasional objection while they ignore everything else. They defend ID with every comment they make that does not address the obvious.     The real issue is why this incoherent behavior? jerry

Bornagain77 & Asauber: Do you think the comment made by LtComData (162 above) came from a loving and caring worldview? JVL

"Seriously, the distain you show for other human beings is appalling." Says the man with his illusory moral feet planted firmly in mid-air.

Why Alex Rosenberg — and a Number of Other Philosophers — Are Wrong Just about Everything A Commentary on Scientistic Reductionism - Massimo Pigliucci - 2019 Abstract There is a pernicious tendency these days among some philosophers to engage in a “nothing but” attitude about important questions. According to this attitude, consciousness, volition, reason, and morality are “illusions,” “nothing but” the epiphenomena of specific neural processes. Alex Rosenberg is a particularly good (though by no means the only) illustration of this problem,,,, https://journal.equinoxpub.com/JCH/article/view/18516

bornagain77

"the distain you show for other human beings is appalling" Seriously, JVL. Typos and trolling. Andrew asauber

Bornagain77: “the New Testament” can ground and explain the existence of love. I guess you didn't get that memo. Seriously, the distain you show for other human beings is appalling. You claim to be firmly rooted in love and kindness but you seem incapable of exhibiting such sentiments. Do you think the comment made by LtComData above was loving or caring? JVL

VL: "I am not a “Darwinian”" I guess that is as close as I am ever going to get from VL, as to an honest confession, that the Darwinian worldview cannot explain the existence of love and the 'human condition'. bornagain77

You don’t discuss. You just push the buttons and regurgitate your talking points

But the talking points are ignored. As I said in my comment just above and the linked comment, the obvious is never addressed. Anytime this happens, the comment cannot be answered or is inane. Acquiesce is usually an admission of truth. It is often an admission that something was nonsense and not worth replying. Which is it here? Instead a negative accusation is thrown with no basis other than wordiness. Aside: I agree long comments are less likely to be as effective as short ones. Thomas Sowell was the master of short comments to the point. Yet, he literally wrote millions of words. Aside2: it seems that some want to win the day by having their misinformation rule the day. The strategy to do this is to claim the truth is misinformation. No better example of this are the national political debates. jerry

BA writes to me, "So thus VL, directly contrary to your belief that the Darwinian worldview has no trouble whatsoever explaining the existence of love and the ‘human condition’," That is not what I said. Also, as I have told you many times, I am not a "Darwinian" in the way you use that term. You don't discuss. You just push the buttons and regurgitate your talking points. I stand by my condemnation. Viola Lee

Here is a quote from a review of Thomas Nagel's book, "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False", that gets my point across beautifully, "Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath"

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Neo-Darwinism insists that every phenomenon, every species, every trait of every species, is the consequence of random chance, as natural selection requires. And yet, Nagel says, “certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world.” ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. https://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him

And again, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if your atheistic worldview is actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is, but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. – per answers for hope

bornagain77

Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true. But many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly—and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence. Thomas Sowell

Where does the evidence point? Not to a natural origin of our world and humans. Repetition is used to diminish the obvious. All have the evidence but most do not use it. Instead a large percentage repeat nonsense over and over. Aside: bad things will always happen. That appears to be by design. This creates doubt. Is this also by design? As to those against ID https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/cosmology/from-iai-news-how-infinity-threatens-cosmology/#comment-766067 jerry

JVL, "One wonders what you were born again into. It certainly seems to have little to do with the New Testament." LOL, that is precisely my point, "the New Testament" can ground and explain the existence of love. Darwinism cannot even begin to explain the existence of love. Yet you have failed to grasp that exceedingly simple point. More ironically still, you have proved my point for me. You want to hold me morally accountable for simply asking a Darwinist why he loves his daughter instead of treating her as his Darwinian worldview actually entails, i.e. as a 'meat robot'?, And yet in order to hold me morally accountable for my supposed moral transgression, you are forced to reach over into the New Testament, instead of using your own Darwinian worldview, in order to try to argue that I have supposedly failed to live up to the moral standard of loving my neighbor as myself. Yet, as with love, your Darwinian worldview simply can't ground morality. In fact, Darwinism is 'at war' with Christian morality. As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the (moral) law of Christ is incompatible with the (moral) law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” – Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

i.e. Darwin’s theory is not only amoral, i.e. blind, pitiless, indifferent, but, with its emphasis on the strong exploiting the weak for survival, it is downright ANTI-moral.

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Adolf Hilter himself, (whom I think even atheists will agree was a psychopath of the first order), directly echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”

“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the primary Christian ethic of the strong looking after the weak. i.e. altruism

Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Of note,

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

bornagain77

Stop talking to people who are not listening: https://youtube.com/shorts/1HBdAdtqNTM Sandy

LtComData: I wouldn’t trust anything what atheists say. They are completely immoral persons. Conversations with atheists are a waste of time , better use this precious time of our life to talk with God or people who need us. while it doesn't surprise me that you say such heartless and unloving things I am even more dismayed than the only ones who outright called you on it were the unmoral, unethical atheists/materialists/Darwinists. You people can't even practice what you preach. Where is that grounded moral viewpoint? Why do you let such statements stand? Bornagain77: And why do you not just heartlessly treat your daughter like the biological machine, i.e. the meat robot, that she actually is under your Darwinian worldview? One wonders what you were born again into. It certainly seems to have little to do with the New Testament. JVL

Viola Lee claims,

(BA77) is unable to have a broad perspective about other ways of understanding the human condition. Human beings love, and that loves flows from our common human natures, not from our “worldview”. Atheists and members of all sorts of religions all love for the same reasons, and with equally validity.

But alas VL, that is exactly the point, the Darwinian worldview is suppose to explain every facet of what it means to be human. Yet. besides not being able to ground and explain the existence of love, the Darwinian worldview cannot ground and explain the existence of the quote-unquote 'human condition' and/or our "common human natures". As Richard Dawkins himself explained, in the Darwinian worldview, there is at bottom ",,no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

i.e. Love simply does not exist in the atheist's Darwinian worldview! Likewise, the 'human condition', and/or our "common human natures', simply does not exist within the Darwinian worldview. As Logan Paul Gage explains, in the Darwinian worldview, there is no human nature since "Man, the universal, does not really exist." And there is "no human nature".

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage Excerpt:,,, In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms. Denial of True Species Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes: “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.” Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,, The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow. What About Man? Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,, https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and thus with their implicit denial of the immaterial realm altogether, simply leave everything that is truly important about what it really means to be human on the cutting room floor. As Adam Sedgwick scolded Charles Darwin himself, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.”

From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: ,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

Everything that is important, and that can be said to truly differentiate us from all the other creatures on earth, and that truly makes us human and not animals, is immaterial in its foundational essence, and character and therefore it is simply impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever truly explain how humans, and/or the 'human condition', came about. As Dr. Michael Egnor explains, “Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, (love), and an endless library of abstract concepts.,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.”

The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals – Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,, A human being is material and immaterial — a composite being. We have material bodies, and our perceptions and imaginations and appetites are material powers, instantiated in our brains. But our intellect — our ability to think abstractly — is a wholly immaterial power, and our will that acts in accordance with our intellect is an immaterial power. Our intellect and our will depend on matter for their ordinary function, in the sense that they depend upon perception and imagination and memory, but they are not themselves made of matter. It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. It is obvious and manifest in our biological nature. We are rational animals, and our rationality is all the difference. Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man. The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/

So thus VL, directly contrary to your belief that the Darwinian worldview has no trouble whatsoever explaining the existence of love and the 'human condition', the existence of love and the 'human condition' presents an insurmountable problem for Darwinists that they never be able to give an adequate explanation of. bornagain77

@ Sir Giles Relieved to hear that all has gone as hoped so far for your daughter. If her chances of bringing a pregnancy to term are improved, at least some good has come. My own daughter discovered as a teenager that she would be unable to have children. She's now 40 and, though she has been open and public about the issue, I can't help reflecting on the arbitrary nature of existence. Alan Fox

Seversky: The question is whether a partly-formed fetus is actually capable of experiencing the fear and pain felt by a fully-developed adult Why is that your criterion? Obviously, this is human in a certain stage of development, which you yourself were at one time. Aren't you glad you weren't aborted? Now, you could say, "if I were aborted at 14 weeks, I wouldn't know the difference now." But if someone murdered you right now, you likewise wouldn't know the difference after you were murdered. It's over. Aside from legal issues, do you believe you have some kind of natural "right to life" now, compared to when you were a 14 week human fetus? Paxx

BA writes to Sir Giles,

but this still does not answer the pressing question of how your atheistic worldview can possibly ground your great love for your daughter?

The answer, which won’t mean anything to BA, is that he is wrong about the “atheistic worldview”, and is so rigidly and dogmatically bound to his perspective, that is unable to have a broad perspective about other ways of understanding the human condition. Human beings love, and that loves flows from our common human natures, not from our “worldview”. Atheists and members of all sorts of religions all love for the same reasons, and with equally validity. BA also writes, “the word ‘hell’ is not just some literary device as you have used it against me, but is indeed a real place.” Someone who disagreed with a friend of mine about his “worldview” once said to my friend, “You are going to hell.” My friend, “You go to hell. He’s your God. That doesn’t have anything to do with me.” So I agree with Sir Giles: to LCD and BA, if you’re God exists, then I think your remarks here are worthy of his damnation and condemnation. Viola Lee

@sir Giles I’m sorry she lost the child, its good to hear she is ok AaronS1978

Ba77, People don't know what really happens. They may hear about what others say but to see a video of the actual procedure is important. The idea that it's just "a blob of tissue" has been repeated so many times. Thanks for the video. Sir Giles and his family are deserving of support and well wishes. I do wish all of them well. relatd

Sir Giles, "For Lieutenant Commander Data and Bornagain77, go to hell." I certainly am glad things went well for your daughter, and am sorry if you somehow thought I wished otherwise for your daughter, but this still does not answer the pressing question of how your atheistic worldview can possibly ground your great love for your daughter? That is not a minor question, since with my Theistic worldview, (besides being able to ground and explain your great love for your daughter), the word 'hell' is not just some literary device as you have used it against me, but is indeed a real place. bornagain77

To those of you who have expressed their concern and best wishes for my daughter (VL, AF, Aaron and KF), it is much appreciated. My daughter was induced and went into labour. The process went smoothly and the doctors and nurses were very supportive. They were able to get samples from the fetus and the placenta so hopefully she will find out why this is happening. They have to monitor her for bleeding but she should be able to go home tomorrow. For Lieutenant Commander Data and Bornagain77, go to hell. Sir Giles

VL, so just asking Sir Giles how his atheistic worldview can possibly ground his great love for his daughter is a "heartless" and :"unconscionable" thing for me to do? Golly gee whiz, and I thought ripping apart millions of unborn babies, limb from limb, as the abortion industry routinely has done, and is currently doing, with 'dismemberment abortions, was "heartless" and "unconscionable".

Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf 100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

So VL, I guess I really got to go back to school on what is really "heartless" and :"unconscionable". Thanks for cluing me in. I guess the only really "heartless" and :"unconscionable" thing is not dismemberment abortions as I had thought, but is instead for a Christian to dare ask an atheist how his worldview can ground possibly ground his great love for his child. Verse:

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;

bornagain77

Ba77 at 167, You're welcome. Honesty is important. Are we just chemical reactions with no real purpose or meaning in our lives? Just paying the bills and enjoying ourselves before an inevitable end? Or do our feelings about life, the reality around us, tell us that even though brain chemistry is involved, our feelings mean something more than just neurons firing? She realized that our connection to others really meant something. That being a wife and mother meant something beyond chemical reactions. The true meaning of ourselves is beyond ourselves. relatd

Relatd thanks, the first few sentences sum up the atheistic dilemma perfectly

Jennifer Fulwiler Excerpt: "One thing I could never get on the same page with my fellow atheists about was the idea of meaning. The other atheists I knew seemed to feel like life was full of purpose despite the fact that we're all nothing more than chemical reactions. I could never get there. In fact, I thought that whole line of thinking was unscientific, and more than a little intellectually dishonest." https://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/atheist-converts/103-atheist-convert-jennifer-fulwiler

Again, atheists live as if their lives are full of meaning, purpose, and even love, but their worldview simply denies that meaning, purpose, and love exist.

