Defending our Civilization health and health concerns UD Newswatch highlights

Guttmacher vs Worldometer on Abortion statistics

Spread the love

Guttmacher:

Unintended pregnancy and abortion are experiences shared by people around the world. These reproductive health outcomes occur irrespective of country income level, region or the legal status of abortion.

Roughly 121 million unintended pregnancies occurred each year between 2015 and 2019.*

Of these unintended pregnancies, 61% ended in abortion. This translates to 73 million abortions per year.

Worldometer has flopped over to 2021. A captured image gives abortion numbers per WHO for 2020:

The 30 million spread simply tells us that these statistics are problematic. However the message — an ugly one — is clear. END

76 Replies to “Guttmacher vs Worldometer on Abortion statistics

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Guttmacher vs Worldometer on Abortion statistics, c. 2020

  2. 2
    JVL says:

    How many spontaneous abortions happen every year: ones that occur ‘naturally’ without the mother’s consent? I’ve heard it might be as high as a third of all conceptions.

  3. 3
    mahuna says:

    “Unintended pregnancy” is NOT the ONLY reason for an abortion. Some times the Mom decides someplace in the middle that, well, she doesn’t want THIS baby (Um, she broke up with the Dad and doesn’t want any of his kids). Or Mom decides that the baby is making her SICK, and the simplest way to stop puking is to get rid of the baby.
    Reasons for getting an abortion vary by State, and so the simplest thing in most cases is for Mom to declare, on some legal form, that the pregnancy was an “accident”, etc.
    In many US States, an abortion is permissible if the pregnancy was the result of “rape”. Anti-abortionists, however, point out that the NAME of the “rapist” is not required. And actually arresting the alleged father for Rape is VERY uncommon. So the abortion clinic assist the Mom in gaming the local system.
    Some decades ago I saw actual, live action “medical treatment” for an embarrassing pregnancy (i.e., Mom didn’t have a husband…) in West Africa. Some Wise Man in the village declared that the swelling in the woman’s belly was NOT a developing human child. Instead, it was a demon of some sort that had crawled inside her. So the friends and neighbors took up sticks and BEAT the poor woman and her belly until SOMETHING bloody and misshapen popped out of her birth canal.
    Also note that there are VERY old versions of The Hippocratic Oath in which the doctor swears that he will NOT assist in an abortion (typically by providing drugs). But do check Wikipedia, the source of ALL human knowledge, wherein there is controversy over whether that prohibition came from Hippocrates or some Christian adding new words here and there to support Catholic teachings.

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    Naturally without the mothers consent is not an abortion. An abortion is a willful act to terminate the human life within the mother

    Before the year turned over I think it was at 42 million for abortions they were willful abortions
    On worldometer

    That is 42 million futures that were snuffed

    For some human right that isn’t really a right at all

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Who should be held accountable for the unintended, natural abortions? If one-quarter to one-third of conceptions result in spontaneous abortions that number dwarfs the chosen abortions which means many, many, many more foetuses die from unintended abortions. If they also have souls what happens to them?

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you have propagandistically distorted the situation. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a living member of our posterity, in his or her mother’s womb. A miscarriage is an instance of the same natural death that ultimately claims us all, 100% die. We are mortal. Surely, you know the difference between natural death and deliberate killing. Nor does resort to a Latin term for a baby or child divert the point. That speaks volumes, through the framework of the mirror principle and cognitive dissonance. Your claims imply blame, i.e. adverse choice, but wish to project to the despised other. I suggest, rethink. As for innocents below age of accountability who die and others in similar condition, the theological answer on their souls is plain from that fact. KF

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/6

    JVL, you have propagandistically distorted the situation.

    On the contrary, he makes a very pertinent point. According to Christian belief, we are God’s creations. We are as He made us, including our extremely wasteful reproductive system. We did not make it so, He did. If we assume that He had the knowledge and the power to do otherwise but didn’t then He is ultimately responsible for all those pre-natal lives lost.

    Worse than that, He appears not to care about that death rate, anymore than He cared about all those young lives that must have been lost in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the Great Flood, again, cases where He had the knowledge and power to do otherwise.

    In fact, the Bible has little if anything to say about abortion. Jesus did not preach against it on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no specific Commandment against it, even though it would seem to be a more serious matter than the keeping of graven images or taking the Lord’s name in vain, so what is the Scriptural warrant for the opposition to abortion if God does not seem to be too concerned?

  8. 8
    ET says:

    JVL, ever the infant, brings up the very reason why artificial abortions should be banned. Obviously the ability to propagate isn’t a given, which makes all life very important.

    But JVL wants to blame someone for our unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and genetic entropy. He’s like a dog that looks at the finger and not where it is pointing.

    Then seversky chimes in with its usual ignorance. No one claims that God made us. And even the Bible gives the reason for the deterioration that lead to our current state.

    SCIENCE says that life starts @ conception. That means any artificial attempt at ending that life is attempted murder. And all artificial abortions are murder. According to science.

  9. 9
    Marfin says:

    JVL & SEV so let me just get this straight , you are saying is that because there is death via sickness , disease , old age then there is no such thing as murder .
    By equating miscarriage and abortion this is exactly what you are doing.

  10. 10
    JVL says:

    ET: But JVL wants to blame someone for our unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and genetic entropy. He’s like a dog that looks at the finger and not where it is pointing.

