A Tale of three marches . . .

These following examples are also particularly good for demonstrating how 'form' is simply not reducible to any material particulars within the body that Darwinists may appeal to:

DNA doesn’t even tell teeth what they should look like - April 3, 2014 Excerpt: A friend writes to mention a mouse experiment where developing tooth buds were moved so that the incisors and the molars were switched. The tooth buds became the tooth appropriate to the switched location, not the original one, in direct contrast to what we would expect from a gene’centric view. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dna-doesnt-even-tell-teeth-what-they-should-look-like/ If DNA really rules (morphology), why did THIS happen? - April 2014 Excerpt: Researchers implanted human embryonic neuronal cells into a mouse embryo. Mouse and human neurons have distinct morphologies (shapes). Because the human neurons feature human DNA, they should be easy to identify. Which raises a question: Would the human neurons implanted in developing mouse brain have a mouse or a human morphology? Well, the answer is, the human neurons had a mouse morphology. They could be distinguished from the mouse ones only by their human genetic markers. If DNA really ruled, we would expect a human morphology. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-dna-really-rules-why-did-this-happen/ What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean "Last year I had a fair chunk of my nose removed in skin cancer surgery (Mohs). The surgeon took flesh from a nearby area to fill in the large hole he’d made. The pictures of it were scary. But in the healing process the replanted cells somehow ‘knew’ how to take a different shape appropriate for the new location so that the nose now looks remarkably natural. The doctor said he could take only half the credit because the cells somehow know how to change form for a different location (though they presumably still follow the same DNA code) . — I’m getting the feeling that we’ve been nearly as reductionist in the 20-21st century as Darwin and his peers were when they viewed cells as little blobs of jelly." leodp - UD blogger

This failure of Darwinists to explain 'form' occurs at a very low level too. That is to say, although Darwinists have no clue how a particular organism may achieve its final 'form', this failure of Darwinists to explain form occurs at the very low level of proteins and DNA too. First off, there are now found to be a large percentage of "intrinsically disordered proteins," or IDPs.

Biology's Quiet Revolution - Jonathan Wells - September 8, 2014 Excerpt: In 1996, biologists discovered a protein that does not fold into a unique shape but can assume different shapes when it interacts with other molecules. Since then, many such proteins have been found; they are called "intrinsically disordered proteins," or IDPs. IDPs are surprisingly common, and their disordered regions play important functional roles.,,, So it is not true that biologists know all the basic features of living cells and are merely filling in the details. Nor is it true that Darwinian evolution is a settled scientific "fact," as its defenders claim. Huge unanswered questions remain, and they will only be answered by going beyond the discredited myth that "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/biologys_quiet_089651.html podcast - Dr. Jonathan Wells: Biology’s Quiet Revolution - September 17, 2014 "We are talking about 1/3 of the proteins in our body, (could be Intrinsically Disordered Proteins)" - Jonathan Wells http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/idtf/2014/09/dr-jonathan-wells-biologys-quiet-revolution/

Secondly, protein folding is now found to belong to the world of quantum mechanics and not to belong to the world of classical mechanics as was, and is, presupposed in Darwinian thought

Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Today, Luo and Lo say these curves can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair. By conventional thinking, a chain of amino acids can only change from one shape to another by mechanically passing though various shapes in between. But Luo and Lo say that if this process were a quantum one, the shape could change by quantum transition, meaning that the protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/

As well, DNA itself is also found to belong to the world of quantum mechanics and not to belong to the world of classical mechanics as was, and is, presupposed in Darwinian thought

Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/the-dna-mystery-scientists-baffled-by-telepathic-abilities.html "What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state." Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it) https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

bornagain77

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

07:34 AM

7

07

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Simply put, personhood, or 'real people' as Bob put it, can only be grounded within Theism, particularly within the transcendent unifying 'soul' that Theism postulates for the material body

“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” - George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,

The unifying concept of 'Personhood' for the material body simply finds no place for grounding within atheistic materialism: Although some people may assume that the process by which a a single cell is transformed into a fully grown human body, of approx 100 trillion cells, is well understood scientifically, the following expert disagrees. He holds that embryogenesis, i.e. that transformation of one cell into the trillions of cells that comprise the human body is, as he puts it, "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity",,,

"It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - Casey Luskin - March 22, 2012 - (with video) Excerpt: "The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity." - Alexander Tsiaras http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a057741.html

The following leading researcher admits much the same point and states that it is not known how "an organism maintains its biological status quo".

