The junk science of the abortion lobby

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 31, 2019

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience}

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

Pediatric neurosurgeon Michael Egnor : Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults:

“Much of pro-abortion advocacy is science denial—the deliberate misrepresentation of science to advance an ideological agenda. Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University, wrote a misleading essay on that theme in the New York Times, “Science won’t end this debate” (January 22, 2019).” Michael Egnor, “More.” at Mind Matters

See also: The Governor Of Virginia: Killing Babies Is OK By Me (Barry Arrington)

and

Does brain stimulation research challenge free will? (Michael Egnor)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BB, you were the one who brought up the suicide and pregnancy matter not me, I only exposed it as being a fraudulent claim since it is more effectively used as a argument against abortion,,,. Call it what you will but it certainly was not 'goalpost shifting'. But then again when you don't have a argument, bang the table,, eh BB??? As to contraceptives, I am prolife and firmly believe that human life begins at conception and thus do not support Abortifacients/contraceptives, especially being handed out for free in high schools and such as that, and especially against it being on the taxpayers dime.
Birth Control Methods that Cause Abortions 1. The Pill – Progesterone only, low dose combination pills The Physician’s Desk Reference lists the above hormonal contraceptives as having three mechanisms of action: 1) Prevent ovulation, 2) Thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering the uterus and fallopian tube, and 3) Alter the lining of the uterus so implantation cannot take place. The third action, if and when it occurs, is abortifacient since in this case a new human being has been created but this human being is killed because she is prevented from receiving the nourishment provided by her mother’s uterine wall). Although pro-life physicians continue to debate if and how often hormonal contraceptives interfere with the implantation of an embryo, it is important to educate ourselves and our clients about this potential action of the Pill. Those who seek to protect the sanctity of human life from the point of fertilization should be cautious about taking any drug that could end the developing child’s life. For more information: Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? The Pill: Contraceptive or Abortifacient? 2. Morning after pill Large doses of existing birth control pills (or another drug levonorgestrel, known as Plan B) are given up to 72 hours after intercourse to attempt to prevent the implantation of the embryo. A second dose is given 12 hours after the first one. The action of these large doses of hormonal birth control pills works to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. 3. Norplant This implant is placed under the skin of the arm for up to a 5 year period. The progesterone hormone’s effect is to suppress ovulation, but after 2 years, there is a greater chance of break-through ovulation and fertilization. The hormone may then prevent implantation of the embryo. 4. Depo-Provera This Progesterone (hormone) derivative is injected every 3 months to prevent a woman from ovulating, but it also alters the uterine lining. Break-through ovulation and fertilization may occur, though less frequently than with Norplant. The drug may then prevent implantation of the embryo. 5. RU-486 When a woman is given RU-486 (also called mifepristone), it kills her baby by interfering with progesterone, the hormone that keeps the baby implanted in the wall of the mother’s uterus. Two days later, the woman returns to the clinic to receive a prostaglandin drug that induces labor and expels the dead embryo. (RU-486 is used until 7 weeks after the first day of a mother’s last menstrual period.) If the baby hasn’t been expelled by the time the woman makes her third visit to the doctor, she will require a surgical abortion procedure (5-8% likelihood). Raymond, Klein & Dumble, the pro-abortion authors of RU486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals (IWT Pub, 1991) stress that RU-486 is not safe for women and list the following contraindications (reasons a person should not take RU-486): under age 18 or over age 35; menstrual irregularities; history of fibroids, abnormal menstrual bleeding or endometriosis, cervical incompetence, previous abortion, or abnormal pregnancies; pelvic inflammatory disease; recent use of IUD or the pill (3 months). 6. Methotrexate & Misoprostol Two drugs that were developed for cancer treatment (methotrexate) and ulcer treatment (misoprostol) are now being used in combination to kill babies. Methotrexate is used to poison the baby and then misoprostol empties the uterus of the baby. Keep in mind that methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug with the potential for serious toxicity, which can result in the death of the mother as well as the baby. (“Methotrexate & Misoprostol to Terminate Early Pregnancy,” R. Hausknecht, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 333, no. 9, Aug 31, 1995, p. 537; “Methotrexate & Misoprostol,” M. Creinin et al., JAMA, Oct 19, 1994) https://www.abortionno.org/birth-control/
bornagain77_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