    I am not calling out any of those things. You just made that up. Besides, if genetic entropy was a ‘thing’ then the number of spontaneous abortions should be growing every year. But it’s not.

    Why don’t you try and address the point that the number of spontaneous, non-intentional abortions dwarfs the intentional ones and why is no one trying to do something about that.?

    Marfin: JVL & SEV so let me just get this straight , you are saying is that because there is death via sickness , disease , old age then there is no such thing as murder .
    By equating miscarriage and abortion this is exactly what you are doing.

    No, that is not what I am doing. That is your own interpretation.

    Why does the number of miscarriages dwarf the number of intentional abortions? What causes that? Who designed the system where that happens?

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev and JVL et al,

    Marfin is right:

    so let me just get this straight , you are saying is that because there is death via sickness , disease , old age then there is no such thing as murder .
    By equating miscarriage and abortion this is exactly what you are doing.

    And meanwhile, let us notice what is being distracted from, documentation that the current toll of willful mass killing of innocents in the womb is 42 – 73 millions, on credible sources. (Contrast the global reactions and finger-pointing over a toll that is 1/20 to 1/35th that.)

    KF

    PS: If you wish to attack Christian theology, start with why that theology holds that there is a breakdown of bodily function that imposes mortality; note, the explicit link in that theology to struggle to do right and think straight — phenomena that are undeniable and universal. Note, too, the eschatological resolution of the underlying problem of evils and linked suffering; while we are at it kindly note that Plantinga shattered the force of the problem of evil 50 years ago so it is a case of rhetoric not worldview warrant now. (Cf. here on for 101.) Then, kindly observe the failure of the implicit alternative to account for the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information in cell based life much less the human body plan [when you can account soundly for such FSCO/I on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity you have something worth attending to, but not otherwise . . . this includes your proposed redesign of human reproductive biology per blind forces]. Likewise, you would be well advised to attend to the focal offer of warrant for the Christian faith, if you are truly interested in soundly addressing major civilisational alternatives on the merits instead of setting up and knocking over distractive strawmen.

    In the meanwhile it is manifest per cognitive dissonance that you cannot defend the slaughter of 800k – 1.4 million innocents per week, so you have tried to divert focus.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, Sev, what part of thou shalt not willfully shed innocent blood is it that is so hard to understand? It seems, you need to be reminded of the logic of the greatest– double force — commandment Jesus taught, per Paul — and yes the Golden Rule is in the Sermon:

    Matt 7: 11 If you then, evil (sinful by nature) as you are, know how to give good and advantageous gifts to your children [–> contrast, robbing your children of life itself], how much more will your Father who is in heaven [perfect as He is] give what is good and advantageous to those who keep on asking Him.

    12 “So then, in everything treat others the same way you want them to treat you, for this is [the essence of] the Law and the [writings of the] Prophets.

    Matt 22:34 Now when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced (muzzled) the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 One of them, a lawyer [an expert in Mosaic Law], asked Jesus a question, to test Him: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 And Jesus replied to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself [that is, unselfishly seek the best or higher good for others].’ 40 The whole Law and the [writings of the] Prophets depend on these two commandments.”

    Paul’s mini-exposition, Rom 13:8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal [–> including, plainly, another’s life], you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law. [AMP]

    No, the “Jesus never taught X” objection fails here and generally. Notice from opening remarks of the Sermon on the Mount: “Matt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to do away with or undo the [f]Law [of Moses] or the [writings of the] Prophets; I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: If you wish to attack Christian theology . . .

    Who says I was doing that? You say that. I’m asking: who designed such a system where upwards of a third of all conceptions end in miscarriage or stillbirths?

    I don’t think anyone did design such a system which is why it sometimes goes haywire. You think it was designed so why was it designed that way? That unborn, wanted innocents sometimes miscarry or are stillborn? It doesn’t make sense to me as a designed system. It’s cruel and wasteful and personally traumatic. What’s the point of starting a life and then ending so early?

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL asks,

    Why does the number of miscarriages dwarf the number of intentional abortions? What causes that? Who designed the system where that happens?

    This is a form of argument from atheists that is known as ‘the argument from evil’. And it is a theologically based argument, not a scientifically based argument!

    i.e. Atheists try to claim that a loving God would never allow evil, i.e. death, suffering, (and in this case spontaneous abortions), etc…, to exist.

    John Avise used this particular theological argument in his book “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design”

    It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter – June 2012
    Excerpt: “Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]”
    – Dr. John Avise – “Inside The Human Genome: A Case For Non-Intelligent Design”
    (Dr. Cornelius Hunter goes on to comment)
    “There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way.” –
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....it-is.html

    Elsewhere in his book John Avise stated,

    “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”
    John C. Avise – Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    Mutation total (as of Jan. 4, 2021) – 189,186
    http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

    Contrary to what Dr. Avise, and other Darwinists, may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of SCIENTIFIC evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against their Darwinian claims,,, That this SCIENTIFIC fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped Darwinian ‘theology’ truly is in regards to the actual science at hand. i.e. Darwinists are apparently so biased against God in their ‘theology’ that it severely corrupts their ability to judge the scientific evidence itself in a unbiased manner.

    Moreover, the problem with the Theologically based ‘argument from evil’ gets worse for atheists, much worse.