Biology faces a quantum leap into the incomprehensible - 2010 Excerpt: Understanding how the different parts of the body process information and then distribute it is the next task facing modern biology, says Sir Paul Nurse,,, How does homeostasis – the mechanism by which an organism maintains its biological status quo – work? And how do cells communicate with each other? Understanding these networks will reveal "a strange, counterintuitive world", insists Nurse, Sir Paul Nurse won the 2001 Nobel prize for physiology for his work on the role of DNA in cell division and took up the presidency of the Royal Society at the end of 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/nov/12/biology-quantum-leap

Moreover, although Darwinists have not demonstrated the origin of a single protein molecule by unguided Darwinian processes,,,

Conversations with Douglas Axe: What is the Search Problem? (10^40 cells that have existed on earth, 1 in 10^74 chance for finding a functional protein fold) https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3-MQT4SEaLNloU5v2poZKf&v=qwFi_2YZa_c

Although Darwinists have not demonstrated the origin of a single protein molecule by unguided Darwinian processes, even if Darwinists could explain the origin of new proteins by unguided Darwinian processes, that still would not go one micro-meter towards explaining how the approx. billion-trillion protein molecules of the human body know how and when to do the things they do in their part in keeping the human body alive. The following article gives us small glimpse of the huge 'elephant in the living room' problem that is never honestly addressed by most Internet atheists or Darwinists in general:

HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

Simply put, the 'form' that any particular organism may take simply is not reducible to any material particulars. "Form" is not even, to the consternation of Darwinists, reducible to DNA as Darwinists hold in the 'central dogma' of the modern synthesis which holds that "DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us."

Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html

In fact, Dr. Jonathan Wells observes that it is now shown that, completely contrary to Darwinian thought, " It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism."

Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html

Here are two examples that get Dr. Wells's point across fairly dramatically:

Extreme Genome Repair - 2009 Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319128/ In the lab, scientists coax E. coli to resist radiation damage - March 17, 2014 Excerpt: ,,, John R. Battista, a professor of biological sciences at Louisiana State University, showed that E. coli could evolve to resist ionizing radiation by exposing cultures of the bacterium to the highly radioactive isotope cobalt-60. "We blasted the cultures until 99 percent of the bacteria were dead. Then we'd grow up the survivors and blast them again. We did that twenty times," explains Cox. The result were E. coli capable of enduring as much as four orders of magnitude more ionizing radiation, making them similar to Deinococcus radiodurans, a desert-dwelling bacterium found in the 1950s to be remarkably resistant to radiation. That bacterium is capable of surviving more than one thousand times the radiation dose that would kill a human. http://www.news.wisc.edu/22641

bornagain77

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

07:32 AM

7

07

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob O'H, who just so happens to already be out of the womb and not to be an unborn baby, claims that the present day 'holocaust' of abortion is okay with him personally since it involves 'real people',,,

"Perhaps because this “holocaust” involves women – real people – and surely they have rights too? Like the right to have control over their bodies?"

Yet despite the fact that Bob O'H apparently believes women are 'real people' and unborn babies are somehow not 'real people', the fact of the matter is that according to the philosophy of atheistic materialism, which underpins Darwinian thought, there are no 'real people'. According to the atheistic materialism of Darwinian evolution, that Bob O’H himself believes in, women are not real people. Babies are not real people, Bob O’H himself is not a 'real person'. According to atheistic materialism, there are just randomly colliding particles which just so happen to be in the configuration of what we artificially term to be a person. In atheistic materialism, the concept of 'real persons' is a illusion. As Origenes eloquently summed it up in his post yesterday:

,,, Similarly a human being, made from fermions and bosons, may present itself to us as one indivisible thing with its own intentions, but in fact there is nothing over and beyond fermions and bosons which care about neither human beings nor their intentions. The illusion of an intentional personal human being is produced by unintentional impersonal fermions and bosons. To be clear, from a materialistic view point, wrt a human being, there is no person and there are no intentions. Origenes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-inane-beliefs-of-atheistsmaterialists/#comment-624070

As well, Dr. Dennis Bonnette shows, at 37:51 minute mark of following video, that according to the law of identity, Richard Dawkins does not exist as a 'real person':

Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: "It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren't in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe,, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn't undergone what metaphysicians call a 'substantial change'. So you aren't Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren't any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That's why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, "You know, I'm not really here". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

In the following debate and article, Dawkins's himself agrees with Dr. Dennis Bonnette assessment that he is not a 'real person' but is merely an illusion:

At the 23:33 minute mark of the following debate, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s 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/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

But you don't have to take Dawkins's, Dr. Dennis Bonnette's, Origenes's, or my word for it, here are many other leading atheists admitting that, according to the premises atheistic materialism which they adamantly believe to be true, 'real people' are illusions.

“I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.” Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0 Eagleton on Baggini on free will Excerpt: "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/eagleton-on-baggini-on-free-will/ "The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak." [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist's Guide To Reality, Ch.9] “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER - Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection - 2004 https://www.scribd.com/document/183053947/Experience-Meta-consciousness-and-the-Paradox-of-Introspection "that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick - "The Astonishing Hypothesis" 1994 “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.” Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

Of related note, there is a long history of atrocities being committed by societies against certain people groups within those societies. People groups which those societies had 'legally' deemed to be 'non-persons'

8 Horrific Times People Groups Were Denied Their Humanity - July 02, 2014 Excerpt: According to Ernst Fraenkel, a German legal scholar, the Reichsgericht, the highest court in Germany, was instrumental in depriving Jewish people of their legal rights. In a 1936 Supreme Court decision, “the Reichsgericht refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense.” Nazis described Jews as Untermenschen, or subhumans to justify exterminating them. http://www.personhood.com/8_horrific_times_people_groups_were_denied_their_humanity