And again, the mortality of unborn babies in abortion is virtually 100%, and again, abortion is the leading cause of 'preventable' death in the America,
Based on the latest state-level data available, approximately 882,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2017—down from approximately 885,000 abortions in 2016 and 913,000 abortions in 2015. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States in 2014—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI). In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1 According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.* https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
bornagain77_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

ET writes, " And the health risks are absolutely zero." Pregnancy is, among other things, a health risk.
The US has the "highest rate of maternal mortality in the industrialized world." In the United States, the maternal death rate averaged 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during the years 1979–1986, but then rose rapidly to 14 per 100,000 in 2000 and 17.8 per 100,000 in 2009.
hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

BA77 Only in your imagination is my pointing out that the suicide risks, that you yourself ‘facetiously’ referred to in pregnancy, can be more forcefully used as a serious argument against abortion, to be construed as ‘goal-post shifting. Given that our discussion has been about the legal access to hormone based contraceptives, bringing up abortion is definitely goalpost shifting.
For crying out loud, I was the one who pointed out that there are significant risks to taking the most widely prescribed hormone based contraceptives. Risks that you and Hazel did not even bother to mention in your arguments for the supposed ‘sexual liberation’ of young women by allowing contraceptives to be more widely available than they already are, (and given how widely available they already are, I guess you guys just basically want them handed out for free, courtesy of tax payers of course, to teen age girls on street corners now),,,, Some would call such a judicious omission of facts of risks involved simply an oversight or ignorance in the arguments you presented. I have a more cynical view of it, and hold that you guys are being purposely dishonest with the presentation of facts.
Hazel and I have never denied potential risks to hormonal contraceptives. I have repeatedly talked about weighing the risks to make an informed decision. You don't weigh the risks when there are no risks. Every package of the pill includes an insert that describes possible side effects and what to do if you experience them. The internet is full of the possible side effects of the pill, as well as with all other drugs. All I have been advocating for is to make the pill readily available and to allow women to make informed decisions for themselves. The same thing that we do with every other drug, over the counter and prescription, that people have access to. But maybe I am putting words in your mouth with respect to the legal access to hormone based contraceptives. If I have, I apologize. Maybe if you are willing to answer a simple question, we can clear this up. Do you support access to hormonal contraceptives to women? I am not asking if you recommend that women use them, just whether or not they should be available.Brother Brian_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Hazel- They are by far more effective than nothing at all. And for many people they have been 100% effective. And the health risks are absolutely zero. Again, it all depends on the intelligence of the people involved. And that has obvious fitness implications.ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Only in your imagination is my pointing out that the suicide risks, that you yourself 'facetiously' referred to in pregnancy, can be more forcefully used as a serious argument against abortion, to be construed as 'goal-post shifting. In fact, if I would have left your supposedly 'facetious' comment hanging, some may have thought your argument may have had some merit to it. But once again, your arguments have no merit. Moreover, I am not arguing against education as you have implied several times now. For crying out loud, I was the one who pointed out that there are significant risks to taking the most widely prescribed hormone based contraceptives. Risks that you and Hazel did not even bother to mention in your arguments for the supposed 'sexual liberation' of young women by allowing contraceptives to be more widely available than they already are, (and given how widely available they already are, I guess you guys just basically want them handed out for free, courtesy of tax payers of course, to teen age girls on street corners now),,,, Some would call such a judicious omission of facts of risks involved simply an oversight or ignorance in the arguments you presented. I have a more cynical view of it, and hold that you guys are being purposely dishonest with the presentation of facts. As mentioned previously, apparently deceptive education and the abortion industry go hand in hand,
Stonewalled on Abortion – 2018 Excerpt: Abortion & Breast Cancer Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? she asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate, but unethical. Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next. One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script. With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here? A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film, but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics? Abortion & Pre-term Birth Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies. “It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not? Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma come from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later. Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics. The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference. Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable. “Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up. • https://salvomag.com/article/salvo39/stonewalled-on-abortion
bornagain77_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

ET, according tothis site, condoms and the rhythm method are the least effective forms of birth control, other than sex that doesn't involve intercourse.hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