"The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.” – Alex.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 Neuroscientist: Free will is an illusion but we should believe we have it - July 1, 2018 Excerpt: "To give yet another example, is there meaning in life? From a purely abstract philosophical perspective, I would have to say no. There is no objective source of meaning." - Steven Novella https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/neuroscientist-free-will-is-an-illusion-but-we-should-believe-we-have-it/

In short, if God does not exist then life has no objective meaning, value, or purpose. (much less can it have love),

Is There Meaning to Life? - Dr Craig videos (animated video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE

bornagain77

The story of Jennifer Fulwiler can be read here: https://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/atheist-converts/103-atheist-convert-jennifer-fulwiler Having a baby put her on the road to becoming Catholic. relatd

BA writes, "I am left wondering exactly why you, an atheist, would still cling to the archaic Theistic ‘illusion of love’ for your daughter? And why do you not just heartlessly treat your daughter like the biological machine, i.e. the meat robot, that she actually is under your Darwinian worldview?" What a heartless thing to write. If you think you are representing your theistic viewpoint, I consider this one more reason to have none of it. I've stayed out of this part of the discussion, (there have been other terrible comments)but this is unconscionable. I wish your daughter well, SG Viola Lee

@ Lieutenant Commander Data His commentary consisted of a lot of “Well, a matter of fact” and “This just in” responses. But as they say innocent until proven guilty, we will just have to see if the pattern continues. AaronS1978

Sir Giles, while I certainly admire your great empathy and love for your daughter. I am left wondering exactly why you, an atheist, would still cling to the archaic Theistic 'illusion of love' for your daughter? And why do you not just heartlessly treat your daughter like the biological machine, i.e. the meat robot, that she actually is under your Darwinian worldview?

"You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today" - Jerry Coyne - No, You're Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) - video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html

You see Sir Giles, your great love for your daughter simply cannot be grounded within the reductive materialism of your Darwinian atheism,

What caused Jennifer Fulwiler to question her atheism to begin with? It was the birth of her first child. She says that when she looked at her child, the only way her atheist mind could explain the love that she had for him was to assume it was the result of nothing more than chemical reactions in her brain. However, in the following video, she says: "And I looked down at him, and I realized that’s not true." - Jennifer Fulwiler: Scientific Atheism to Christ - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMbUvlOcXNA

And indeed Atheism can not be true. Specifically, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if your atheistic worldview is actually true, (and, say, treat your children like the meat robots instead of loving them unconditionally), then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is, but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. - per answers for hope

Of related note, Atheists who do not believe in 'souls', and/or in dualism, are shown, an average, to be more psychopathic towards other people than Theists who do believe in 'souls'

A scientific case for conceptual dualism: The problem of consciousness and the opposing domains hypothesis. - Anthony I. Jack - 2013 Excerpt page 18:  we predicted that psychopaths would not be able to perceive the problem of consciousness.,, In a series of five experiments (Jack, in preparation), we found a highly replicable and robust negative correlation (r~-0.34) between belief in dualism and the primary psychopathic trait of callous affect7. Page 24: Clearly these findings fit well with the hypothesis (Robbins and Jack, 2006) that psychopaths can’t see the problem of consciousness8. Taking these finding together with other work on dehumanization and the anti-social effects of denying the soul and free will, they present a powerful picture. When we see persons, that is, when we see others as fellow humans, then our percept is of something essentially non-physical nature. This feature of our psychology appears to be relevant to a number of other philosophical issues, including the tension between utilitarian principles and deontological concerns about harming persons (Jack et al., accepted), the question of whether God exists (Jack et al., under review-b), and the problem of free will9. http://tonyjack.org/files/2013%20Jack%20A%20scientific%20case%20for%20conceptual%20dualism%20%281%29.pdf

Verse:

1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

bornagain77

Sir Giles Given that we were just informed that our daughter is being rushed to the hospital because ....

I wouldn't trust anything what atheists say. They are completely immoral persons. Conversations with atheists are a waste of time , better use this precious time of our life to talk with God or people who need us. Lieutenant Commander Data

Seversky at 142, More nonsense. You just want death on demand, right? Surgery is being performed on babies in the womb. But people like yourself are still trying to convince people it's not a human being? https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/06/19/cleveland-clinic-performs-its-first-in-utero-fetal-surgery/ relatd

Seversky at 140, Depends on the circumstances? Really? Look. Either the pregnant woman intends to kill the baby or not. Those are the circumstances. An old person in a lot of pain has options. You don't even think of that. Your confrontational approach is not helpful. I believe in redemptive suffering. That our lives have purpose and meaning until natural death. Don't present old people or people in a lot of pain as having no options. Not here. https://www.ncbcenter.org/store/catholic-guide-to-palliative-care-and-hospiceenglishpdf-download The "we/you don't know" defense? That's crap and you know it. Yes, abortion, except to save the life of the mother, should be banned. "moral choices" What the hell are you talking about? What is your morality based on? You just want to see abortion and more abortion as far as I can tell. The small number of situations where the mother's life is at risk allows for convenience abortions? Is that your "logic"? "Outrageous. The mother absolutely does have rights, more so than the child." The child is dead weight. It is not human. It can be killed on demand. Those appear to be the only "rights" you're talking about. For example, the governor of Michigan has stated she will "Fight like hell." For what? Rights? And what right is that? To kill the baby? Let's be honest. "We need to know the circumstances of each case to make an informed decision." Who needs to know Seversky? You? Here are the facts Seversky: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide "Since I don’t believe your God is real then the possibility of standing before Him to be judged is not exactly a threat. But if that did happen then, assuming He let me get a word out, I would have to say that He should be held accountable for vastly more sin and suffering than I have ever caused." You are back to judging God. Even though you don't think He's real? Make up your mind Seversky. For your sake. There will be a final judgment. I don't know anything about you but God knows all. And when I say anything, I mean all the things you've actually done -- aside from posting here. You want Abortion on demand without apology, right? Don't promote death/killing. Just stop it. relatd

AaronS1978: but why were you braving the lines of harassing protesters at a abortion clinic when every hospital will perform the necessary abortion and put your daughter under medical watch if there were such complications?

It wasn’t a medical emergency until this morning. The fetus had a 1% chance of viability but continuing the pregnancy put our daughter at ever increasing risk. Before it was an emergency her choices were to have it induced and delivered in the hospital, or have an abortion in a clinic. In Alberta, non-emergency abortions are not conducted in the hospital.

In the chance that you are being forthright I apologize and hope that your daughter recovers completely

Thank you. I assure you that I am being honest. Our daughter very much wants to have children but has been unsuccessful. One of the reasons that inducing was an option is that this provides the opportunity to conduct genetic testing on the fetus and the placenta to see if they can find out why she keeps having miscarriages. Sir Giles

Thanks KF. Sir Giles

SG, I wish you well for your daughter. She is an individual, in a real situation that we hope resolves for the best. Another time, we need to deal with the horrific reality of ongoing holocaust and how it has been promoted. KF kairosfocus

@Sir Giles Definition of a fetus is unborn baby mammal in this case, your granddaughter/son is a baby human I hadn’t seen that you said that it was a medical emergency in the previous posts or it was any kind of medical complications, that I apologize for But that leads me to this question, as I just went through this with one of my wife’s friends, and it is always tragic, but why were you braving the lines of harassing protesters at a abortion clinic when every hospital will perform the necessary abortion and put your daughter under medical watch if there were such complications? Even in Texas. I’m just curious because I literally just went through this and we didn’t have to take her to an abortion clinic, they wouldn’t let her leave the hospital, so why was that mentioned before? BTW they saved the baby and the mom, 5 month preemie boy they’ve been trying to get pregnant for years and this was their first success with much drama. Also Why are you using your daughter’s situation to soapbox when most people, even here, generally don’t argue over medical emergencies. Most states make medical exceptions including “heartbeat”. So not much to be thankful for there since the odds are you are in one of those states regardless. Of course these things happen, and are tragic, especially if your daughter was trying to keep your granddaughter/son. So just curious what was the point? Are you vouching for the butchering of millions of babies every year for your daughter’s sake? Because the medical exception is a medical exception, it doesn’t have to be made legal for any form of birth control. So what was your point if your daughter had a medical exception. Most people acknowledge that and honestly I wouldn’t of engaged you if I had read that it was a medical exception in the first place (that’s my fault I missed that) but now I’m curious because your timing and your complaint seems slightly artificial. In the chance that you are being forthright I apologize and hope that your daughter recovers completely AaronS1978

Thanks Alan. Much appreciated. Sir Giles

@Sir Giles My very sincere wishes for the most successful outcome for your daughter. Alan Fox

KF: You know exactly what I responded to as slanderous, kindly drop that “forced . . .” gambit. …There is never a good reason to shed innocent blood, ..

Given that we were just informed that our daughter is being rushed to the hospital because of excessive bleeding, you can imagine how little your opinion matters to us. This pregnancy is posing a serious risk to our daughter’s life and it will be terminated. In some states, this would not be permitted if the baby still has a heart beat which, as of yesterday, it did. As previously mentioned, I am very happy that she does not live in one of these states. My daughters life is far more important than the life of a fetus that has a 1% probability of surviving. Sir Giles

Sev, the great pain excuse to push euthanasia thence, onward -- the anticivilisational agenda is always destructively progressive, so lesson 1 is do not yield the first inch -- compulsory euthanasia is decades past sell by date. While the US has lagged in pain treatment, pain treatment once strong enough treatments are permitted has long been adequate for just about all cases. The truth is, respect for life is being steadily eroded and certain stalking horse talking points have been used to advance it. The real issue is growing disregard for life and it cannot be justified so handy stalking horses are used. Let us recognise the stalking horses for what they are, signs of a dangerous game in progress. KF kairosfocus

SG, 4th gen civil war in a low kinetic stage is an observation. It is currently being ramped up. But then, over forty years later most people in Jamaica are not aware that that nation had a similar civil war. It is only now seeping out academically. You know exactly what I responded to as slanderous, kindly drop that "forced . . ." gambit. The real issue is holocaust, globally easily shown 800+ million and proceeding at a million per week, in the US 63 million. There is never a good reason to shed innocent blood, and law is antecedent to state and court decrees under colour of law, core law is built into our morally governed nature. The warping, blinding, benumbing, destructive effect of that much guilt of blood has to be reckoned with. KF kairosfocus

KF: SG, slanderous distortion. Part of a pattern feeding currently low kinetic, high agit prop and lawfare civil war.

Nice hyperbolic rhetoric. But completely off topic. Where, exactly, am I being slanderous? Be specific. Otherwise I will simply conclude that you are just beating a tangential drum. Sir Giles

PS, try this one for size, compare Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Bundy Ranch siege then ask what is going on. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. Including, the worst holocaust in history, advanced under false colours of rights and freedom or choice. There is no right to shed innocent blood. Medical issues of one life vs another or the like have little to do with what has cost 800+ million lives of our living posterity in the womb, mounting at another million per year. The degree of benumbing, warping and blinding to reach this has to be unprecedented. kairosfocus

SG, slanderous distortion. Part of a pattern feeding currently low kinetic, high agit prop and lawfare civil war. (Ask yourself why say this case is not gathering 24/7 major saturation coverage, contrast say the Abu Ghraib scandal and add up: 2 + 2 = ? [If you object, there are other cases.]) KF kairosfocus

Aaron1978: She might not be in that situation if you were a better parent.