    The trouble for atheists, (besides the fact ‘the argument from evil’ is a theological argument, not a scientific argument, and besides the fact that the entire Bible refutes their claim that God would not allow evil to exist in this world), is the fact that ‘the argument from evil’ is, in and of itself, a self refuting argument.

    Specifically, in their argument from evil, atheists hold that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”

    The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
    Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
    P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
    P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
    C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
    https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

    And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in.

    On the one hand, Atheistic materialists hold that morality is subjective and illusory. i.e. they hold that morality does not really exist.,,, As Dawkins himself succinctly put it, if atheism is true then there is “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

    Atheism’s Odd Relationship with Morality By Rabbi Adam Jacobs – 2011
    Excerpt: As Dr. Will Provine has said, “[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality … you can’t hope for there being any free will [and there is] … no ultimate foundation for ethics.”
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/atheisms-odd-relationship_b_839352.html

    And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it in the following article, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there actually is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

    And as C.S. Lewis put it,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?,,,
    in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. Harper San Francisco, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001, pp. 38-39.

    Thus, in their “Argument from Evil” atheists have unwittingly, and inadvertently, conceded the existence of a objective moral standard to judge by and have, once again, refuted their very own worldview of Atheistic Materialism/Naturalism in the process.

    Simply put, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist must hold in his argument from evil, then God must necessarily exist!

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    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

    As Michael Egnor states in the following article, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, one of the greatest proofs that morality really does, objectively, exist is the fact that it impossible for anyone, especially including atheists, to live their lives as if objective morality did not in fact exist.

    As the following article states: “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:,,,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.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Richard Dawkins himself honestly admitted that it would be quote unquote ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    And if it is ‘intolerable’ for you to live your life consistently as if the amorality of your atheism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism 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.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    I’ve been debating atheists for years, and it simply amazes me how anyone can willingly hold onto a worldview that is so easily refuted and which is so obviously false.

    And why anyone in their right mind would ever want to be an atheist is simply beyond my comprehension.

    Atheism is simply is a utterly false, incoherent, useless, and completely hopeless, worldview that simply has no redeeming qualities to it whatsoever.

    As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “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.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”

    “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

    Atheism is simply a garbage worldview that brings misery on those who hold it as being true!

    It is truly sad, as the brilliant mathematician Leonhard Euler once observed, there are some people who are simply incapable of ever being reached by reason:

    A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. (Leonard) EULER?Excerpt: “The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible.”
    http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/.....2trans.pdf

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, as BA77 pointed out, you have resorted to the argument from evils, which specifically targets ethical theism, of Which Christian Theology is a form. That argument collapsed 50 years ago as an academic project, it seems to keep on coming up as a rhetorical appeal. Of course, all of this is tangential to the evidence on the table of ongoing holocaust, and by extension how inconvenient evidence is too often treated. KF

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    You spend a lot of time bending my question into a theological statement which you then assert is atheistic and self-refuting.

    But you never answered the underlying questions:

    Who would design such a system and why? Why cause so much pain and agony and waste? What is the purpose for it?

    I don’t believe human beings were designed by an intelligent agent. You do. So, logically, there must be some reason for the number of miscarriages and stillbirths to dwarf the number of intentional abortions.

    I’m not attacking your beliefs, I’m asking you to explain how your beliefs explains a situation.

    Can you do that?

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, I am quite satisfied that unbiased readers can easily see that you have not refuted my arguments in the least, but that you have only reinforced the validity of my arguments that I made at posts 14 and 15.

    Nice own goal!

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, I am quite satisfied that unbiased readers can easily see that you have not refuted my arguments in the least, but that you have only reinforced the validity of my arguments that I made at posts 14 and 15.

    I’m not trying to refute your arguments; I’m trying to get you to answer a question about the implications of your beliefs.

    Which you flatly refuse to do.

    Your call but don’t you think you should be able to say why a designed system generates so much waste and pain?

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, you want to argue the Theology instead of the science? So you honestly admit that the science itself, i.e. the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations, refutes Darwinism? And that you therefore have no further case to make for Darwinism being true as far as the science itself is concerned? And that you therefore now want to ‘honestly’ explore the Theological reasoning for exactly why God would allow evil to exist in this world?

    To put it mildly, I find this VERY hard to believe.

    I think the truth is that, since you simply have no science to support Darwinism, you instead are very reluctant to give up your theologically based ‘argument from evil’. You simply have run out of ‘scientific’ bullets to use and thus you are very much stuck with the old fallacious theological ‘argument from evil’ (a theological argument which Charles Darwin himself used in his book ‘Origin of Species’).

    Well, regardless of whatever ulterior motives you may have, God has very good ‘Theological’ reasons for allowing evil to exist in this world,,,

    First off, how would it be possible for God to defeat death, in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, if God did not first allow death to exist in this world the first place?

    Philippians 2:8-11
    “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself
    and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
    Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
    that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father”

    “He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    ~James Stewart~
    ———————————
    “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’
    The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs.
    They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet.
    They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne.
    They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in.
    They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy.
    They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down.
    He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland

    Secondly, and in conjunction with the first point, by allowing evil to exist God is allowing his children to grow spiritually, i.e. the “Beatific Vision”

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

    Verse,

    Romans 12:21
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Of course, I’m no theologian, and indeed many people can, and have, spent their entire lifetimes studying Christian theology, but anyways, that is the ‘short’ theological answer to the theological, (not scientific), question as to why God would personally allow evil to exist in this world.