BA77
Brother Brian, if that were true, which it isn’t,...
I'm sorry, but it is most certainly shifting the goal posts. We were discussing hormone based contraceptives and you brought up the claim that they increase suicide rates. Here is your exact quote:
Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide.
I then responded that the hormonal changes caused by pregnancy also increase the risk of suicide and then said, facetiously, that maybe we should ban pregnancies. You then responded with:
Thus, by BB’s using own criteria of ‘Maybe we should ban pregnancy’ because of increased suicide risks, we should then ban abortion because of dramatically increased suicide risks.
What does this have to do with banning hormone based contraceptives. Goalpost, meet BA77. You still have not come up with a valid reason why hormone based contraceptives should not be made available. Even Hazel has said that, given what she knows about them, she probably would decide not to use them. That is how informed decisions are made. You trust to the intelligence of people to weigh the risks and pick the choice that is best for them. For example, I am on statins to control my cholesterol. One of the potential side-effects is depression and suicide ideation. I examined the risks and concluded that given my family history of heart problems, and no known family history of depression issues, that I would accept the risks. If I am allowed to make that choice, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to make a choice with respect to hormone based contraceptives? Presumably she would know whether breast cancer is common in her family, or if their is a strong history of depression in her family. Why am I permitted to make a choice even though there are risks but that a woman can't?Brother Brian_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian, if that were true, which it isn't, it would be a compliment coming from the current reigning king on UD for 'goalpost shifting', i.e. of someone who absolutely refuses to be consistent in the foundational premises of his argumentation. (Even Seversky, though his worldview is insane, at least tries to consistently see his atheistic materialism out to its bitter, insane, end) For prime example, as a Christian I can provide a scientifically robust and morally coherent foundation for Morality Meaning, Value, and Purpose in our Lives, whereas you have yet to provide any foundation that can be ascertained, save for a vague off hand comment that you may not be an amoral atheist after all since it undermines any and all Morality Meaning, Value, and Purpose in our Lives.
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
bornagain77_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

BA77@72, nice goalpost shifting. The Rams should have hired you last night. :)Brother Brian_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

:cool:ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

:(hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

hazel- Are you saying that women don't understand their own bodies and they don't know when they are ovulating? Really? Women cannot have a conversation with their husbands and ask him to wear a condom? Or better yet, stay on schedule?ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