Given that her repeated miscarriages and current unviable fetus causing a serious health risk to her appear to be genetically based, you may be correct. I am just thankful that she does not live in a state that would force her to continue with the pregnancy at a serious risk to her life. Sir Giles

“But if that did happen then, assuming He let me get a word out, I would have to say that He should be held accountable for vastly more sin and suffering than I have ever caused.” ROFL. You have made these types of comments before and I pointed out to you that you have not thought this through and it’s an incredibly stupid thing to say. Who exactly is going to hold God accountable? I can assure you this, IF the Judeo Christian God exists the only speaking will be the sound of you defecating in your pants. Vivid vividbleau

People try so hard to minimize the fetal stage of human life when this is the stage that determines your entire life AaronS1978

“Not what I was saying. The question is whether a partly-formed fetus is actually capable of experiencing the fear and pain felt by a fully-developed adult, which is what the anti-abortionists are trying to tell us. If I had such experiences then I certainly don’t remember them from before I was born. I don’t actually remember much from immediately after I was born come to that.” First of all, you’re not gonna remember anything if you’re anesthetized, you’re also not gonna remember anything if you sleepwalk You probably also don’t remember anything if you party too hard the night before And it certainly doesn’t matter if you don’t remember anything from a stage of your life it was still your stage of your life because if actually went in and aborted you in your mothers womb, you wouldn’t have any other stages of your life to remember. Two other things of note “a partly-formed fetus“ Anything to dehumanize and minimize what you’re trying to kill. We do similar with lab animals. “anti-abortionists” Love this term then we don’t have to use pretty terms like pro-choice and planned parenthood. We can use abortion clinic and pro-abortionist AaronS1978

@ 141 Sev LOL REALLY!? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Sorry, I’m gonna be rude on this one but you hit a whole new level of stupid with that comment https://tenor.com/bmtt5.gif AaronS1978

AaronS1978/136

Accordingly to Sev it effectively ok to kill someone at a stage of life they might not remember. Time to line up everyone with memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Hell I don’t remember what I was doing when I was asleep which is what you do most of the time when your are in your mothers womb.

Not what I was saying. The question is whether a partly-formed fetus is actually capable of experiencing the fear and pain felt by a fully-developed adult, which is what the anti-abortionists are trying to tell us. If I had such experiences then I certainly don't remember them from before I was born. I don't actually remember much from immediately after I was born come to that.

Seversky

AaronS1978/133

Makes me almost kind of think you’re making story about your daughter up to see people take swings that you and then you can call them insensitive if they do

Makes me almost kind of think you are another Alex Jones wannabe. The Sandy Hook shootings are explained away as having been faked by a nefarious government as a false-flag operation. SG's making up this story about his daughter. Makes it a whole lot easier to dismiss rather than deal with. Seversky

Relatd/126

So if an aged person is given a drug so that he feels nothing and then another drug that kills him, that’s OK?

As with abortion, it would depend on the circumstances of the case. For example, if the patient was in the terminal stage of a cancer that was causing increasing pain that even the strongest painkiller could not mitigate then it might be the patient's wish that their life be ended as their continued suffering would serve no purpose, least of all to them. Or would you insist that their suffering should continue until nature takes its course?

You are just hiding behind numbers.

So are you. You are assuming that the vast majority of abortions are performed because the unborn child is an inconvenience because that makes it simpler and easier to call for a blanket ban on abortion But you don't know the circumstances of each of those millions of cases any more than I do. Life and the moral choices it presents to us are often a lot more difficult than we'd like.

The word “rights” is not a free pass to any action. The mother has no rights.

Outrageous. The mother absolutely does have rights, more so than the child. The problem is balancing those rights against one another. It may be that in many cases the right to life of the unborn outweighs the mother's other rights but in other cases the rights of the mother take precedence. We need to know the circumstances of each case to make an informed decision.

You are judging God? I fear for you Seversky for when you stand before Him to give an account for your life. The “I had no empirical evidence that you were real” excuse will not get you far in light of the fact that you have heard the truth.

Since I don't believe your God is real then the possibility of standing before Him to be judged is not exactly a threat. But if that did happen then, assuming He let me get a word out, I would have to say that He should be held accountable for vastly more sin and suffering than I have ever caused. Seversky

I mean while we’re at it since you’re using your daughter for moral leverage I think you’re pretty shit father She might not be in that situation if you were a better parent AaronS1978

Why would anybody assume that you give a shit about BA77 religious psychopath when you don’t give a shit about your granddaughter AaronS1978

BA77: Sir Giles at 127, if you would have read for context, Seversky gave me the option of choosing between him or God for answering his question “So who is the psychopath?”

Given what my daughter is going through, you assume that I give a shit about your religious psychopathy. Here is a hint. I don’t. If I had a choice between the moral comfort provided by you or Seversky, you would not be in the running. Sir Giles

Accordingly to Sev it effectively ok to kill someone at a stage of life they might not remember. Time to line up everyone with memory loss and Alzheimer’s. Hell I don’t remember what I was doing when I was asleep which is what you do most of the time when your are in your mothers womb. AaronS1978

Sir Giles at 127, if you would have read for context, Seversky gave me the option of choosing between him or God for answering his question “So who is the psychopath?” For me the answer is not even close, if the option is between God or Seversky, of if the option is between God and any other mortal human being on the face of earth for that matter, the answer will always be that the mortal human is to be considered a psychopath when he is foolish enough to compare himself with God. As even Isaiah himself stated when he was in the presence of the Lord, “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

Isaiah 6:5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

Perhaps the following Near Death Experience testimony will give you a small glimpse of exactly Who Seversky is trying to compare himself with:

“I feel as if there are no words in our limited vocabulary to describe what I experienced.,,, The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." - Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony ?http://iands.org/experiences/nde-accounts/736-never-wanted-to-leave-the-presence.html

So again, if the option is between God or Seversky, of if the option is between God and any other mortal human being on the face of earth for that matter, the answer will always be that the mortal human is to be considered a psychopath when he is foolish enough to compare himself with God. bornagain77

Corrections: “Makes me almost kind of think you’re making the story about your daughter up to see if people will take swings at you and then you can call them insensitive if they do” AaronS1978

“Pass through a line of harassing protesters but undergo far less pain. Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk.“ Yeah back at you bud. So I was witness to this aggressive line of protestors praying the rosary quietly. My mother was in this aggressive group of quietly praying protesters when a perfectly sensible individual drove up in his keep Cherokee and started to knock the hell out of the coordinator. Happened durning the “Our Father” prayer very dangerous degrading and certainly aggressive prayer. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why that sensible man got arrested But yeah, they’re just jerks I get you This comment tells me a lot about you none of which is good Makes me almost kind of think you’re making story about your daughter up to see people take swings that you and then you can call them insensitive if they do AaronS1978

Andrew at 131, The goal of the so-called Sexual Revolution was lots of sex, right? Sex just in marriage? Say no to that. Sex among a certain age? No again. Let's try to lower the age of when guys can have sex with teenagers. Babies? No again. Pleasure is all that matters. And when that happens, you have other, much worse proposals. Hiding behind the word "rights." No, it's just permission to do whatever they want. That's all it is. So, in the 1970s, so-called Adult Bookstores everywhere and selling what? The experiment needs to end. It's caused nothing but harm. relatd

"there is also the problem of never being told that they can control themselves" Relatd, This is an important point also. All the pathways to the problem have been widened and greased, so that a simple no isn't even considered. Andrew asauber

Andrew at 129, Too many women have not been told what abortion really is. The baby dies. What is the difference between a woman who is overjoyed she is pregnant and one who is not? For some women, there is also the problem of never being told that they can control themselves. That pills or condoms are not the answer. And for men? Too many men get a free pass. 'Oh, she's pregnant? I'll let her worry about it.' Today, there is a lack of fathers. The one who is also responsible. But, again, some women think, "I don't need a man in my life." Who told them that? Total Strangers? People who want nothing less than separation between men and women. But some men and women know and follow the proper roles for each. The West, because of the failure of the wrong views of human sexuality, will return to Biblical values. The other ways are being shown to be wrong and deadly. relatd

"That abortion was just another form of birth control." Realtd, Yes, and to put a finer point on it, their thinking has been guided to see it as an easier way out of a problem. Problem arises, problem taken care of. They don't want to know any more than that. Andrew asauber

SG at 127, I hope you're not trying to give others the impression that very abortion clinic has a line of harassing protestors. I stood in front of an abortion clinic. I was there to pray. I had no intention of harassing anyone going in and coming out. And the same was true of the others I was with. I told myself before joining that group that I would leave if I saw any of them harassing any women going in. "Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk." But there is hard data that shows a lot of women did not think long and hard. That abortion was just another form of birth control. If you make a statement, back it up. Have you seen this? "Abortion on demand without apology." Apology to who? relatd

BA77: September 26, 2022 at 10:21 pm “So who is the psychopath?” You are.

Nice mature response. As I mentioned, my daughter is in the process of deciding how she will terminate her pregnancy. She has two options. 1) have labour induced and give birth to a baby who will not survive for long. Undergo the pain of labour. 2) go to a clinic and have an abortion. Pass through a line of harassing protesters but undergo far less pain. Anybody who thinks that women don’t think long and hard about an abortion, or who think that they see it as a convenient form of birth control, is just an insensitive jerk. Sir Giles

Seversky at 122, "I would agree it is morally wrong to abort a pregnancy without good reason. In my view, there should always be the presumption of the right to life. That the method of abortion may be repugnant is not relevant. What matters is balancing the right to life of the unborn against those of the mother. Do you remember anything at all about your existence in the womb? I know I don’t." So if an aged person is given a drug so that he feels nothing and then another drug that kills him, that's OK? "No, I’m trying to make you understand that not all abortions are at the behest of sinful, callous women whose only concern is to rid themselves of an inconvenience. You have no idea of the circumstances surrounding all the millions of abortions performed." You are just hiding behind numbers. Of the tiny fraction of abortions that are performed to save the life of the mother, the others get a free pass? Even the Catholic Church allows for situations where the baby dies as an unintended effect of the procedure. That is extremely important. The unintended consequence is the loss of the baby. However, if the intent is to abort the baby so that it will die then that is wrong. "No, I don’t want people to be free to kill as many unborn babies as they want but there should be more of a middle ground decided on a case-by-case basis which takes into account both the right to life of the unborn and the mother’s rights." The word "rights" is not a free pass to any action. The mother has no rights. She is presented as the ONLY one who decides. "Abortion on demand without apology." Have you seen that? That is 100% wrong. There is no middle ground. And yes, every single woman is a case followed by other cases. so it is always on a case by case basis. "As for being held to account for immoral behavior, I would not accept judgement from God who is apparently unrepentant for the atrocities He is alleged to have committed in the Old Testament. “Let Him who is without sin cast the first stone…”' You are judging God? I fear for you Seversky for when you stand before Him to give an account for your life. The "I had no empirical evidence that you were real" excuse will not get you far in light of the fact that you have heard the truth. relatd

Dialogue of the deaf”.

Are you trying to understand yourself? jerry

I think I'll bookmark this page in case I need an example to illustrate the meaning of the phrase: "Dialogue of the deaf". Alan Fox

"So who is the psychopath?" You are. bornagain77

Bornagain77/25

No, I am not saying that. I’m saying that it is blatantly obvious that it is objectively morally wrong to rip apart, limb from limb, another “innocent” human person.

I would agree it is morally wrong to abort a pregnancy without good reason. In my view, there should always be the presumption of the right to life. That the method of abortion may be repugnant is not relevant. What matters is balancing the right to life of the unborn against those of the mother. Do you remember anything at all about your existence in the womb? I know I don't.

Seversky, you brought a few rare examples where pre-term delivery was necessary in order to save a mother’s life. You did this in order to try to justify the many millions or dismemberment abortions that are completely unnecessary.

No, I'm trying to make you understand that not all abortions are at the behest of sinful, callous women whose only concern is to rid themselves of an inconvenience. You have no idea of the circumstances surrounding all the millions of abortions performed.

Your supposed ‘compassion’ for the mother’s life in the rare instances you cited, and your complete lack of compassion for the unborn baby who is being ripped apart limb from limb in the mother’s womb, is literally breathtaking for the sheer hypocrisy displayed.

As your complete lack of compassion for the women involved.

So you want people to be free to kill as many unborn babies as they want, via ripping them apart limb from limb, and yet you are ‘upset’ that God would hold you and others morally accountable for such ‘un-repented’ barbaric behavior?

No, I don't want people to be free to kill as many unborn babies as they want but there should be more of a middle ground decided on a case-by-case basis which takes into account both the right to life of the unborn and the mother's rights. As for being held to account for immoral behavior, I would not accept judgement from God who is apparently unrepentant for the atrocities He is alleged to have committed in the Old Testament. "Let Him who is without sin cast the first stone..."