    And JVL, if you are still upset that God allows evil to exist in this world, and if you still insist that God should immediately remove all evil from this world, it might interest you to know that we ourselves, in our present unredeemed state, are considered evil before the infinite goodness and holiness that is found in God.

    Isaiah:6:5-7
    “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.”
    Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, you want to argue the Theology instead of the science?

    I’m not trying to argue about theology; I’m just asking you how your beliefs square up with a designed system that seems very wasteful and painful.

    So you honestly admit that the science itself, i.e. the overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations, refutes Darwinism? And that you therefore have no further case to make for Darwinism being true as far as the science itself is concerned?

    No, I’m asking you a question about your worldview and beliefs and how they ‘explain’ a particular phenomena.

    And that you therefore now want to ‘honestly’ explore the Theological reasoning for exactly why God would allow evil to exist in this world?

    To put it mildly, I find this VERY hard to believe.

    That’s right, I’m not giving up my views. I’m asking you about yours.

    I think the truth is that, since you simply have no science to support Darwinism, you instead are very reluctant to give up your theologically based ‘argument from evil’. You simply have run out of ‘scientific’ bullets to use and thus you are very much stuck with the old fallacious ‘argument from evil’ (a argument which Charles Darwin himself used in his book ‘Origin of Species’).

    Sigh, why don’t you just answer the question?

    Well, regardless of whatever ulterior motives you may have, God has very good ‘Theological’ reasons for allowing evil to exist in this world,,,

    Okay. Please note: I did not use the word evil, you did. So, you’re kind-a, sort-of answering my question.

    First off, how would it be possible for God to defeat death, in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, if God did not first allow death to exist in this world the first place?

    Umm, that’s not really answering my question. I’m not asking why there is death but why there are literally thousands if not millions of miscarriages and stillbirths every year. Why won’t you address that particular question?

    Secondly, and in conjunction with the first point, by allowing evil to exist God is allowing his children to grow spiritually, i.e. the “Beatific Vision”

    But that still hasn’t answered my specific question. I guess you’re not going to.

    And JVL, if you are still upset that God allows evil to exist in this world, and if you still insist that God should immediately remove all evil from this world, it might interest you to know that we ourselves, in our present unredeemed state, are considered evil before the infinite goodness that is found in God.

    You keep answering questions I didn’t ask and putting words in my mouth. I’m not upset about anything. I’m asking you a specific question about why there are so many miscarriages and stillbirths every year; far more than there are intentional abortions. But no one seems upset about that. Which I find curious, especially if you think the whole system was designed.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever JVL, my arguments at 14, 15 and 20 stand and you have not even touched them in regards to trying to refute them. I am, once again, quite satisfied that unbiased observers can easily see that you are playing stupid games instead of making coherent arguments.

    It is sad that you will not be intellectually honest.

    But alas, I am done wasting my time trying to be reasonable with someone who simply refuses to be reasonable.

    I have much better things to do today!

    Good bye!

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Whatever JVL, my arguments at 14, 15 and 20 stand and you have not even touched them in regards to trying to refute them.

    Because I wasn’t trying to refute them? I was asking you a question about your beliefs and views and how they explain or justify a particular phenomena. And you chose not to address that question directly. It’s your call.

    I am, once again, quite satisfied that unbiased observers can easily see that you are playing stupid games instead of making coherent arguments.

    I’m just asking you a question about your beliefs. I’m not trying to argue you out of anything. You talked about ‘evil’ in general (your term not mine) but I’d like you to speak to a particular situation instead of discussing a very general case.

    It is sad that you will not be intellectually honest.

    ???? I haven’t lied or tried to mislead or push the conversation off on a tangent. I asked a question.

    But alas, I am done wasting my time trying to be reasonable with someone who simply refuses to be reasonable.

    So, you’re not going to address my particular question. Why didn’t you just say so in the first place?

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Wow. JVL must be totally clueless
    :

    I am not calling out any of those things. You just made that up. Besides, if genetic entropy was a ‘thing’ then the number of spontaneous abortions should be growing every year. But it’s not.

    I was telling YOU what is to blame for the spontaneous abortions. Genetic entropy is a thing but your strawman isn’t.

    Why don’t you try and address the point that the number of spontaneous, non-intentional abortions dwarfs the intentional ones and why is no one trying to do something about that.?

    I did. You are just too stupid to understand it.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Once again, for the learning impaired- looking at JVL:

    Our unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and genetic entropy are the causes of spontaneous abortions and stillbirths.

  26. 26
    JVL says:

    ET: I was telling YOU what is to blame for the spontaneous abortions. Genetic entropy is a thing but your strawman isn’t.

    Okay, given that . . . why wouldn’t Bornagain77 answer the question? Does he think there is another explanation? He talked a lot about the presence and reasons for ‘evil’ in the world. I didn’t think that was directly addressing the particular question. Do you, personally, think that genetic entropy, uncorrected, is the designer allowing for ‘evil’?

    Our unhealthy lifestyles, pollution and genetic entropy are the causes of spontaneous abortions and stillbirths.