ET, women want to have sex, just as men do. Women in a marriage want to have sex and also control when to have children, and how many. Are they just supposed to say no to their husbands all the time, unless they're prepared to get pregnant?hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian states,
And it has also been shown that pregnancy can increase the risk of suicide, as can post natal depression. In fact, one in five post natal deaths are caused by suicide. Maybe we should ban pregnancy.
And yet,
A List of Major Psychological Effects of Abortion - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD or PAS),,, Sexual Dysfunction,,, - Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Approximately 60 percent of women who experience post-abortion sequelae report suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times. Researchers in Finland have identified a strong statistical association between abortion and suicide in a records based study. They identified 73 suicides associated within one year to a pregnancy ending either naturally or by induced abortion. The mean annual suicide rate for all women was 11.3 per 100,000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower at 5.9 per 100,000. Rates for pregnancy loss were significantly higher. For miscarriage, the rate was 18.1 per 100,000, and for abortion the rate was 34.7 per 100,000. The suicide rate within one year after an abortion was three times higher than for all women, seven times higher than for women who carried to term, and nearly twice as high as for women who suffered a miscarriage. Suicide attempts appear to be especially prevalent among post-abortion teenagers.1,,, Increased Smoking with Corresponding Negative Health Effects,,, (Significantly increased) Alcohol and Drug Abuse,,, Eating Disorders,,, Child Abuse or Neglect,,, Divorce and Chronic Relationship Problems,,, Repeat Abortions,,, https://www.heartbeatinternational.org/pdf/Abortion-emotional_risks.pdf
Thus, by BB's using own criteria of 'Maybe we should ban pregnancy' because of increased suicide risks, we should then ban abortion because of dramatically increased suicide risks. ,,, But something tells me that BB will fail to apply his criteria consistently since it undermines his larger objective for unrestricted abortion on demand for 'convenience'.. Moreover virtually 100% of the unborn babies are killed during abortion. In fact, the rare few babies that are 'born alive' still are not completely safe as the Governor from Virginia recently made clear in his push for infanticide. In fact, abortion is, by far, the leading cause of death in the World and United States annually. ,, Sadly, the mother's womb, which should be the safest place, is literally the most deadly place to be in America.
Abortion is the world's leading cause of death by Ronnie Floyd January 22, 2019 If I asked you what the leading cause of death in the world is, I imagine the first answer to pop into your mind would be a disease such as cancer. It wouldn’t be a bad guess — cancer kills more than 8 million people every year. But it’s not the right answer. You might then consider AIDS or smoking or alcohol-related deaths — or perhaps even traffic accidents. Combined, the four are responsible for the deaths of over 11 million people around the world. But the leading cause of death in the world is none of the those. In fact, it kills more people than all of them combined. In 2018, 41.9 million pregnancies were prematurely terminated, making abortion the leading cause of death in the world. The staggering figure was tallied by Worldometers, a site which aggregates statistical data from sources such as the World Health Organization. Yet unlike most of the other leading causes of death in the world, abortion is almost 100 percent preventable. Case in point: In the U.S., 9 out of 10 abortions are elective. That is to say they are performed not for medical reasons but because the baby is not wanted. I wonder what would happen if we viewed abortion the same way we view smoking or cancer. Would it remain the leading cause of death in the world if we ran public service campaigns to dissuade women from seeking abortions, as we do for smoking? Or if we spent billions of dollars on research to save lives, as we do with cancer? The sad truth is our culture champions and celebrates abortion. One pro-choice group took it to the next level recently, releasing a video of its founder talking with children about why abortion is good. “They just suck the pregnancy out. It was like a really crappy dentist appointment or something … like a body thing that’s kind of uncomfortable,” she explains to two pre-teen girls in the video. Notice the choice of words: They suck the pregnancy out. But an abortion does not suck a pregnancy out; it forcefully removes, often through suction and cutting, a fetus — or in other words, a genetically unique human baby — from the womb. That’s the message our culture is communicating to our children today — that a baby is only valuable when it doesn’t interfere with your life plans and your personal fulfillment. Believe it or not, as outrageous as this may sound, many of our elected officials believe that. On its very first day in session, the 116th Congress — hailed for having a record number of women — voted on a spending bill. But beyond providing funds for the federal government, the bill would also restore taxpayer funding to organizations that provide abortions overseas. This Tuesday, Jan. 22, is the National Sanctity of Human Life Day. On this date, 46 years ago, the Supreme Court legalized abortion across all 50 states. That one fateful decision has led to the deaths of over 61 million babies in America. That’s roughly the combined populations of California and Florida. There is nothing in this world more valuable than a human life. The Bible tells us God made us in his image and likeness. This means that, regardless of race, gender, age, place of birth or socioeconomic status, every human life has intrinsic, unalienable value. From the womb, all the way to the tomb, life is precious. I pray America will choose life. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-the-worlds-leading-cause-of-death
Further on in his post, BB, (who had previously hinted that he might not be an amoral atheist after all since it was pointed out to him that the amorality at the basis of his worldview undermines any basis that he had for arguing for any supposed 'morality' of aborting babies), now waffles on his tenuous commitment to some type of objective morality, (for rhetorical purposes he refused to be specific as to exactly what system of objective morality he may subscribe to), and states, "Is it possible that your motives are religiously based and not scientific?" And yet human dignity and morality, although they can be informed by science, can't possibly be based in science. In fact, as has been pointed out numerous times before to BB, science itself is dependent Theistic, even Christian. presuppositions. Thus for BB to pretend that science can, all by its lonesome, without any reference to Theology, develop a coherent and consistent system of morality and ethics is naive at best, and certainly demonstrates a profound lack of wisdom on BB's part. As Einstein stated, "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be," necessarily excluding from its domain "value judgments of all kinds."
Einstein in His Own Words Einstein Thoughts from Albert Einstein: His collection of essays, Out of My Later Years, published in 1950, presents Einstein's statement that, "science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be," necessarily excluding from its domain "value judgments of all kinds." Thus science could not even prove that the Holocaust or the slave trade were wrong.,,, http://americanrtl.org/Einstein
Simply put, BB since he apparently, (for the time being, as long as it is rhetorically convenient for him to do so), relies solely on science to try to determine his morality, and yet morality can't possibly be based in science, BB finds himself once again in a self refuting position in regards to trying to determine exactly what is morally right and what is morally wrong in regards to abortion and contraception. His entire line of 'moral' argumentation would be absolutely comical for its repeated ineptness, save for the dire consequences involved for BB's soul in his rejection of Jesus Christ as THE true moral standard for the world.
John 3 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
bornagain77_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Is saying "no" too difficult? Really?ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