So Sev, do your really believe that Jesus would be championing dismemberment abortions? Besides being a complete psychopath, you are apparently also completely insane. But alas, I guess the two go hand in hand.

Neither Jesus nor His father spoke out against abortion which you would think is a much graver offense against morality than making graven images or taking His name in vain. And His Father disposed without compunction of large numbers of "sacred" human lives - including the unborn ones - in the various atrocities reported in the Old Testament. So who is the psychopath? Seversky

re 119. By "kick the can down the road" I mean claiming that your beliefs reflect the "truths" held by the Catholic Church just moves the question as to why one should accept the position of the Catholic Church as true. I'm not sure how "the Media" comes into our play. Almost all of us get lots of information, and hear lots of analysis and opinions, from media sources from all different perspectives and of all different kinds. Where are you getting information from that wouldn't qualify as media? Viola Lee

Jerry: Some of the concepts are ambiguous. For example, what does the word “equal” mean?

I see “equal” simply as not being excluded from something simply due to your gender, race, religion, etc. you may still be excluded from some opportunity due to a lack of strength, dexterity, skill, or because you are excluded because the religion you follow precludes it. But the latter is a self restriction. Sir Giles

VL at 118, Kicks the can where? How about all those brainwashed people out there who believe the Media? That's better? And the Media keeps getting worse. relatd

Realtd writes, "By the way, I am speaking the truth." Often your reason for thinking you speak the truth is because the Catholic Church says so. That just kicks the can down the road, and doesn't strengthen your position. Viola Lee

AS1978 at 116, You speak for everyone? I don't think so. I always give my reasons for posting what I post. A few here don't like it. By the way, I am speaking the truth. The "you or anyone else can check on" truth. Again, you may not like it. I can't control anyone's reaction. relatd

Yeah, I’m not gonna get into this tail chasing exercise with you. Your bluntness does not convince anyone of your rightness. If you want people to value your arguments you must show why they are valuable to them first which you don’t you’re just blunt AaronS1978

AS1978 at 113, Close minded. I see. Now you are the one imposing your idea of what 'close minded' is on me. So, what is your definition of close minded? Is it, "If you don't agree with me I will give you the label 'close minded'"? I think you should reconsider what you call "aggressive" regarding my replies. Yes, I am blunt and to the point. I prefer to be direct as opposed to sounding wishy-washy and vague. Too many people like vague and wishy-washy. Blunt and to the point is designed to get people's attention. That's all. relatd

Ask yourself: Who or what influences you? Something good, something bad? How do you determine that? relatd

@Relatd No they don’t offend me You just come across as aggressive and closed minded like most atheists and Marxist on the site You are just the opposite extreme And none media answers? When discussing Covid with you last time your answers were very inline with the media AaronS1978

Total Strangers = a synonym for the general world. That’s a new one to me. Viola Lee

AS1978 at 110, My answers offend you? Why is that? Could it be because they are the total opposite of the Marxist-Atheist media? I know most people are used to the Media and that is why, I suspect, that my totally non-Media answers are offensive to some. relatd

@ Relatd I’m plenty aware I added condemned. And I appreciate you checking in on whether I can read. I use the word condemn because it’s a combination of how you present your answers, and how you react to people that disagree with you kind of like in your last message to me. @ CD The one thing that I will agree with you is that yes there are very few people with good sense of humor on this site. Of all people BA77 was the only person that ever participated in some of my goofiness when I deployed the sarcastibutton. Often when one uses humor here you get crickets. However, your humor is a matter of poor tastes and bad placement as it comes across as mocking members of the site. For example your nickname. You and your friends probably giggled your asses off when you named yourself Chuckdarwin on an ID site. But the humor is only funny amongst you and your friends because you share the same distain for intelligent design and God. It’s also pretty ballsey to do that. It would be similar if I showed up on the site “why evolution is true” as “Jesus fish”. But the problem is is your humor often comes across as mocking your audience, so I wouldn’t expect anybody to really laugh at some of your jokes here. AaronS1978

SG at 105, I never said that. You're another one who is twisting words. The World, meaning Total Strangers, can tell everyone what to think but when I write something, I don't get the opportunity - at all? The Church, and myself, does propose. It does not impose. I would appreciate it if you remember that. relatd

AS1978 at 96, Whoa. You can't read, can you? Did I use the word condemned? I think not. "My version" of Catholicism is quoting the Church. OK? I quote the Church. I quote the Church's version of Catholicism because it is the truth. I'd appreciate it if you read, and quote, what I actually write and not add any words I did not write. relatd

Viola’s opinion has a certain ring to it.

Do they contradict? If one set of rules is correct and it includes both of the sub-rules, are not both positions then correct? Some of the concepts are ambiguous. For example, what does the word "equal" mean? It has many, many definitions. Every day I meet someone who is better than myself at something. One of the maxims of Dale Carnegie was that everyone you meet is better than you at something. Another truism is that most people get better at certain things over time. They are not equal with themselves as this happens. Obviously some forms of equality are a mirage. jerry

:-) Viola Lee

This has been an interesting discussion between Relatd and Viola Lee. To summarize: Relatd: “everybody must follow the rules that I follow.” Viola Lee: “I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Viola’s opinion has a certain ring to it. Sir Giles

AaronS1978/102 My but the folks on this blog are a humorless lot. Reminds me of another quip, this one from Mark Twain, that when I see the type of people who have gone to a better world, I'm moved to lead a different life...... chuckdarwin

Back at 91, relatd wrote to me, "If you are interested in salvation, I suggest you compare the values you picked with Church teaching." I don't believe in Christian ideas about salvation, so that really doesn't apply to me. Viola Lee

@ CD it’s more like using responsibility than mathematics……. AaronS1978

It was either Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw who quipped that it is odd that the Catholic Church allows people to use mathematics for birth control but not chemistry or physics……. chuckdarwin

@ Viola Lee Vasectomies, yup but honestly it goes both ways too, they don’t what women to get their tubes tied either. There are exceptions though, like my mother who had to have it done because of issues with her ovaries. Although the vasectomy thing was never a big deal for me at least because I would never do anything with anyone unless we mutually agreed on what comes next. AaronS1978

I don't think I was trying to make him look hypocritical. I am trying to find out more of the details of his views. Back at 34 he asked if I was a feminist. I asked if he could provide more details about what that meant. We then got to talking about what I see are his out-dated conceptions about what is going on in society in respect to sexual issues. I was astounded to find that vasectomies were prohibited, by the way. Viola Lee

My statement was based off your line of questioning which seemed like you were trying to make him look hypocritical by nitpicking and splitting hairs about the roll of women in the Catholic religion and entitled rights to equal pleasure when it comes to sex in the marriage. If I was wrong I’m sorry AaronS1978

How am I splitting hairs? I have been talking about how the world is different now than the 40-50 years ago relatd appears to be referencing, and also interested in Catholic beliefs that affect sexual activity. I haven't been talking at all about abortion per se. That is different than what you were talking, but not splitting hairs, which usually refers to making distinctions that don't really make a difference. I think factors that have reduced abortion and lowered teenage sexual activity, for instance, are important changes in society. Viola Lee

Well, after reading all of the comments, I see that everybody has gone completely off the deep end Viola Lee is splitting hairs and Relatd is saying anyone who doesn’t conform to his version of catholicism shall be condemned and if Catholics don’t make them conform they to will be condemned I’m going back to what the OP said the baby is not a clump of cells, it’s a living human being. It is wrong to kill a living human being under any circumstance because we all have a right to live. Everybody here was given that right to live and in turn have a right to our bodily autonomy. The unborn have a body and you don’t have a right to take it away. They are defenseless humans and all humans have the same rights. Peace. AaronS1978

@94 uhm yes Not sure why they wouldn’t But hey this was the first question I saw so I answered. I expected an interesting and rather aggressive answer from Relatd as I’m sure this question was directed at him AaronS1978

OK, I accept that desire varies, so let me separate the questions: In respect to Catholic belief, within marriage, does a woman have as much right to pleasurable sex as a man? Viola Lee

VL at 92, What a strange question. A woman experiences whatever an average woman experiences and the same for the man. relatd

Related: here's a relevant question. As a Catholic, or in respect to Catholic belief, within marriage, does a woman have as much desire for and right to pleasurable sex as a man? Viola Lee

VL at 90, If you are interested in salvation, I suggest you compare the values you picked with Church teaching. relatd

Who told you? Parents, your church, people around you, but as you matured you assimilated certain values and made them your own. Same for me, except instead of a particular church I had a broader range of influences, I imagine. Viola Lee

VL at 88, Who told you what was right and what was wrong? Ask yourself this question. relatd

Relatd, you write, "You are just repeating the old – and useless – Hippie line with its emphasis on sexual pleasure." I am not "emphasizing" sexual pleasure, but I am saying it is a valuable and desired part of almost all marriages, by both the husband and the wife. That is not "hippie"-ish. Do you agree: that in most marriages both the man and the woman desire and value sexual pleasure, one benefit being that that pleasure helps "make love" between them? Viola Lee

VL at 85, Who told you what was right and what was wrong? Ask yourself this question. relatd

VL at 83, Up to date data about immoral sex? I follow it. I watch the Church talk about the truth about abortion. I hear the Church warning me about radical individualism. No, people need to be told they were lied to about abortion: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks relatd

Relatd, when I wrote, "“I’m willing to firmly declare that the established norm for most married couples is to use contraceptives of some type (birth control pills, devices, vasectomies, etc.) when they want to prevent pregnancy.”, you replied: "Who established this norm? When was it established?" The couples themselves. I am using norm in the descriptive sense of what people choose to do, not in the prescriptive sense of some kind of rule or standards imposed from the outside. Viola Lee

VL at 82, Condoms and pills are not the answer. This Hippie/Radical experiment needs to end. Biblical values need to be restored. People engaging in immoral sexual activity don't need to hear from Total Strangers. They need to hear the truth from the Church. The truth will set them free from those who will lie to get what they want. relatd

Summary to relatd: I support your right to live by whatever morals you believe in, and to advocate them to others using whatever reasoning you think might be effective. That doesn't mean that other will necessarily agree with you. But I think you are fighting a battle from the '60s and '70s that is not nearly as relevant now as it was then, and you ought to at least become conversant with more up-to-data. Viola Lee

Related, at 73, you posted, with the following link “I am right, even if it happened 40 years ago, that teenage girls were using abortion as birth control. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2017/201706_NSFG.htm." But that article does not pertain to 40 years ago. Did you read the bullet points?

Among teen females aged 15-19, 42% had ever had sex, and among teen males, the percent was 44%. These percentages have gradually declined since 1988 when 51% of female and 60% of male teens had ever had sex. Virtually all sexually experienced female teens had used some method of contraception, and this increased from 98% of female teens in 2002 to 99% in 2011-2015. This level has been sustained since the earliest published data in this series, in 1995, when it was 96%. The most commonly used method among teens in 2011-2015 remained the condom (reported by 97% of teen females), followed by withdrawal (60% ) and the pill (56%).

Viola Lee

VL at 79, You are just repeating the old - and useless - Hippie line with its emphasis on sexual pleasure. And more sexual pleasure. I had parents who had kids and once a certain number was reached, no more. It was not my concern regarding their intimacy. You clearly separate believers from yourself but still write: "I’m willing to firmly declare that the established norm for most married couples is to use contraceptives of some type (birth control pills, devices, vasectomies, etc.) when they want to prevent pregnancy." Who established this norm? When was it established? The Catholic Church is 100% against all of it for well stated reasons. relatd

relate: did you look more thoroughly at 77? The two bolded sentences said:

That’s the lowest level of sexual behavior among teens since scientists began to keep track in 1991. Of the teens who said they were sexually active, nearly 90 percent used some form of birth control the last time they had sex.