    I remember. And I’m sure sometimes bad nutrition or environmental factors like pollution do cause problems. An example no one will disagree with is that severe alcohol or drug consumption frequently leads to birth defects. It’s not much of a stretch to guess that such things can lead to miscarriages or still births. In some sense, modern medicine is starting to be able to look at our individual . . . processes and be able to proscribe tailor-made solutions. I heard a really interesting discussion of ‘leaky guy syndrome’ the other day and eventually the hope is to be able to sample a person’s gut biome, analyse it, look at how effective it is at processing certain inputs and then proscribe a diet geared towards that situation. Fascinating stuff.

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    I notice, the substantive issue is still on the table, that in 2020 there were likely 42 – 73 million unborn children who were killed. KF

  28. 28
    ET says:

    I do not speak for bornagain77. And genetic entropy is what it is- an impetus for us to learn and hopefully be able to correct it.

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    ET: I do not speak for bornagain77.

    Of course not. But do you, personally, think that genetic entropy and God wanting to allow for some evil in the world are part of the same effort?

    Just interested in whether or not those two ideas agree with each other.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    If life starts at conception, as science says, then abortion is murder. And, as KF, shows, it is out of control. If society if judged with how we treat our most vulnerable then we have failed, miserably. We are nothing but ignorant savages, blissful in our ignorance.

    We should know better. We are pathetic for allowing the slaughter of our unborn. But I don’t know what to do about it short of starting an all-out war. Humans don’t seem capable of being reasoned with.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    With respect to God, the Fall from grace allowed evil into the world.

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    ET: If life starts at conception, as science says, then abortion is murder.

    If life starts at conception . . . what do you think?

    And, as KF, shows, it is out of control. If society if judged with how we treat our most vulnerable then we have failed, miserably. We are nothing but ignorant savages, blissful in our ignorance.

    We should know better. We are pathetic for allowing the slaughter of our unborn. But I don’t know what to do about it short of starting an all-out war. Humans don’t seem capable of being reasoned with.

    At the very least you would have to create huge social programmes to support women pregnant with unwanted babies and after the birth huge support systems for all the extra children not wanted by their mothers. It would take a vast commitment of time and money on the part of society as a whole. Considering you’d probably never get the tax payers to pay for it you’d have to do some serious fund raising.

    Agree or disagree on the abortion issue I have never seen anyone come up with a viable way of dealing with all the extra children outlawing abortion would allow. I suppose you could just decide as a society that if you have the sex you deal with the consequences. That doesn’t deal with rape, in and out of marriage, but I guess it is consistent with some Christian ideals as held by some Christians.

    Leaving rape and unwanted sexual events out, I don’t think you’re going to get people to agree that if a woman has a sexual encounter she has to live with the consequences. I think that horse has bolted the stable a long time ago. Plus it puts no responsibility on the ‘father’.

    Perhaps a better approach would be to encourage people, women in particular, to use some kind of highly effective birth control until they’re sure they want to have children. That makes the most sense to me: you reduce unwanted pregnancies and you keep the power of the decision in the woman’s hands.

    Discuss.

  33. 33
    Marfin says:

    JVL – Its only your assumption that it was designed that way , so hence its a bad design , thats akin to saying what idiot designed an engine so that when it runs our of engine oil it will seize up .
    Death inc miscarriages were not part of God`s plan or design it was man`s failure to keep the system God had put in place which is the problem and makes it look like bad design, just like failing to put engine oil in your motor would do the same.

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    ET: With respect to God, the Fall from grace allowed evil into the world.

    Didn’t God decide that that event allowed evil into the world? Wasn’t it his call?

  35. 35
    ET says:

    SCIENCE says that life starts at conception. So I understand why JVL wouldn’t believe it.

    My societal program? Women with unwanted pregnancies, and the men who got them pregnant would be fined, heavily. Ignorance is not an answer. You get an abortion you go to prison for murder. I bet that would change behaviors very quickly.

    This is the 21st century. Ignorance is no longer a viable excuse.

    And we allowed evil. It was our responsibility.

  36. 36
    JVL says:

    Marfin: Its only your assumption that it was designed that way , so hence its a bad design , thats akin to saying what idiot designed an engine so that when it runs our of engine oil it will seize up.

    Death inc miscarriages were not part of God`s plan or design it was man`s failure to keep the system God had put in place which is the problem and makes it look like bad design just like failing to put engine oil in your motor would do the same.

    I can understand that. But . . . Okay . . . so sometimes pious and good people suffer hideously because others haven’t kept up their end of the bargain? I guess that’s the part that bothers me about your idea: even if I’m good and pure and devote I can get caught up in some kind of systemic failure that I had nothing to do with and I might have been fighting against my whole life. Just doesn’t seem fair to me. We all have to walk the talk and if anyone fails we all can fail? Doesn’t that mean I have to be constantly monitoring those around me to make sure they are toeing the line? It starts to sound like a police state!

  37. 37
    JVL says:

    ET: My societal program? Women with unwanted pregnancies, and the men who got them pregnant would be fined, heavily. Ignorance is not an answer. You get an abortion you go to prison for murder. I bet that would change behaviors very quickly.

    Okay! I’m not agreeing with you but you did answer the question with a definite answer. Thank you for doing that.

    Would you allow for birth control methods then? I mean that they should be readily available and effective?

    And we allowed evil. It was our responsibility.

    Perhaps because there’s some disagreement about what is evil?