ET, women should also be the ones that have the resources to have protected sex. That's the point I'm making. Contraceptives ought to be easily and inexpensively available to women, without a bunch of men making it difficult for them.hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

hazel:
Women have a lot more concerns connected with reproduction than men do, obviously: the effect of menopause and various stages of breast cancer also involve hormone treatments; carrying and birthing a baby can lead to perineal tears, prolapsed pelvic floors, incontinence, and other things; and childbirth itself can be dangerous as well as being quite painful.
OK, then they should be more on-guard about having unprotected sex. Why do I seem to be the only one who thinks that women are smart enough to be able to choose BEFORE having sex?ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

hazel:
There is a picture on the internet of a bunch of old white guys standing around as Trump signs some bill about reproductive rights: it blows my mind that men are the ones making these decisions for women.
Men have reproductive rights, too, hazel. If you haven't noticed sexual reproduction requires both sexes.ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
I follow the evidence where it leads. What can I say?
You must not be an evolutionist, then.ET_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Barry, "jamming liberal sexual mores down their throat" is an odd metaphor to be using. I have worked on health and human sexuality standards for the school I've worked, although that was quite a few years ago. At appropriate ages, and I know that's a judgment people will disagree about, health curricula in school, when addressing human sexuality, should discuss the fact that some people are sexually, and emotionally, attracted to people of the same sex. The curriculum should not be judgmental about this, neither encouraging nor condemning it. The human sexuality teachers I have known have strived to be as factual and dispassionate about the subject as they could. That's been my experience. Can you give me an example of a law that is doing what you are concerned about?hazel_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Hazel
Barry, it is the job of school teachers to teach respect for differences. If I have a gay student in my class, and I have had, including some of my favorites, it is part of my job to teach others to treat them well.
Indeed. And you can teach all the children to respect each other without jamming liberal sexual mores down their throat. Don't you agree Hazel.Barry Arrington_{February 4, 2019
February
02
Feb
4
04
2019
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

PS: I clip from Havel:
The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say. Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;” he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology . . .
Such points to disaffection and loss of legitimacy of the state that acts like this. And, frankly, I suspect that many cultural marxists WANT that disaffection, as it undermines the will to stand and fight for the heritage of a civilisation they despise: Christendom. I further suspect -- note Mr Silvermann's remarks on how the state holds nukes -- they think they would win a civil war. They have forgotten the lessons of scarce thirty years past, on where totalitarianism leads and even more, they have forgotten (and often despise) the roots of the blessings and fruit of liberty in our civilisation. A dark age crouches in the shadows, waiting to pounce. Woe to those who call good evil and evil good; who put darkness for light and call light darkness.kairosfocus_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

H, thy speech bewrayeth thee. So, I speak some hard, painful but needed words. First, we are addressing the central evil of our time, one that has sent out metastases all over our civilisation and its institutions. No, it is not mere reproductive issues (and claimed "rights" . . . which require being manifestly in the right). No, it is the holocaust of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb in 40+ years. Growing, at about another million victims per week -- the ultimate, silenced victim class. Silent because we have killed them. Killed them by the hundreds of millions. The cancerous, tainting bloodguilt in our souls. As for the linked notion that teachers are robots and indoctrinators paid to pretend that all is well with the latest politically correct partyline decision that 2 + 2 = 6, the answer is obvious: forcing teachers to teach lies and pretending that evil is good under penalty of losing livelihood, speaks for itself to its own condemnation. In reply, I say the educator has a particular professional duty to knowledge, thus to truth, right reason, prudence and justice. Therefore, to sound moral government of the soul. One can be a genuine educator with a sound conscience or a state funded agit prop operator, not both. And it is obvious that far too many want agit prop under false colour of education, especially when ethical matters and moral government are implicated. Where, it is patent that the underlying driving force is the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow-travellers. Our civilisation is treading a ruinous nihilistic road, imposing evils under false colour of being good and casting principled objection as dogmatic stubborn refusal to go along with the partyline. Pretending that any objection to the evils being imposed under false colour of law can only trace to irrational fears ("phobias") and/or hate. Which can then be stigmatised, censored, locked out, de-platformed, driven to the margins reserved for strawman caricature, stereotypical scapegoats: the turnabout, loaded projection agit prop technique. All of this points back to Havel's famous essay on the power of the powerless, especially the tale of the greengrocer: https://mrdivis.yolasite.com/resources/Vaclav%20Havel's%20Power%20of%20the%20Powerless.pdf . A chilling parallel. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