Your 1981 data is very out-dated. Viola Lee

relatd writes, “What you view as “control” is actually your desire to ignore established norms for married couples.” I’m willing to firmly declare that the established norm for most married couples is to use contraceptives of some type (birth control pills, devices, vasectomies, etc.) when they want to prevent pregnancy. You write, And you think that what you think is more important than Church teaching? Who gave you any special authority?” Church teaching is only important to those who believe in that framework. It is not particularly relevant to others. Also, I am not claiming to exert any authority be explaining my perspective, or other evidence about the situation. I’m just telling you what I (and many others) think, and that very many don’t agree with what we think are extreme views. relatd writes, “You ignore the actual reasons the Church is against contraception. A general loosening of morals and the man viewing his wife primarily as a source of pleasure and not as someone who he has a relationship with aside from having sex.” Of course in a marriage husband and wife have important relationships with each other aside from having sex, but they also have a sexual relationship which has a number of benefits, one of which is giving and receiving pleasure. And I’ll note that a woman can see her husband as a source of pleasure as well as a man seeing his wife as source of pleasure: is it OK that women can have as much sexual pleasure as a man? Viola Lee

VL at 77, Give them more condoms is not the answer. Teach them self-control. I heard this from a 15 year old girl. "My parents are very strict. They won't allow me to start dating until I'm 16." And how did dating work? The father told the boy to bring his daughter home at a certain time. Both the mother and father counseled their daughter in appropriate behavior. They had also been teenagers. They understood the feelings involved. Going to a dance meant adult chaperones were there to make sure things stayed within set boundaries. That is dating. If I had a daughter, I would never, ever think that her having sex outside of marriage is OK. I would tell her to avoid it for obvious reasons. Pregnancy and STDs. I would tell her that sex is meant for marriage and it's not normal to have sex before then. Sure, Total Strangers want teenage girls to believe having sex outside of marriage is OK so they can have sex with them. IT'S NOT NORMAL. Total Strangers have been lying to get what they want for many years. relatd

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20180921/fewer-teens-having-sex-most-use-birth-control FRIDAY, Sept. 21, 2018 (HealthDay News) -- In a finding that should ease parents' minds, new research shows that fewer American teens are having sex and most of those who do are using some form of birth control. "Many young people become sexually active during high school," said study co-author Laura Lindberg, a principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit research organization that published the report on Sept. 20. "It is critical to ensure that all young people have access to comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health care services to support their sexual and reproductive decision-making," Lindberg said in a Guttmacher news release. For the study, the researchers examined national surveys of high school students conducted in 2013, 2015 and 2017 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The team looked for trends in sexual activity, use of birth control and exposure to sexual violence. Their findings revealed a dramatic drop in the number of sexually active teens. The study showed that 40 percent of U.S. high school students reported that they ever had sex in 2017. That's the lowest level of sexual behavior among teens since scientists began to keep track in 1991. Fewer teens of all races and ethnicities reported having sex, the study showed. But the researchers noted this decline was most pronounced among black students. ... Of the teens who said they were sexually active, nearly 90 percent used some form of birth control the last time they had sex. In 54 percent of these encounters, the teens used condoms. Only 16 percent of the sexually active girls and 10 percent of the sexually active boys surveyed admitted they had not used any contraceptive the last time they had sex. Meanwhile, condom use dropped from 59 percent to 54 percent during this time frame. The researchers argued that teens need more education and access to condoms since rates of sexually transmitted diseases among young people are on the rise. Viola Lee

VL at 74, What you view as "control" is actually your desire to ignore established norms for married couples. And you think that what you think is more important than Church teaching? Who gave you any special authority? You ignore the actual reasons the Church is against contraception. A general loosening of morals and the man viewing his wife primarily as a source of pleasure and not as someone who he has a relationship with aside from having sex. Oh sure, because Total Strangers (TM) have been saying sex is for fun, and not kids, for decades, people are going to leave the Church because of what Total Strangers told them? They have no special authority either. Your statement shows the kind of distorted thinking some people fall into. I saw the established order: marriage and children. Then, in the late 1960s, it was all about sex as pleasure. So, set up all those Adult Bookstores and strip clubs, falsely labeled "gentlemen's clubs." No actual gentleman would go to see some other man's daughter take her clothes off for him and other men. How perverse to treat our neighbors' daughters this way. You believe that only what you want matters but you live in a society of people at the same time. We need an ordered society to live as truly civilized people. relatd

SG at 72, Baloney. Sex education is a waste. Artificial contraception is a bad idea. https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/02/medication-abortion-now-accounts-more-half-all-us-abortions STDs are up. Why is that? Sex education? https://www.axios.com/2022/09/20/std-increase-prevention-cdc relatd

OMG: vasectomies are not permitted! Married couple, don't want more children but want to have sex (of course they do.) Man can't get a vasectomy! Wow. What a puritanical worldview. Control, control, control! Wow. This is bit eye-opening. I wonder what percent of Catholic couples ascribe to these beliefs. I wonder how big a role these kinds of beliefs play in people getting disenchanted with, disengaged from, or even leaving the church? Viola Lee

VL at 70, I am right, even if it happened 40 years ago, that teenage girls were using abortion as birth control. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2017/201706_NSFG.htm Abortion - in clinics - is down, and here is the reason: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/02/medication-abortion-now-accounts-more-half-all-us-abortions relatd

VL: That data is 40 years old. The rate of abortion, and sex among teenagers, is going down. Abortions per 100,000 are half of what they were in 1981.

And this decline is attributed to the combination of sex education and ready availability of contraceptives. Things that Relatd advocates against. Sir Giles

AS1978 at 67, I don't understand you? How so? Guess what? There has been a recent surge in STDs. Why is that? Caused by sex education? It's caused by people getting wasted, not using condoms, or anything else, and there you have it. Women can forget to use The Pill. No contraceptive method is perfect. Even sterilization is not permitted. https://www.hli.org/resources/catholic-church-teach-sterilization/ relatd

"Reference: Alan Guttmacher Institute. Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem That Hasn't Gone Away. New York: AGI, 1981." That data is 40 years old. The rate of abortion, and sex among teenagers, is going down. Abortions per 100,000 are half of what they were in 1981. See the chart from the Guttamacher Institute. Link Viola Lee

VL at 68, You've shown you are capable of doing research but fail to cite any references for your statement. "Abortion As Contraception. "More than a third of the abortions in this country are obtained by teenaged girls. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the vast majority of these girls use abortion as contraception. The methods of contraception that aborted teenagers used before their abortions are listed below, along with the percentage of fornicating teenaged girls who use abortion as birth control." Source: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/introduction-the-abortioncontraception-connection-9634 relatd

Relatd: " ‘Hey, everybody. It’s OK to have sex with everybody. And if she gets pregnant just get an abortion. Lots of fun and no baby!” Great idea, right?" This is a distorted caricature of reality. There are very, very few people who feel this way. Viola Lee

1. Bible verses don't add anything unless one believes that the Bible has some special authority. 2. Very good point, Sir Giles. I have been faithfully monogamous for decades, and I think there are negative consequences for the people involved that usually arise from not being faithful in a monogamous relationship, to give one example. I don't advocate adultery, but this is an issue each person or couple have to navigate for themselves. Viola Lee

@relatd Meeting in the middle is NOT compromising our values. What other people do does not determine what we do with our values You complete misunderstand what I was saying AaronS1978

SG at 64, You're saying two wrong things at the same time. How about this? Let's go to Oregon and offer drug addicts free treatment to get off drugs. Money is being put into it. But what's the point of being addicted in the first place? or "Hi. We won't put you in jail for being a drug addict so we'll treat you instead." And how many drug addicts actually want treatment? Or believe they can stop or feel like they can? The same with the "Sexual Revolution." 'Hey, everybody. It's OK to have sex with everybody. And if she gets pregnant just get an abortion. Lots of fun and no baby!" Great idea, right? "But that does not mean that I advocate for them, or even think that they are necessarily good personal decisions." So, for you. you won't advocate for them or even say it's a good idea but you won't try to stop it. Not a good approach. "Dad, now that I'm 18, I just wanna have sex with as many women as possible. What do you think?" 'Hey, maybe not a good idea and I won't encourage it, but now that you're an adult, you can do what you want.' No. Wrong. No civilized father would ever counsel his son that way. In the grand scheme of things, sex is for having babies. It's not a plaything - like Hugh Hefner tried to push with his 'Playboy Philosophy.' He was just marketing perversion behind a thin layer of what the modern man - with good taste - would do. Oh yeah, young men bought Playboy for articles about the finest clothes, cars, alcohol, tobacco and gadgets. They ignored the nude and partly nude women. No, America needs to return to Biblical values. relatd

VL@62, I think Relatd is conflating “free to” with “advocating for”. There are many activities that I thing adults should be free to do. But that does not mean that I advocate for them, or even think that they are necessarily good personal decisions. Sir Giles

VL at 62, Exodus 23:2 "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice," Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." relatd

In response, "“women and men should be free to enjoy their sexuality as long as it is with other consenting adults", relatd writes, "False". False in relationship to his belief system, so of course that is how he should behave. But not a false belief for everyone. I agree with Sir Giles, and not with relatd. Viola Lee

People need to stop listening to total strangers whose only goal is lots of sex and no responsibility for the consequences.

I'm feeling deprived. These total strangers whose only goal is lots of sex have been giving me a wide berth. Can Related put me in touch? Alan Fox

AS1978 at 55, Really? We Catholics should compromise our values and say two different things at the same time? Example: Catholics are forbidden from using artificial contraception but non-Catholics can? The Church would never promote this. Instead, she presents the evidence that shows how sexual perverts wanted to turn sex in marriage away from primarily having kids and toward primarily having pleasure. There's nothing wrong with sex but only if it is limited to marriage. So, atheists and those who do not think about God are hearing two different messages: Contraception is bad and wrong, and contraception is OK - from total strangers who want society reordered to what they want. There will be no compromise regarding contraception. People need to stop listening to total strangers whose only goal is lots of sex and no responsibility for the consequences. relatd

SG at 53, "women and men should be free to enjoy their sexuality as long as it is with other consenting adults." False. Wrong. Perverse. And anti-family. The family unit is the basic building block of society. It cannot be tampered with. If it is, it leads to false thinking and actions. Having babies while married, and raising them properly is how we get the next generation. By the way, STDs are way up. The purpose of 'sex education' is what? Lower rates of STDs for one. Not happening. So much for sex education being effective or necessary. relatd

53. Good list, except 6 is not like the others, as it is a political policy issue that I think people could debate on other than sexual equality grounds. But I agree with the other five. Viola Lee

re 56: Amen. Viola Lee

Relatd in confession: Forgive me Father for I have sinned Alan Fox

@52 There are, and in this type of situation it is good to take baby steps, right now they’re not willing to meet us in the middle at all. They are completely convinced that murdering babies is a bodily right of the mother and only the mothers right. Which is objectively incorrect as the baby was not produced asexually and required a male to create the baby human It is well known that Catholics practice natural family planning and a generally against contraception But we are dealing with people that don’t believe in God, are not Catholic, and do not share ours values Many Catholics know this, so we have to meet them halfway in the middle It is better for them to use contraceptives and practice responsible sex than it is for them to use abortion as an after the fact, contraceptive and murder the baby they created (not to mention condoms stop venereal diseases, abortions and personal rights don’t. Diseases normally don’t care about personal rights unless it’s covid “BLM”) We cannot argue with these people, or convince them of our beliefs that they themselves do not value in the first place It’s like presenting pearls to swine, they’ll grab the pearls and scatter them through the mud Furthermore, honestly, we do not need to argue from the Bible to show that abortion is just flat wrong AaronS1978

Relatd: Masturbation is a sin. Period.

In a recent survey 90% of men admitted to having masturbated. The conclusion of the study was that 10% of men lie. :) Sir Giles

VL: Name five or more key characteristics that you think pertain to being a “feminist” and I’ll think about whether I qualify.