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Birth control is fine, IMHO, as long as it prevents conception. Abstinence is a form of birth control.

    Who disagrees with what evil is and what are their disagreements?

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    ET: Birth control is fine, IMHO, as long as it prevents conception. Abstinence is a form of birth control.

    True, just not one that many people use! But I do think it’s sensible to make other forms of birth control widely available and effective.

    Who disagrees with what evil is and what are their disagreements?

    Well, for example: I think some people (here, even) think that homosexual relationships are sinful and evil whereas other disagree. I think some people think that drug use is evil but others think it’s just a societal problem that needs more attention. I suspect that some people would say that extra-marital sexual activity is evil whereas others might not see the harm as long as all adults involved consent.

  40. 40
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Abortion simply isn’t a black and white situation. I have two wonderful grandchildren through IVF. My daughter had two ectopic pregnancies that made natural conception impossible. After three rounds of IVF, she gave birth to twin daughters. In total, the IVF process resulted in over 20 fertilized eggs, several of which were not implanted, and many more that aborted early in pregnancy to give the others a small chance to survive.

    All the pontificating in the world won’t convince me that the loss of fertilized eggs that resulted in these two beautiful girls was anything but a blessing.

  41. 41
    Viola Lee says:

    Thumbs up to Steve’s post. I’ve discussed this issue with an IVF doctor a number of times, and the number of fertilized embryos that are flat-out rejected for various reasons vastly outnumbers the successful implantations that carry to term.

  42. 42
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Thanks Viola. I get mad at people who say that IVF should be banned because, sadly, it involves aborting several fetuses. For anyone who thinks this, feel free to tell my granddaughters this. They are old enough now that they will rip anyone who thinks this a new one. And I will stand back and enjoy the spectacle.

  43. 43
    Viola Lee says:

    IVF doesn’t abort any fetuses, I don’t think: it just discards many embryos with a small number of cells. Sometimes because they have particular genetic defects, some because they aren’t healthy (they have ways of scoring them), and some just because others seemed like the most viable ones to try to implant.

    However, many still don’t develop, either failing before even becoming viable in the womb, or through more traditional miscarriages later. For many women seeking IVF, the biology for successfully starting a baby is just less capable than other women. However, it is also true that many fertilized cells through normal intercourse also fail at various stages, often without the women even knowing that a fertilized cell got started. Congratulations on your granddaughters.

  44. 44
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Thank you Viola.

    I should have used the word embryo rather than fetus. My point was simply that there are many close-minded people who view the discarding of non-implanted embryos during IVF as being the equivalent of murder. As such, they advocate for banning IVF.

  45. 45
    Viola Lee says:

    True, and I consider that a serious mistake. I know a lot of people (and have heard many stories from my friend) about the good IVF brings into the world.

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, evil is not a relative matter, especially when innocent life is in the stakes. We need to look at what we are admitting to, and what that implies. KF

  47. 47
    Marfin says:

    JVL – That pious and good person you speak of does not exist ,we all all pretty rotten, its just by degree`s of rotten i`m afraid.
    S.A.2 -The scriptural position is that we should not do evil that good may come, now I dont know enough about the IVF process to comment on this case ,but if viable embryos are being aborted then its a problem.
    Think about your beautiful grand daughters , now would you give their lives to save the lives of 20 of some others beautiful grand daughters , surely its worth giving 2 lives to save 20 , but not when its someone you love.
    I know this is an extreme example but if we stick to the scriptural position that we wont do evil that good may come its a lots better for all of us.

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: NARAL [il-]logic:

    https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/1345852456224354306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    >>NARAL
    @NARAL
    ·
    Jan 3
    Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

    Hey look, we solved the problem for you! https://bit.ly/2Knm49e
    Image
    Replies
    TheChosenOne
    @TheChos73351951
    ·
    Jan 3
    Replying to
    @NARAL
    Don’t like slavery? Don’t have a slave.
    Jessica
    @versifier146
    ·
    [ . . . ]

    Jan 3
    Replying to
    @NARAL
    This isn’t the slam dunk logic you think it is.>>

    See the fundamental hole in thinking?

    KF

    PS: Self-description: >>NARAL Pro-Choice America fights to protect and expand reproductive freedom for every body.>> There can be no just freedom to destroy innocent life. Claiming such as a freedom or right is a threat to justice, thus to all of us. To justly claim a right or freedom, one must show oneself in the right, i.e. justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties.

  49. 49
    Viola Lee says:

    re 47. Marfin, IVF doesn’t abort any embryos. The embryos that are discarded and never inserted into a women: they are “in vitro”.

    Also, you write, “Think about your beautiful grand daughters , now would you give their lives to save the lives of 20 of some others beautiful grand daughters , surely its worth giving 2 lives to save 20 , but not when its someone you love.”

    But the 20 discarded embryos would never be implanted and have a chance to grow into daughters, as the doctor takes the 2 out of the 20, to use this example, that have the best chance of successfully implanting and growing to term.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    Science says that life starts at conception. That means if you have an embryo, you have a life. If that embryo is from humans than that life is that of a human.

    And I would tell Steve’s grand daughters they are alive because 20 others were sacrificed for them. That’s like killing 20 life prisoners and harvesting their organs to save two children. Is that OK?

  51. 51
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Well, for example: I think some people (here, even) think that homosexual relationships are sinful and evil whereas other disagree. I think some people think that drug use is evil but others think it’s just a societal problem that needs more attention. I suspect that some people would say that extra-marital sexual activity is evil whereas others might not see the harm as long as all adults involved consent.

    Being unnatural doesn’t mean it’s evil. Look, you are just making stuff up. Drug use may be wrong but it isn’t evil. The evil part is when someone gets a non-drug user hooked on drugs.

  52. 52
    Viola Lee says:

    So, ET, I take it that you think the IVF process involves killing human beings because of all the embryos that are started but never implanted. True?

  53. 53
    ET says:

    Again, for the learning impaired: SCIENCE says that life starts at conception. If it is a human embryo then it is a human life. I say that IVF should be outlawed.

  54. 54
    Viola Lee says:

    OK, that’s clear. I strongly disagree, but I think it’s important for me to know that there are people who think as you do. Thanks.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Yes, it is important to know who thinks that murder is wrong and who thinks it’s OK. You are one who thinks murder is OK. It is important for me to know there are people who think as wrongly as you do. Thanks.

  56. 56
    Marfin says:

    Viola Lee- as I said I have not looked into what the IVF process involves, the point I was making was that S.A.2 was saying dont tell me such and such a thing is wrong sure how can it be just take a look at my two beautiful grand daughters. Well as we all know using the ends(2 beautiful grand daughters) to justify the means is a slippery slope . The policy of never doing evil that good might come of it ,is right every time, deciding what is actually evil is another story , I take my morals from an all knowing moral law giver I find this a better option than trusting my feeling, gut, desires,wants,situation,or outcome,etc

  57. 57
    Steve Alten2 says:

    I don’t see how discarding non-viable embryos fertilized in a Petri dish as part of the IVF process is murder. And, thankfully, the law agrees with me.

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, the diagnostic words are “I don’t see.” Think about what you just acknowledged inadvertently. BTW, at root, decrees under colour of law can be and have been awful examples of lawlessness. That the institutions of law and justice have enabled what we are seeing is an indictment, not a commendation. KF

  59. 59
    Steve Alten2 says:

    KairosFocus “ SA2, the diagnostic words are “I don’t see.””

    I apologize. I should say that “I don’t care” what your opinion is. There are two people alive, healthy and happy who wouldn’t exist if you got your way. Do you honestly want to be the one to tell them that their existence is the result of evil? If so, I respectfully propose that you are seeing evil in a mirror.

  60. 60
    Seversky says:

    Abortion is not murder because, within certain limits, it is not unlawful – not yet, at least.

    I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who oppose abortion but their certainty lacks any strong Scriptural warrant. And if their God does not care that much then why should they? Are they not raising their judgement over His?

    That said, I personally believe that the right to life should be granted to the whole of an individual human being’s existence, from zygote to death. But that is only my belief. There are many who believe otherwise with equal sincerity. If those who oppose abortion want their beliefs to be made law, they will have to carry a majority of their fellow Americans with them. That means convincing their opponents that they care for the rights and well-being of the mother with the same passion they feel for the rights and well-being of her unborn child.

  61. 61
    ET says:

    Abortion is murder as science says that life starts at conception and that said life is human. It has NOTHING to do with any beliefs.

    That said, God isn’t involved in the developmental process.

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Weird how Steve Alten2 has the same family history as a recently banned insipid troll. Pathetic, really.

  63. 63
    Viola Lee says:

    Has someone been banned? Is that announced, or are they just “disappeared”?

  64. 64
    Steve Alten2 says:

    ET “ Weird how Steve Alten2 has the same family history as a recently banned insipid troll.”

    What family history? Does this site ban people who support IVF?

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, Multiply “I don’t see” (a Freudian slip) by “I don’t care” (a declaration of willful blindness in the face of holocaust) and the result is even worse. Yes, it is clear that you are playing the troll — likely, again — and are refusing to acknowledge simple facts: half the time, new life in the womb is not even the same sex as his mother [so much for “it’s my body”], and that new life is both human and innocent. The willful slaughter last year of 42 – 73 million of our living posterity in the womb therefore indicts our generation, especially given the cumulative toll since the early 70’s, credibly 800+ millions, maybe even the 1.4+ billions in statistical estimates, there are no accurate adequate records. Thus too, too much of the noise over pandemic is tainted by our knowledge from this of the true view on the sacredness of human life held by those trying to manipulate politically through exploiting pandemic concerns. (And yes, we duly note how the UK has gone back into strict lockdown in face of an emerging further strain that may make the vaccines significantly ineffective; such re-opens issues on agit prop driven suppression of credible but politically inconvenient treatments.) The abortion holocaust is the central, metastasising evil of our time and if we are to rescue civilisation, that will have to be focal. Thank you for your inadvertent service to showing our desperate need for deep and wide sound reformation, by own goal. KF

  66. 66
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev,

    your problem, regrettably, is a fallacious view of law and lawfulness. Law is not whatever those who control legal presses issue under colour, ceremonies or robes of law. That is, legal positivism, so-called, is fallacious on its face. If law is not anchored on legitimacy thus justice — the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties (due, implying built-in, inescapable moral government coeval with our human nature and requiring mutual consistency of rights and freedom claims) — it becomes brigandage writ large and imposed by lawless . . . unjust, so arbitrary, irrational and abusive . . . power.