And indeed, in present day America unborn children, the most vulnerable of people in our society, are presently denied the legal status of personhood,,

Unborn children as constitutional persons. - 2010 Excerpt: In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." To which Justice Harry Blackmun responded, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." However, Justice Blackmun then came to the conclusion "that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." In this article, it is argued that unborn children are indeed "persons" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20443281

My question to Bob O'H and his fellow atheistic materialists is this, "Since, under the law, you are only guaranteed the right to life if you are legally considered a 'real person', and since atheistic materialists themselves deny that they are 'real people', ought it to be legal in America to kill Atheists since they are, by their own admission, 'non-persons? If not, why not?"bornagain77

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

07:31 AM

7

07

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: On Agit prop. this often looks at abuse of arts and literature for propaganda purposes. What is not so readily seen is when the media can become complicit, the use of marches and rioting becomes street theatre spinning out a narrative that is then used to drive discussion and shape opinions and views. This even extends to the court room or parliament, especially when false narratives are used to shape law and its enforcement. Plato long ago pointed out, through his parable of the cave, how a whole community's life, ideology, sense of its identity and past etc, can be twisted into a cynical shadow-show . . . agitprop culture. KFkairosfocus

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

07:17 AM

7

07

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BOH at 2

Perhaps because this “holocaust” involves women – real people – and surely they have rights too? Like the right to have control over their bodies?

Shouldn't someone tell these women that they not only have the right to take control over their own bodies, they have the obligation to take control over their own bodies and not get pregnant unless they want a child. Because as soon as they become pregnant, they are responsible for two lives. Someone should make the father aware of this as well. But, alas, as long as we have laws based on the (obviously false) belief (based on fake science) that we are all here because of sheer dumb luck, I guess this won't ever change.awstar

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

06:19 AM

6

06

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Very good post, KF. The dehumanizing of children - the most vulnerable and defenseless is a predictable outcome of evolutionary nihilism. The March for Life will bring many women (very many are quite young) to Washington, whereas the Women's March was meant to display a solidarity, while ignoring or rejecting the many women who oppose abortion. That's the propaganda at work where people claim to speak for "women" -- but that really means only for those women who support legal abortion. Violence from the radical left is also a predictable outcome.Silver Asiatic

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

04:48 AM

4

04

48

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bob O`H - Bob its not their own bodies, as I have not yet seen a women and her close friends and relatives upset when she has had her tonsils removed or her appendics out, but when the same women has a miscarriage at 20 weeks why then the upset and sadness , because she has just lost her child. Also the hypocrisy of the position of those who want unlimited abortion rights, who accuse Christians of being sexist, homophobic, racist, but want to allow women to abort their children for any reason they chose, be the child be female, or if a Caucasian woman has slept with an African man but does not want a mixed race child ,or if science ever discovers the so called gay gene, women can abort their child because it will be gay.So tell me who are the sexists, homophobic, racists who murder their children for any bigoted , selfish reason they choose.Marfin

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

02:13 AM

2

02

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BO'H: there is not and cannot ever be a 'right' to shed innocent blood. I suggest to you that you ponder how you and many others have come to the benumbed point where you de-humanise our posterity in the womb to the point where you imagine there is a 'right' to shed their innocent blood. For just one instance, half the time the unborn child in the womb is not even the same sex as his mother -- the "their own bodies" talking point is agitprop rubbish. For shame! Wake up, man! KF PS: Here is the woe spoken against such a sick civilisation as ours:

Isa 5:18 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who drag along wickedness with cords of falsehood, And sin as if with cart ropes [towing their own punishment]; 19 Who say, “Let Him move speedily, let Him expedite His work [His promised vengeance], so that we may see it; And let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel approach And come to pass, so that we may know it!” 20 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever and shrewd in their own sight! 22 Woe (judgment is coming) to those who are heroes at drinking wine And men of strength in mixing intoxicating drinks, 23 Who justify the wicked and acquit the guilty for a bribe, And take away the rights of those who are in the right! 24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire consumes the stubble [from straw] And the dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away like fine dust; Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts And despised and discarded the word of the Holy One of Israel. [AMP]

kairosfocus

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

01:26 AM

1

01

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

How have we come to such a sad pass as a civilisation, in which the ongoing holocaust at a rate of a million unborn children per week is twisted into a “right” and those who have challenged this are regarded as enemies next to the Nazis?

Perhaps because this "holocaust" involves women - real people - and surely they have rights too? Like the right to have control over their bodies?Bob O'H

January 23, 2017

January

01

Jan

23

23

2017

12:16 AM

12

12

16

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

On implications of burning limos and "kitty-ear" knitted cap marches vs the upcoming annual march for life.kairosfocus

January 22, 2017

January

01

Jan

22

22

2017

11:57 PM

11

11

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link