I’m willing to give it a try. 1) women and men should have the same access to education and fields of education. 2) women and men should have the same employment opportunities with the same compensation. 3) women and men should be free from any spousal abuse. 4) women and men should have unrestricted access to effective birth control. 5) women and men should be free to enjoy their sexuality as long as it is with other consenting adults. 6) women and men should be entitled to at least one year paid parental leave, with job security. I’m sure there are others but I think this is a good start. Sir Giles

AS1978 at 46, Be careful what you say about Church teaching. It is very important to be accurate so that others are not misled. "Many millions of Catholics would happily compromise about contraceptives if it prevented the abortion." https://www.ncbcenter.org/making-sense-of-bioethics-cms/column-150-the-bitter-pill-of-false-liberation relatd

JVL at 45, Masturbation is a sin. Period. relatd

Viola Lee At 34, relatd wrote to me: “Are you a feminist?” I replied that that question was too ambiguous for me to answer.

You are out of touch with reality : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI89S9BZnwo PS: LGBTQ has the same parents as feminism. First "feminism" broke family ,let kids to be educated by "state" . Great! Lieutenant Commander Data

Ugh I see misinterpretation of Ephesians 23 Before anyone starts claiming the husband runs the show or wives have no rights please read Ephesians 24, 25 and understand what it means when they say the husband must love/sacrifice himself to his wife as Jesus loved/sacrificed himself for the church AaronS1978

At 34, relatd wrote to me: “Are you a feminist?" I replied that that question was too ambiguous for me to answer. Just for fun, here's a follow up for relatd (or anyone else): Name five or more key characteristics that you think pertain to being a "feminist" and I'll think about whether I qualify. Viola Lee

@45 Not a hair worth splitting JVL AaronS1978

@ Sev Population control is a conspiracy? Yes the typical rebuttal of liberals these days. It’s really super hard to shake that “conspiracy theory” when Margot Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood which was as conveniently placed in minority communities when they initially started And You’re talking to me right now, not an Irish Catholic. Many millions of Catholics would happily compromise about contraceptives if it prevented the abortion. And we could take baby steps together in the right direction to learn how to responsibly enjoy sex. And Now time for your attempted character assassination of myself 1.) you callously use their situation and try to put me into a moral conundrum that makes your monster, you really don’t care about their situation. So hypocrite, you don’t get the point the finger at me about my totalitarian view that you have now said that I had. 2.) I do not have a totalitarian view on the situation. You create a false narrative once again, to prove your point. This makes you a hypocrite. If the woman’s life is in danger, they’re huge complications to the pregnancy, or rape I think that is a medical procedure that should be available to the mother and discussed with a doctor but not available for a convenient contraceptive because somebody can’t learn self control 3.) so I’ll ask you the same question, do you know the situation of all those 31 million people that they got abortions? Did you know that it’s at 31 million now, actually 31,309,000 since we last talked? I’m sure they’re all your tragic one off situations that justify the additional 1,309,000 babies. While you seem to think I’m brushing off women’s situation due to numbers, I see you as Nazi saying it’s OK to kill 1,309,000 additional babies because of your morally superior view. It just depends on the situation according to you. That makes me think you’re a monster, delusional, or both because you brush millions of babies away due to you moral superiority Those additional 1,309,000 children were girls and boys, future doctors, future farmers, artists, or just regular people, they didn’t mean to be in that mothers womb. They’re 100% innocent and while you point a finger at me and try to make me feel like I don’t care about those two situations, I look at the millions of children you are ok with killing, that were murdered for probably very frivolous reasons, and see how blind you really are. I am sorry but you are wrong in all your accusations. https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/ AaronS1978

Relatd: Marriage is the proper circumstance for sexual activity. Does masturbation count? JVL

At 34 relatd wrote to me: "Are you a feminist? Do you use Ms in front of your name? Do you think women are “owned” by men?" The first and third questions are way too ambiguous to try to answer, even if trying to answer was a reasonable thing to do here. But I don't use anything in front of my name. One doesn't need to be Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Kelly Smith. One can just be Kelly Smith. Dr. Kelly Smith is reasonable. Viola Lee

Sometimes I forget that the stuff I read on the UD blog and comments is not satire……. chuckdarwin

Related “Nothing. “totalitarian morality”??? Don’t you know that you are the totalitarian because unlike Sev you do not support killing innocent human beings? Can’t make this stuff up folks. Classic truth is made not found. Vivid vividbleau

Things were much, much better in the 1950s. Most moms were stay at home moms. Moms were raising their own kids. My mom made everything from scratch. No canned food was allowed aside from one can of Crisco Oil. In the 1970s, the cost of housing rose arbitrarily. So moms had to get jobs. That meant kids were given keys to get inside the home or apartment. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court stabbed the country in the back by legalizing permissive abortion. So-called Adult Bookstores opened, selling images of graphic sexual activity. Who allowed this? Parents protested but the pornographers had lawyers to defend what they were doing. Who paid for printing, distribution, buildings and staff for those buildings? The worst publication was a thick magazine with page after page with nude and partly nude photos of women and their contact information for no strings attached sex. Very bad. Very wrong. The radical feminists were yelling and screaming as they promoted contraception and abortion. As they turned men, all men, into the enemy. This was classic Marxist Class Warfare. 1980s Porn on cable. Cable TV was first promoted as this wonderful idea. Let's throw in No-Fault Divorce. When I asked people about it, they replied: "It got too easy." I met a young man who told me he was getting married. I congratulated him. He then went on to say: "But if it doesn't work out we can get divorced." The erosion of the sanctity of marriage and the responsibilities involved was becoming evident. By the mid-1990s, shock jocks on the radio talking about sexual activity and interviewing prostitutes, incorrectly referred to as "porn stars." When the internet appeared, it was over the cliff. Things are not better now. No rational person could say it is. Growing up, abortion was illegal, divorce was rare and people were good neighbors and very polite. They led good, ordered lives. I saw that - for miles around. It was not perfect because people aren't perfect. We had a few oddballs. But just a few. Regarding your post at 30, see my reply at 35. relatd

my sentiment exactly.

Deaths this year: 43,006,228 Abortions(violent death of innocents =healthcare?) worldwide this year: 31,261,328 and counting I guess depends on what category you are in order to have an opposite opinion: Undernourished people in the world: 863,949,857 Overweight people in the world: 1,733,372,669 https://www.worldometers.info/

nor anyone else, has commented on my daughter’s predicament.

:lol: Wow we have here a person who believes 2 stupid things :1.that "doctors" are some kind of infaillible gods. and 2. bring 0.001 % of exceptions(if doctors are right ) as a 99.99% rule for abortion. Lieutenant Commander Data

Sex education is useless.

Thankfully, you are not responsible for the education system.

And what was the consensus among those charged with treating homosexuals in the 1950s and 1960s?

What were the doctors charged with and what were the homosexuals being treated for?

So-called Canadian Medicare can involve long wait times.

Yes, this can be the case and is where the Canadian system needs improving.

In one case, a procedure can be performed for a certain condition, but if that condition flairs up again it means a direct out of pocket payment.

Then you know nothing about the Canadian system.

The price of food has gone up, drastically.

And the affordability of food is nothing new. It wasn’t better in the 50s.

greater opportunities for minorities”? Where? All of those Black and Hispanic people have left the ghettos?

Before blurting an incoherent response you should really get a dictionary and find out what “opportunity” means. And I notice that you, nor anyone else, has commented on my daughter’s predicament. See # 30. Just to clarify. The baby still has a strong heartbeat. Should she terminate the pregnancy? Sir Giles

Seversky in general, "uncompromising"? So, I want to kill a million people. Let's compromise. How about I kill only a half million? 250,000? I'm compromising, right? I might consider 100,000. Don't be an idiot. Don't talk like an idiot. relatd

SG at 36, You are delusional. Sex education is useless. I was there. "greater opportunities for women"? https://theweek.com/articles/467944/most-common-job-women-same-1950 Children don't need sex education. They have not reached the appropriate level of mental and emotional development. Kids need to be kids. "less persecution of homosexuals"? And what was the consensus among those charged with treating homosexuals in the 1950s and 1960s? I knew about homosexual persons in 1963. Whatever medical professionals were doing was their responsibility. "better health care"? Who can afford it? You can have the best health care but that means nothing if you can't afford it. I know someone who lives in Canada. So-called Canadian Medicare can involve long wait times. In one case, a procedure can be performed for a certain condition, but if that condition flairs up again it means a direct out of pocket payment. Which can be unaffordable for some. "less tolerance for persecution on religious grounds"? https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252081/rash-of-attacks-on-catholic-churches-prompts-1-dollar-million-ad-campaign-from-catholic-vote "better environmental conditions"? Where? Literally, where? https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/12/u-s-should-create-national-strategy-by-end-of-2022-to-reduce-its-increasing-contribution-to-global-ocean-plastic-waste-says-new-report "better availability of foods"? The price of food has gone up, drastically. Those on Medicare and Medicaid only have so much to spend. Those currently working and under retirement age only have so much to spend. "greater opportunities for minorities"? Where? All of those Black and Hispanic people have left the ghettos? https://www.epi.org/indicators/state-unemployment-race-ethnicity/ relatd

VL@32, my sentiment exactly. Those who look at the 50s as the “good old days” are just delusional. We now have lower infant mortality, lower polio, greater life expectancy, greater opportunities for minorities, greater opportunities for women, better sex education for children, less persecution of homosexuals, better health care, less tolerance for persecution on religious grounds, better environmental conditions, better availability of foods, etc. Sir Giles

SG at 30, I offer the following for your consideration: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e3ada1a6a2e8d6a131d1dcd/t/5ee136884e1dae403d9af8f3/1591817865025/NCBCsummFAQ_2013r2015_EarlyInduction.pdf relatd

VL at 32, Are you a feminist? Do you use Ms in front of your name? Do you think women are "owned" by men? relatd

Seversky at 22, More uneducated, unverified spewing on your part: https://angelusnews.com/news/life-family/abortion-saves-lives-catholic-doctor-responds-to-nyt-op-ed/ relatd

"The husband is the head of the wife. AND A wife is a gift from God." Arrrggghhhhh! :-) Viola Lee

Seversky at 21, You just love immorality, don't you? In the 1970s, my mother asked me about the birth control pill. When I explained it to her, she said, "That's useless." She had her 2 kids in the 1950s. No Pill required. Marriage is the proper circumstance for sexual activity. Read: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/resources/upload/forum_winter-spring08.pdf The husband is the head of the wife. AND A wife is a gift from God. That's Biblical. God, not men, ordered it this way. It is the God-given order of things. And how do you see men? Only as sperm donors? Is that how you see yourself? A good man. A responsible man. Finds someone to care for after establishing a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. A man must treat a woman with respect and be able to provide for her if they get married. I saw that natural order growing up. relatd

Abortion is not ‘health care.’

Tell that to my daughter who has been told that the pacenta is too thick, preventing the baby from getting sufficient nutrients and oxygen, that the viability is about 1% and that it puts her at extremely high risk of preeclampsia. Sir Giles

Seversky at 20, What the HELL do you know about Catholicism you uneducated jerk? Huh? You just spew venom like a poisonous snake. And what you claim to be intolerance is just stupidity on your part. You are just throwing out the current Marxist-Atheist line: Abortion is good! Get educated because there is a circumstance where the Catholic Church allows for a procedure where the baby dies to save the life of the mother. https://www.ncbcenter.org/making-sense-of-bioethics-cms/column-052-when-pregnancy-goes-awry relatd

Seversky at 19, You've got nothing. Nothing. "totalitarian morality"??? Don't be a jerk. Educate yourself. Otherwise I WILL taunt you a second time. Abortion is not healthcare. THAT IS A LIE. Read that again. THAT IS A LIE. https://www.usccb.org/resources/Abortion%20is%20Not%20Healthcare%20final.pdf relatd

Seversky at 18, A human being is a human being from the moment of conception. Each human life is precious. How about the woman using common sense and exercising some self-control? Before the birth control pill which was approved the FDA in 1960, how did women manage 2 kids on average in the 1950s? How about self-control? How about not having sex with any guy who caught their eye? This is about personal responsibility. Sex is about having babies. That has always been its primary purpose. Instead, you rant and rave and rant and rave some more. God knows about every conception. Every one. He is involved. Psalm 139:13 "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb." relatd

"why would she have been invited to assist in an ultrasound abortion procedure?" Sev, In this case, it could just mean holding the mother's hand, or otherwise lending support while in the room. Andrew asauber

Seversky at 18, "Are you saying you have no objection to chemically-induced abortion?" No, I am not saying that. I'm saying that it is blatantly obvious that it is objectively morally wrong to rip apart, limb from limb, another "innocent" human person. Especially another person who can “Taste And Smell”, as well as display love and care towards other people. To murder another person in such a barbaric fashion is downright psychopathic. Yet this ripping apart, limb from limb, is exactly what is done in the abortion industry on a routine basis as if it is just 'business as usual'.

Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf

Seversky, you brought a few rare examples where pre-term delivery was necessary in order to save a mother's life. You did this in order to try to justify the many millions or dismemberment abortions that are completely unnecessary.

Will Laws Protecting the Unborn Endanger Mothers? Michael Egnor - August 2, 2022 Excerpt: Medically Necessary? The vast majority of abortions committed in the U.S. are elective and are done without even the pretense to protect the health of the mother. Situations in which a mother’s life is genuinely in danger and for which removal of the child is the necessary medical treatment are quite rare. Neonatologist Dr. Kendra Kolb has an excellent discussion of whether abortion can be medically necessary: "It is often said that abortion is sometimes medically necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. This is simply not true. As a neonatologist, I am regularly consulted to advise mothers with high-risk pregnancies, and I routinely care for their babies. I have also personally gone through two very difficult pregnancies each requiring hospitalization. So I have great empathy and respect for all women who are pregnant, especially those with difficult or high-risk pregnancies. What women deserve to know, however, is that even in the most high-risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure. In situations where the mother’s life is truly in jeopardy, her pregnancy must end, and the baby must be delivered. These situations occur in cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have decompensating heart disease, life threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to 24 weeks of life. Those situations are considered a preterm delivery, not an abortion. These babies deserve to be treated with respect and compassion, and parents should be given the opportunity to honor their child’s life… A mother’s life is always of paramount importance, but abortion is never medically necessary to protect her life or health." https://evolutionnews.org/2022/08/will-laws-protecting-the-unborn-endanger-mothers/

Your supposed 'compassion' for the mother's life in the rare instances you cited, and your complete lack of compassion for the unborn baby who is being ripped apart limb from limb in the mother's womb, is literally breathtaking for the sheer hypocrisy displayed. As I said before, you are a complete psychopath for supporting such a barbaric practice as dismemberment abortion. Moreover, if you really had real compassion for the mother's life, (instead of just using the mother's life as a rhetorical ploy to try to justify dismemberment abortions), you would be against abortion since "Women (are) More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth"

Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth - September 2012 Excerpt: A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/05/study-shows-women-more-likely-to-die-after-abortion-n ot-childbirth/

Sev: "Is your morality based on how squeamish you feel about something?" No it is not. For instance, although I might feel a bit "squeamish" about ripping apart someone who had murdered my children via ripping them apart limb from limb, (or about ripping Hitler apart limb from limb), I would have no doubt whatsoever that I was perfectly morally justified in ripping that murderer apart limb from limb who had murdered my children in such a fashion, (or in ripping apart Hitler apart limb from limb who had killed millions of Jews). In fact, I would be perfectly morally justified in making that murderer's death, (or Hitler's death), as prolonged and painful (i.e. as hellish) as possible. Sev: "Perhaps, but I’m not the one condemning those who displease me to eternal hell and damnation or completely annihilating them." So you want people to be free to kill as many unborn babies as they want, via ripping them apart limb from limb, and yet you are 'upset' that God would hold you and others morally accountable for such 'un-repented' barbaric behavior? If 'justice' can be even said to exist in your worldview, you have a very warped sense of 'justice" Seversky. Even toddlers display a far better sense of ‘moral justice’ than you do Seversky.

The Moral Life of Babies – May 2010 Excerpt: From Sigmund Freud to Jean Piaget to Lawrence Kohlberg, psychologists have long argued that we begin life as amoral animals.,,, A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.,,, Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Sev: "Yes, some women regret the decision but others are pleased to have been relieved of an unwanted burden. Who is right? So your 'moral justification' for dismemberment abortions is that some women feel "relieved"? You are kidding right? As I said before, you are a complete psychopath. Sev: "What did Jesus say about abortion? What does the Bible say about abortion? Where is the commandment against abortion?" So Sev, do your really believe that Jesus would be championing dismemberment abortions? Besides being a complete psychopath, you are apparently also completely insane. But alas, I guess the two go hand in hand. As to the 'commandment' not to rip apart your children limb from limb, you do remember the golden rule do you not Seversky? Or has your irrational hatred towards unborn children, life, and/or God in general, erased even that most basic sense of objective morality from your mind?

Matthew 22: 34-40 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

bornagain77

Asauber/15

I’ll take Abby Johnson for example… she managed an abortion clinic for how many years before she understood what was happening there. I always want to ask, how did she not understand what was going on? Well, she let the pro-abort movement do her thinking for her about the issue for a long time, before she even decided to look at the procedure she was pushing. And by accident, she found out with her own eyes one day. The fog of stupidity. We all have had it to one degree or another.

Abby Johnson was the clinic director of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas. She was an administrator not a medical professional. She had a BS in psychology from Texas A&M University and a Master of Arts in counseling from Sam Houston State University. Since she had no appropriate medical skills, why would she have been invited to assist in an ultrasound abortion procedure? She had worked at the clinic in various capacities for eight years. Are you seriously suggesting that, after all that time, she still had no idea what actually happened there? When the records for the day in question were examined, there was none for a patient matching the description given by Johnson. That she is anti-abortion now is not in question but the account she gave of her "conversion" does not stand up to close scrutiny. Seversky

Relatd/14

One of the biggest problems in the West is too many people believing others without finding out for themselves what is really going on.

Especially true in the case of religious belief. Seversky

Relatd/8

Abortion is not ‘health care.’ You see a doctor because of a disease or broken limb, not because you don’t want the baby and are otherwise healthy. That is called lying.

It's absurd to deny that pregnancy can have a major impact on the health of a woman. Of course it's healthcare. Seversky

Relatd/6

A bit of history. 1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill. Most women do not want or need it. For so-called Baby Boomers born in the 1950s, the average number of kids was 2 not 10. I was there, I saw this

Were women being compelled to take the birth control pill whether or not they wanted it? Or was it seen as offering women an option in such matters that they didn't have before? And why on Earth should that be objectionable?

1967 Time magazine runs a cover story about The Pill. They turn babies into something to be feared. From the top of the page: “Contraception: Freedom from Fear.”

It was offering freedom from the fear of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. In what way is that a problem?

1970s A small group of women – Radical Feminists – try to convince other women that they speak for them. Job one: Divide true relationships between men and women and create two separate groups. Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Feminism could be interpreted as a reaction to the masculine misogyny prevalent before then - and which is still around. It was and is offensive to many women although there were - and still are - some with a "Handmaid" mentality who apparently accept it as part of the natural order.

1980s No-Fault – so-called – Divorce. I open the newspaper to the Classifieds and see the following: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

So what? It's an advertisement for a service. Nothing more. No one is being compelled to take it up.

After decades of this, some women think a man is not required to raise their children. Liars. A man was required to have those children.

A man who fathered a child is not necessarily the best person to raise it just because he contributed some sperm. Seversky

Relatd/5

You are a ghoul. Your distraction post is just that, a distraction, Nothing more. There were a number of people involved in both cases and bad or wrong decisions were made. Death was the result. So, do you know that death is the goal in abortion, every time? Can you admit to that? Or can you admit that many abortions are not done to save the life of the mother?

Yes, abortion is the killing of an unborn human being at various stages of development prior to birth and it is not always carried out to preserve the life of the mother. Does preventing abortion justify the deaths of those women - and they are far from being the only ones to die as a result of an uncompromising opposition to abortion - or the immense amount of suffering women in Ireland experienced in the likes of the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam. Can you admit that this is the ugly side of a rigid and intolerant Catholicism? Seversky

AaronS1978/4

Oh no Sev pulled up two one off situations and accuses proliferation of not caring about them…….. here is something 1.) you do not care one bit about the two examples you mentioned other then their convenient use to make prolife hypocrites (which it doesn’t)

Whether I care or not, these examples are evidence for the tragic consequences of an uncompromising, fundamentalist approach to abortion. You can brush those deaths aside in the interests of imposing your totalitarian morality on everyone else.

2.) rare situations to occur do not justify global legalization of murder due to inconvenience. It’s like a nazi justifying killing all Jews because he gave an example of two bad Jews

No, they do not justify unrestricted access to elective abortion. Neither did Roe. What they are evidence for is that a complete ban on abortion under any circumstances is also wrong if it leads to deaths such as these. They are evidence for the view that abortion should be permissible under certain circumstances.

3.) abortion is population control dressed up as a woman’s right. All of this is generally preventable using contraceptives and responsibility

Abortion as population control is a conspiracy theory and I remind you that there are faiths that are utterly opposed to contraception. Irish Catholicism has been responsible for a lot of women's suffering because of their extremist view on that issue.

4.) I’ll raise your two examples with these 30 million plus examples of your barbaric right taking innocent lives that pro choicers always ignore

So you know the circumstances of each of those 30 million plus abortions? You know that in all of those cases the woman was so callous and indifferent that she chose to dispose of the fetus because a baby would be "inconvenient" at that time? How is stigmatizing women in that way any different from stigmatizing Jews as being responsible for all the ills of a society? Seversky

Bornagain77/3

So Seversky, since you made no caveat, and if I get you right, you are saying that you actually are for ripping apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb with ‘dismemberment’ abortions??

Are you saying you have no objection to chemically-induced abortion? Is your morality based on how squeamish you feel about something?

If this is what you really trying to defend, (and you gave me no reason to think otherwise), you are a complete psychopath.

Perhaps, but I'm not the one condemning those who displease me to eternal hell and damnation or completely annihilating them.

As well, In the interest of telling the “other side of the story”, there are dramatic negative consequences for women who have abortions, dramatic negative consequences which abortionists will never tell you about

Yes, some women regret the decision but others are pleased to have been relieved of an unwanted burden. Who is right? What did Jesus say about abortion? What does the Bible say about abortion? Where is the commandment against abortion? Seversky

Andrew at 15, I worked in a hospital for 9 years. On a few occasions, I sat down with doctors who were kind enough to answer my questions. The problem is trust. Of allowing yourself to trust others. But when people want to hide something, certain words are never said and certain things are never shown. In Michigan, some pro-life women were looking through a dumpster behind an abortion clinic. They found remains that were clearly human. The remains were collected, put into a coffin and a funeral Mass was held. They reported finding these parts to the local authorities. The abortion clinic was fined for the "Improper disposal of medical waste." Even here, a human being is reduced to 'medical waste.' relatd

Relatd, I agree with your follow-up comment. Was thinking the exact same thing Andrew asauber

I'll take Abby Johnson for example... she managed an abortion clinic for how many years before she understood what was happening there. I always want to ask, how did she not understand what was going on? Well, she let the pro-abort movement do her thinking for her about the issue for a long time, before she even decided to look at the procedure she was pushing. And by accident, she found out with her own eyes one day. The fog of stupidity. We all have had it to one degree or another. Andrew asauber

Andrew at 13, One of the biggest problems in the West is too many people believing others without finding out for themselves what is really going on. Too many people trusting the wrong people. Too many people who trust people who are lying to them. That is the problem. And people who are worried about finding out what's really going on - what is actually true. Sometimes, it is painful to hear the truth. With abortion, what separates people who know it's a baby and those who do not? Finding out for themselves what abortion really is. relatd

"Why do you think it’s stupidity?" Relatd, For many, their minds have been degraded to the point of not understanding what's being asserted. So, they can state it's not a baby, because the voices that influence them say it's not a baby, not because they really understand what's going on, but the opposite. They don't really understand, therefore they let other people define reality for them. You see what I mean? Andrew asauber

Andrew, Why do you think it's stupidity? It's called making a false claim: "It's not a baby." And it's not "health care" either. https://www.usccb.org/resources/abortion-not-healthcare relatd

Pro-Abortion position: It's not a baby and it doesn't react, despite the fact that it's a baby and it does react. That's the stupidity Pro-Lifers are up against. Andrew asauber

Salvo has an interview with the pro-life woman, Lila Rose, who recently went on the Dr. Phil show,

An Interview with Lila Rose As the founder and president of Live Action (www.liveaction.org), Lila Rose has been battling Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion industry for years.,,, https://salvomag.com/article/salvo35/acting-for-life

bornagain77

Ooooh I hate auto correct not “proliferation” but “pro-life” @relatd That’s another thing that angers me is the use of world play validated their viewpoint Calling the fetus anything but human to avoid the idea that they are killing a human is gross to me “Blob of tissue” “clump of cells” are deliberate gross distortions of want is being talked about, with the simply purpose of stripping the value of human from the fetus. And let’s not forget the frequent use of the term fetus too. “It’s just a fetus” ignores the actual definition of the word which is “unborn baby mammal” in this case a human Almost all of their arguments ride on redefining the unborn baby human as not a human. Which means they are perfectly aware of they are killing a human and if it’s human they know it’s wrong. AaronS1978

AS1978, It's called divide and conquer. Nothing more. Get a few people here to yell a few things about baby killing. That's all that's going on. On the pro-choice side, the choice is death for the baby. A woman does not go to a doctor because she's going to have a "blob of tissue." Saving the life of the mother is important if the baby puts her at risk of dying. Abortion is not 'health care.' You see a doctor because of a disease or broken limb, not because you don't want the baby and are otherwise healthy. That is called lying. relatd

@5 It’s not always the end goal, it’s used for removing stillborn and dead fetuses. The honest and righteous pRo-ChOiCe movement tried to publicly accuse the pro-life movement and the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade that it would force women to keep the dead fetus in them because they couldn’t get an abortion. Did I mention I love the pro-choice movement and their semantic garbage they like to use to get their way. AaronS1978

A bit of history. 1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill. Most women do not want or need it. For so-called Baby Boomers born in the 1950s, the average number of kids was 2 not 10. I was there, I saw this. 1967 Time magazine runs a cover story about The Pill. They turn babies into something to be feared. From the top of the page: "Contraception: Freedom from Fear." 1970s A small group of women - Radical Feminists - try to convince other women that they speak for them. Job one: Divide true relationships between men and women and create two separate groups. Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." They create an atmosphere of fear - again. Men, all men, are the enemy. They will divorce you and kick you and the kids to the curb. This creates fertile ground for: 1980s No-Fault - so-called - Divorce. I open the newspaper to the Classifieds and see the following: "No kids? $75 and you're out. Call 800-DIVORCE." After decades of this, some women think a man is not required to raise their children. Liars. A man was required to have those children. relatd

Seversky at 2, You are a ghoul. Your distraction post is just that, a distraction, Nothing more. There were a number of people involved in both cases and bad or wrong decisions were made. Death was the result. So, do you know that death is the goal in abortion, every time? Can you admit to that? Or can you admit that many abortions are not done to save the life of the mother? relatd

Oh no Sev pulled up two one off situations and accuses proliferation of not caring about them…….. here is something 1.) you do not care one bit about the two examples you mentioned other then their convenient use to make prolife hypocrites (which it doesn’t) 2.) rare situations to occur do not justify global legalization of murder due to inconvenience. It’s like a nazi justifying killing all Jews because he gave an example of two bad Jews 3.) abortion is population control dressed up as a woman’s right. All of this is generally preventable using contraceptives and responsibility 4.) I’ll raise your two examples with these 30 million plus examples of your barbaric right taking innocent lives that pro choicers always ignore https://www.worldometers.info/abortions/ AaronS1978

So Seversky, since you made no caveat, and if I get you right, you are saying that you actually are for ripping apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb with 'dismemberment' abortions?? If this is what you really trying to defend, (and you gave me no reason to think otherwise), you are a complete psychopath. As well, In the interest of telling the "other side of the story", there are dramatic negative consequences for women who have abortions, dramatic negative consequences which abortionists will never tell you about

Pro-life activist Lila Rose recounts clash with Dr. Phil audience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dULL2usF3BU

bornagain77

Bornagain77/1

Maybe we ought not rip apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb? Especially unborn babies who can “Taste And Smell”, as well as display care towards other people?

The other side of the story which you and other pro-lifers, predictably, ignore.

Death of Savita Halappanavar […] Summary of events On 21 October 2012, Halappanavar, then 17 weeks pregnant, was examined at University Hospital Galway after complaining of back pain, but was soon discharged without a diagnosis. She returned to the hospital later that day, this time complaining of lower pressure, a sensation she described as feeling "something coming down", and a subsequent examination found that the gestational sac was protruding from her body. She was admitted to hospital, as it was determined that miscarriage was unavoidable, and several hours later, just after midnight on 22 October, her water broke but did not expel the fetus.[8]:?22–26?[8]:?29?[9] The following day, on 23 October, Halappanavar discussed abortion with her consulting physician but her request was promptly refused, as Irish law at that time forbade abortion if a fetal heartbeat was still present.[8]:?33?[10] Afterwards, Halappanavar developed sepsis and, despite doctors' efforts to treat her, had a cardiac arrest at 1:09 AM on 28 October, at the age of 31, and died.[8]:?53?[8]:?44–46? Aftermath After her death, a coroner's inquest was held, finding that she died of medical misadventure.[11] The Health Service Executive (HSE) and Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) conducted an investigation. Both criticized the team for not diagnosing the sepsis soon enough and for not using already-standard screening tools for detecting and managing maternal sepsis, and for poor keeping of medical records, poor communication at shift changes, and failure to notify staff with needed expertise, and criticized the administration of the hospital for the poor system in which the team failed. They made recommendations about training and policies for the hospital locally along with a number of national recommendations, including the creation of a laboratory system to coordinate a national response to emerging microbial threats.[12][13] The HSE also recommended changes to the legal situation and training of doctors about the law.[8] The law in force at the time stated that the act of abortion, where there was no immediate physiological threat to the woman's life to continue the pregnancy, was a criminal offence punishable by life imprisonment. Following a ruling of the Supreme Court of Ireland in 1992 – now known in Ireland as the X case – terminations are allowed under certain circumstances, where "a pregnant woman's life is at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide".[14] However at the time of Halappanavar's death, there was legal uncertainty regarding the precise circumstances in which this exception to preserve the life of the mother would apply in practice, as the matter had not yet been enacted in legislation.

Then there was also the case of

Sheila Hodgers Sheila Hodgers (1956/57[fn 1] – 19 March 1983) was an Irish woman from Dundalk, County Louth, who died of multiple cancers two days after giving birth to her third child.[2] She was denied treatments for her cancer while pregnant because the Catholic ethos of the hospital did not wish to harm the foetus. Her case was publicised in an article in The Irish Times the week before a September 1983 referendum which enshrined the right to life of the foetus in the Constitution of Ireland.[3][4] The case has been recounted in subsequent pro-choice commentary on abortion in the Republic of Ireland.[2][5][6][7] In August 1981, Hodgers detected a breast lump and was referred to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, then run by the Medical Missionaries of Mary, a Catholic order of nuns.[3] Some time after a lumpectomy there, her husband Brendan was told by the surgeon that a second tumour had been found which would be fatal if a mastectomy wasn't performed.[3] Even with the operation, there was a strong chance of secondary tumours appearing.[3] The operation was carried out and considered a success.[3] Hodgers was prescribed a course of anti-cancer drugs and advised not to use the contraceptive pill as this could cause her cancer to return.[2] According to journalist Padraig Yeates, Brendan Hodgers claimed a consultant told him that "as Sheila had a clean bill of health, (pregnancy) shouldn't be a problem".[3] The consultant himself denied this.[3] According to Yeates, every medical expert he spoke to said that following a mastectomy, it was standard advice to tell a woman to wait at least two years before becoming pregnant.[3] One year after the operation, Sheila Hodgers became pregnant.[2] Since the anti-cancer drugs she was taking could harm the foetus, she was stopped from taking them.[2] Hodgers began experiencing severe back pains and could hardly stand.[2] Her husband urged the hospital to induce her pregnancy or perform a Caesarian section but they refused as it would damage the foetus.[2][3] They also refused painkillers.[2][3] The hospital had to abide by an alleged "Bishop's Contract", a code of ethics drawn up with the Catholic Church.[2] During her time at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Hodgers was attended to by at least seven doctors.[8] Her husband said the only doctor there he trusted was Michael Neary.[1] According to Brendan Hodgers: "I went to see Sheila one night and she was in absolute agony. She was literally screaming at this stage. I could hear her from the front door of the hospital and she was in a ward on the fourth floor. I saw the sister and she produced a doctor who said nothing that made any sense."[2][3] Sheila Hodgers was subsequently moved to the maternity unit and given painkillers.[2][3] According to Brendan, he at this point asked if an abortion could be performed but was given no answer.[2][3] The couple again asked if an induction or Caesarian could be performed, and were again told the baby would not survive.[2] On 17 March 1983, Hodgers gave premature birth in extreme agony to a baby girl, Gemma, who immediately died.[1] Hodgers died two days later from cancer in her neck, spine, legs, liver and ribs

Seversky

Maybe we ought not rip apart, limb from limb, unborn babies in the womb? Especially unborn babies who can "Taste And Smell", as well as display care towards other people?

Twin fetuses learn how to be social in the womb - October 13, 2010 Excerpt: Humans have a deep-seated urge to be social, and new research on the interactions of twins in the womb suggests this begins even before babies are born.,,, The five pairs of twins were found to be reaching for each other even at 14 weeks, and making a range of contacts including head to head, arm to head and head to arm. By the time they were at 18 weeks, they touched each other more often than they touched their own bodies, spending up to 30 percent of their time reaching out and stroking their co-twin.,,, Kinematic analyses of the recordings showed the fetuses made distinct gestures when touching each other, and movements lasted longer — their hands lingered. They also took as much care when touching their twin’s delicate eye region as they did with their own. This type of contact was not the same as the inevitable contact between two bodies sharing a confined space or accidental contacts between the bodies and the walls of the uterus,,, The findings clearly demonstrate it is deep within human nature to reach out to other people. http://phys.org/news/206164323-twin-fetuses-social-womb.html Wired to Be Social: The Ontogeny of Human Interaction - 2010 Excerpt: Kinematic analysis revealed that movement duration was longer and deceleration time was prolonged for other-directed movements compared to movements directed towards the uterine wall. Similar kinematic profiles were observed for movements directed towards the co-twin and self-directed movements aimed at the eye-region, i.e. the most delicate region of the body. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013199

If a psychopath did to a child what the abortion industry routinely does to unborn children, via ‘dismemberment abortions, the psychopath would be sentenced to death, and/or life in prison, and the vast majority of people would wholeheartedly agree with that punishment.

Dismemberment Abortion – Patrina Mosley, M.A. Dismemberment abortions are a common and brutal type of abortion that involve dismembering a living unborn child piece by piece. According to the National Abortion Federation’s abortion training textbook, dismemberment abortions are a preferred method of abortion, in part because they are cheaper than other available methods.1 (2018) https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF18F25.pdf 100 million views: People respond to the viral ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos Excerpt: In these videos, Dr. Levatino, who committed over 1,200 abortions before becoming pro-life, explains in detail what occurs when the life of a preborn child is destroyed during an abortion during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Each of the Abortion Procedures videos describes in detail how each abortion procedure is carried out and how the preborn child dies. The realization of abortion’s barbarity, cruelty, and inhumanity has impacted many viewers who were not expecting to see what they saw.,,, https://www.liveaction.org/news/live-action-abortion-procedures-impact/ Abortion Procedures: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Trimesters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk Watch (pro-choice) minds (immediately) change on abortion (after watching the abortion procedures video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWQHhqOAcg Abby Johnson Discusses Why She Left Planned Parenthood At The 2020 RNC | NBC News, (she witnessed a dismemberment abortion first hand) https://youtu.be/NXQjCuWFdzI?t=100 Michael Egnor – The Junk Science of the Abortion Lobby (Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults) https://mindmatters.ai/2019/01/the-junk-science-of-the-abortion-lobby/

Verse:

Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;

bornagain77