    As for dragging in scriptures, at first level, it is enough to note that Moses, David and Solomon (also evidently Ezra in the preface Prov 1:1 – 7) and Paul all endorsed the core natural law principle. Isaiah made a famous remark on irrationality and injustice of inversion, and Jesus actually used natural law reasoning in a key exchange with the Judaean leadership. In short, the Judaeo-Christian perspective endorses the principle that there is an intelligible, built in moral government and law in us attested by sound conscience and by extension anchored on inescapable, so self-evident first duties of reason.

    In the second instance it is enough to note the exchange between Elizabeth (with John in the 5th or 6th month) and Mary (with Jesus within the six week window of early pregnancy) to dismiss any and all attempts to suggest that the scriptures do not recognise the spiritual nature of the human being from earliest days in the womb. But that is itself an invitation to a side-track on how the pro life view is about imposition of theocratic tyranny. Not so.

    The reality suppressed through now nearly fatal erosion of the moral fabric that holds civilisation together is that, inescapably, we are morally governed creatures, which — yes — points to our roots in a Source of reality who is inherently good and utterly wise. (This, BTW, implies also that we do not need a design inference on empirical signs to try to erect a proof of God; more than adequate warrant for God as root of reality comes long since from the basic facts of morally governed rationality. The design inference on reliable sign is a matter of inductive and scientific integrity under duties of reason. Yes, at cosmological level it does put God back in the picture as adequate designer and builder of worlds, but that is secondary.)

    Let me remind, as we are now officially — I am tempted to echo Nate Marling, of-fish-ially — in the phase of reformation of a badly damaged civilisation, of where we need to start:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so also, to fairness and justice etc. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, “natural law,” coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of “self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator” in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate’s cynical “what is truth?”: truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence — in key part — the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

    Given ongoing holocaust, industrial scale increasingly institutionalised electoral fraud, major media and tech houses devoted to narrative rather than truth and soundness and corruption of sound constitutional order, the issue on the table is to defend, reform and rebuild sound civilisation.

    This central evil is at the heart of what we must highlight if we are to do so.

    Evil, holocaust and fraud are never legitimate.

    KF

  67. 67
    ET says:

    Stevie:

    What family history?

    Yours, duh. Or are you too dim to remember what you posted about your daughter?

  68. 68
    Steve Alten2 says:

    ET@67, just that she had IVF because of damaged Fallopian tubes, one of the main reasons for people seeking IVF.

    I was just confused by your strange comment about a recently banned commenter. I can’t stop you from drawing unwarranted conclusions but it seems like a strange way to engage in a conversation.

  69. 69
    ET says:

    LoL! My conclusion is not unwarranted. It is more than telling that right after one insipid troll gets banned another steps in with the SAME family history. Engage in a conversation? With you? Too funny…

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2 and ET, the side track is a needless distraction. It is clear that the reality on the table to be faced is 42 – 73 million of our living posterity in the womb snuffed out last year. If we are to believe Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher estimate, 70million or so for the past several years. Blood guilt of that magnitude — well beyond the death toll of WW2 — is utterly corrosive. We owe Stalin, Mao and the Nazis an apology. That is how bad we are as a generation. KF

  71. 71
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, Multiply “I don’t see” (a Freudian slip) by “I don’t care” (a declaration of willful blindness in the face of holocaust) and the result is even worse.”

    No, it is simply a declaration that I don’t care about your opinion on this subject. I don’t mean this as an insult so please don’t take it as one. I am sure that there are millions of peoples’ opinions that I don’t care about, as there are millions who don’t care about many of my opinions. That is just the nature of our gregarious existence and having free will.

    All I know is that there are two beautiful young people wandering this earth (actually, more than a million in the US alone). I would prefer if the IVF process didn’t often result in non-viable or non-implanted embryos. And I would also prefer that the success rate was higher than it currently is. But I don’t regret for one minute the decisions my daughter made. If you think this makes me an immoral person, that is your opinion and you are entitled to hold it. But as I mentioned, I have no obligation to accept or care about your opinion.

    But I think I have talked enough about this subject. I am obviously not going to change your mind, and you aren’t going to change mine. Any more discussion would be futile as we would not be engaging in a discussion, we would just both be sermonizing.

  72. 72
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, I assume you are opposed to all IVF processes. True?

    Is every embryo started in vitro, outside the womb, and later discarded for whatever reason a murder?

  73. 73
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, in short, you are an enabler of holocaust. Sad. KF

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, the willful destruction of innocent human life is inexcusable, period. Anything that manifests such is wrong. KF

  75. 75
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: the willful destruction of innocent human life is inexcusable, period.

    What do you think about bypassing due process and the constitutional processes as is clearly being demonstrated by Trump supporters in the US capitol?

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, neat side track attempt. You know that I have long been on record that riot is never justified in any reasonably lawful state. Of course, when I was pointing that out all summer [including a specific scriptural case Ac 19] you were conspicuously missing in action on the point across a summer of red guard colour/culture revolution rioting which has been material to industrial scale election fraud that now is opening up into posing an existential threat to liberty; with incalculable but very bad consequences to follow. Meanwhile, you clearly have nothing substantial to answer to the horrific reality of the worst holocaust in history, proceeding under colour of law. Duly noted. KF

Leave a Reply