BA77
and yet the fact remains
That the author’s conclude that the increased risk of breast cancer is small. Take it up with the author’s, not with me.
and “Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide.”
And it has also been shown that pregnancy can increase the risk of suicide, as can post natal depression. In fact, one in five post natal deaths are caused by suicide. Maybe we should ban pregnancy. Hormones, like many drugs, have potential undesirable side-effects and should be monitored by doctors. But all sorts of medications that are available have a risk of causing depression and suicide ideation. These include beta blockers for blood pressure, corticosteroids for inflammation, benzodiazopenes for anxiety, parkinson’s Drugs, cholesterol drugs, anticonvulsants and many others. Should we ban all of these? For all of these drugs we allow people to weigh the risks and make informed decisions as to whether they will use them. The big question is why you are not advocating for restricting their access like you are for hormone based contraceptives? Is it possible that your motives are religiously based and not scientific? I don’t have a problem with you using your religious beliefs to not use hormone based contraceptives, but to attempt to use law-fare to deny access to those who don’t share your religious beliefs is as disengenuous as those that use it to impose their beliefs on you.Brother Brian_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Moreover not only do individuals suffer, but society at large also suffers when governments impose secular thinking on society. First off, in establishing this fact, it is important to first note that Religious students are healthier and more 'moral' than atheists or agnostics,
Harvard Study Reveals Religious Upbringing Better for Kids’ Health, Well-Being - 2018 https://stream.org/new-study-reveals-religious-upbringing-better-kids-health-well/ Religious students more 'moral' than atheists or agnostics – study - March 2015 Excerpt: The study of 10,200 students and 250 teachers from 68 UK schools took place between February 2013 and June 2014 and is the largest of its kind. Researchers used surveys, moral dilemma tests and interviews. The religious students scored higher on the moral dilemma tests and within the religious group, those who practised their religion scored more highly than those who did not. Girls also scored higher than boys when faced with moral dilemmas.,,, The report takes as its starting point the growing consensus in Britain that virtues such as honesty, self-control, fairness, gratitude and respect, which contribute to good moral character, are part of the solution to many of the challenges facing society today. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religious.students.more.moral.than.atheists.or.agnostics.study/49315.htm
Secondly, the following video goes over the devastating moral consequences for society at large when prayer was removed from public schools in America:
The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 - David Barton - video (excerpted from Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage’ lecture) https://youtu.be/1No--GpdqCY
And here is a site highlighting the sobering statistics that David Barton highlighted,,,
AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html
The SAT scores which Barton mentioned are particularly interesting to look at, for instance:
2018 SAT Results Released The College Board recently released performance results from the SAT for the class of 2018. According to the College Board, the mean total scores for 2018 graduates who took the SAT was 1068, a slight increase over last year’s class average of 1060. For the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section (ERW), the mean score was 536, whereas last year’s was 533. The Math section score was 531, just above 2017’s 527. Private School Data According to data provided to CAPE by the College Board, results varied significantly by the type of school students attended, with college-bound seniors in religious and independent schools scoring substantially higher than the national average. Specifically, the average combined score of students in independent schools was 1188, or 120 points above the national mean, while the average for religious school students was 1153, which was 85 points above the mean. Public school students scored 1049, 19 points below the mean. The scores make clear that students in private schools help lift the national average. https://www.lcs.education/4198-2/
As the preceding SAT results clearly indicate, (scores that have remained remarkably high for private Christian schools ever since prayer was removed from public schools and the public schools scores then dropped dramatically for 18 years straight), perhaps the government should, instead of pouring billions upon billions of dollars into our failing public school systems to no substantial effect, instead put prayer back in schools? Just a practical thought. (i.e. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results) Moreover, besides the devastating educational and moral impact on society at large when prayer was removed from public school, the secular mandate that only Darwinian Evolution can be taught in public schools has also had a significant detrimental moral impact for society at large. Richard Weikart, author of “From Darwin to Hitler', states that, "Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence."
How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
And here are a few more videos documenting the detrimental moral impact that Darwinian thinking has had on society at large:
The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU
Thus, the forsaking of objective morality in general and God in particular has had, and continues to have, devastating impacts on people individually as well as on society at large. Verse:
Deuteronomy 30:19-20 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Joshua 24:15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”
bornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Barry, it is the job of school teachers to teach respect for differences. If I have a gay student in my class, and I have had, including some of my favorites, it is part of my job to teach others to treat them well. Sure, a students can think negatively about anyone, for a multitude of reasons, but their actions need to be respectful of differences. They are not allowed to call a student a faggot or some other derogatory term, any more than they can use a racial or ethnic slur, or call someone fat, stupid, or ugly. We take serious that “all [people] are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, as kf reminded us in an OP recently. It is not our job to decide, or teach, that homosexuality is wrong. As BB said, homosexuals exist, and in appropriate venues, such as health classes, the facts about homosexuals should be taught without negative judgment. This is not “stuffing anything down anyone’s throats”. It is just fulfilling our responsibility to teach a balanced curriculum about human sexuality.hazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

and yet the fact remains
"Ingesting hormonal contraception for 10 years increases the risk of breast cancer by 38 percent, according to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine."
and
"Another recent study out of Denmark showed taking hormonal contraception can triple the risk of suicide."
I guess you could call triple the number of suicides small as measured by an absolute increase in total population, but I bet you that the families of those 'extra' young women who committed suicide because of the pill would disagree very strongly. Moreover,
Women using contraceptives tend to be more sexually active and to have multiple sex partners than their counterparts and hence are at a greater risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12318983
But hey, what's a few more STD's? Depression cancer, suicide? its all risk that the young women must balance for more sex with more people, which is apparently a good thing on BBs view for the young women to consider. Let's not forget, since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of a even a single gene and/or protein, then it is very interesting to note that the gene expression of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic moral happiness and ‘noble’ moral happiness: The following paper states that there are hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness - July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm
Moreover, and as would be expected if morality were objectively real as Christians hold, it is now found that atheists suffer physically and mentally as a result of forsaking the objective reality of morality in general and from forsaking God in particular. Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that 'The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.',,, lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction…
“I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion. The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health - preface “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.” - Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists - Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100 https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false
And the following meta-analysis of studies found that Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%, even 55% in one study.
Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes - June 1, 2017 Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the "Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults" study May 16. "For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year," Bruce said. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/
bornagain77_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Thanks for your reply, BB. Here are a few more short comments. First, there are types of birth control that don’t involve hormones: a good summary is here. Also, as you say, many things we do with our bodies, for medical or recreational purposes, have risks. It’s part of the freedom of the individual to assess those risks and make informed judgment for oneself. If I were a young woman, I probably would stay away from hormone types of birth control, but each woman has to balance a number of factors in decided what is best for her. Women have a lot more concerns connected with reproduction than men do, obviously: the effect of menopause and various stages of breast cancer also involve hormone treatments; carrying and birthing a baby can lead to perineal tears, prolapsed pelvic floors, incontinence, and other things; and childbirth itself can be dangerous as well as being quite painful. There is a picture on the internet of a bunch of old white guys standing around as Trump signs some bill about reproductive rights: it blows my mind that men are the ones making these decisions for women. Who are they to say what tradeoffs any woman might want to make about controlling her reproduction! :(hazel_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

BB
What I don’t respect is when they try to impose these restrictive mores on others.
Barry
I take it, then, that you oppose laws that require public school children to be taught that homosexual and lesbian sex is normal and healthy?
BB
Yes I do. But I support laws that force public schools to teach that homosexual and lesbian sex exist, teach of the risks and precautions, and teach that sexual orientation is no grounds for bullying, discrimination or judgment.
BB, you gave the store away with this: "or judgment" You are perfectly OK with the liberal government stuffing their sexual mores down our children's throats.Barry Arrington_{February 3, 2019
February
02
Feb
3
03
2019
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply