Welcome to my new WordPress blog. I’m still working out the quircks in the design (e.g. the italics in the sidebar and footer).
I’ve got all the posts categorized, and the About page set up. Feel free to read some of the previous posts in the new typeset.
Axinar wrote a post about abortion in his blog. It started when I said that Andrea Yates’ killing of her five children was not an insane act, but a desperately wicked act. Then I said that, “there are many, many, mothers who kill their own children, and no one calls them insane. In fact, the government even helps them. It’s called abortion: the now legal murdering of a mother’s children by her willing consent.” That comment got Axinar going, and he published a lengthy response to me about abortion. Here is my answering comment (which ended up being as large as his post):
Are you saying that I quote the Bible a lot, or that I’m solid in my position, or that I present the evidence and (if I do say so myself) win the argument?
BTW, your link to the Marie Claire article is invalid. If you could get that working, I could understand your points more.
Some women have “post-partum depression” where they are fairly dehabilitated, but there are very few women who are unable to take care of their baby. So you are questioning the intelligence of those women that regretted having an abortion by saying that they didn’t remember the circumstances.
“Lifelong grinding poverty?” That’s an extreme generalization. There are many single mothers that survive easily. They can also marry. Besides, with today’s government welfare and private charity, very few people are “grindingly poor.”
“Health risks staggeringly greater than abortion?” Not with today’s technology and techniques.
“Bringing more humans into an already over-crowded world.” You’re talking about cities, Western Europe, China, and Japan. In every other part of the world there’s room for more people. There is such a surplus of food that the prices are so low that farmers have to rely on government subsidies.
If the mother does not want the child, (or if it was an “accidental” pregnancy) adoption is a wonderful way to give unwanted children a home with parents who can’t have any, or want more children.
Your answer “no” to those questions is purely opinion.
“Do we consider a miscarriage a death by natural causes?”
Yes, we do. Once the sperm and ovum unite, that is a human being. It is very small, but it is a human being. If it is human being and it miscarries, then that is a death by natural causes, rather than man-made causes in abortion.
“Do we name a miscarriage?”
Yes, we do. My mother miscarried two babies, Jonah and Jirah. Babies were traditionally named, even if they died. Many mothers still do today.
“Do we cremate or bury a miscarriage?”
In ceremony some people do. Of course it is optional, but it doesn’t really matter.
“Do the cells a woman passes in a miscarriage constitute a human being?”
Yes, they do. They contain all the genes for a human being. They comprise a human being, even though he/she is very small.
The cells cannot survive outside the mother’s womb, they need to be protected, just as a little child cannot be expected to balance his finances to provide food and shelter for himself. But the cells are still fully human.
“Legalized abortion SAVES lives - the lives of [single mothers, etc.]”
So you’re saying that if you have a child you’re destined to die early? That’s just false.
“…countless millions who either aren’t ready or have absolutely no business being parents in the first place”
In the first place, those who aren’t ready (or “who have no business” trying) to have a baby should not even have sex. In the second place, if the person has a baby but doesn’t want it, adoption is a perfectly valid option, as I explained before.
Two of the favorite appellations leftist liberals use to describe conservatives are “NAZI!” and “FASCIST!” In doing this, liberals show that they don’t want to pay attention to history. They just blurt out what sounds interesting and incriminating against Bush and Republicans. They don’t examine the sharp contrasts between Nazis and Conservatives, Hitler and Bush, Germany in the 1930s and America in 2006. The fact that they (and the MSM) are even permitted to rant and rave about this is proof in itself that we are not equal to the Nazis. We are far from the condition Germany was in under Hitler.
Fascists, Nazis, and practically every other totalitarian dictatorship stifle all dissent to their regimes. They take control of all media outlets and sources of information. They take over and/or direct the companies to do their will. They carry out their agenda with brutal force and intimidation. They use the military for operations on the people, as well as to expand their domain. They consolidate all control of government in a central location. They create a one-party system with fake, staged elections.
Does any of this sound like the Bush administration or conservativism? Just because they tapped phone calls and Internet records (which is not very kosher, I’ll admit) looking for terrorists doesn’t mean that they are Nazis. It means that they overstepped their authority. The New York Times and all the leftist bloggers are free to criticize Bush as much as they want. The Bush administration has not imposed military rule over the country; they have not instituted a secret police; they have not gotten rid of the Democratic Party, they still acknowledge state and local governments.
We have a Constitution that is designed to keep people from taking totalitarian power. But liberals are doing all they can to ignore or “interpret” away those restrains on a central, broad government. One of the main points of conservativism is limited government. Liberals today are working toward socialism, which takes more of our freedoms away and resembles Fascism much more than conservativism. But we don’t call them Nazis, because that would not be completely accurate. (It is also considered and insult, as well. No one who is interested in a sensible discussion should insult the other side wrongly.)
If you disagree with the President, disagree with the President, (so do I on some issues) don’t slander him or characterize him as something he is not. Articulate your thoughts and pay attention to history as you make comparisons. Remember, he is our President, and he deserves respect as such.
This is the original Bill Keller quote from the interview with CBS that Michelle Malkin made semi-famous:
“…if you’re under the impression that the press is neutral in this war on terror, or that we’re agnostic—and you could get that impression from some of the criticism—that couldn’t be more wrong. We have people traveling on the front lines with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve had people who’ve been murdered in trying to figure out the terrorist threat. You know, we live in cities that are targets, proven targets, for the terrorists. So we—we’re not neutral in this.”
Bill Keller, the editor of The New York Times, is obviously not clear on the situation. The Times does not need to “figure out the terrorist threat,” it needs to report what is going on. The terrorist threat was figured out on (and before) 9/11. Government officials are the ones who figure out what terrorists are up to, and The Times is not helping that effort at all by revealing the ways in which we fight terror, and thereby helping the murderers of those Times reporters that Keller was talking about.
Of course you always have that last clause: “…we’re not neutral in this.” Keller does not specify which side he is on, if he’s not neutral. It certainly is not clear that he’s on the American side, since he’s published nothing that congratulates our forces or helps them. There’s also nothing to signify that he’s not on the terrorist side, since he uncovers national secrets to the advantage of organizations like Al-Qaeda.
I highly recommend A Basic History of the United States, by Clarence B. Carson. It is a good sum-up of United States history from the early 1600s till the beginning of 2001. Comprising six volumes, it would be useful for those of you who want to brush up on American history. He has written other books as well that go into economics, government, communism, etc.
Carson goes through all of American history and examines the development of political theory, capitalism, and American culture. The books contain some very intriguing ideas about what could have happened. I draw on many of those ideas for posts. For example, he had a short paragraph that postulated what could have happened if government hadn’t funded the development of railroads so much. I extrapolated on that point in my post, “Railroads and the Civil War.”
Rousas J. Rushdoony is also very insightful on a number of subjects. I drew on his knowledge for a number of posts, for example “Voting in the early 1800s.”
If you’re looking for some good reading, I highly recommend their writings.
Answers in Genesis has an article that reports the story of one professor in a prominent American university who taught a class that examined evolution fully with all the arguments for and against it. The university, professor, and students are all anonymous for reasons of the professor’s job security, etc.
The students’ comments and the survey at the bottom of the page show handily that if you look closely at the facts and consider all the evidence, evolution does not make much sense.
I hope more classes like this will be taught in other universities.
Muslims have twisted a word that previously was respectable, and turned into something vile and filthy.
The word martyr comes from a Greek word meaning “witness”. The Early Church adopted the word to describe those Christians who died as a result of “witnessing” for Christ. These were people who were evangelizing, or just refusing to bow down before the Roman emperor or his gods. They were given a mock trial and promptly killed in a number of ways if they didn’t recant.
The Roman Catholic Church also increased the number of martyrs in the 1500s and onward by murdering thousands of Protestants all over Europe. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was one of the worst and most infamous of these slaughters.
There continue to be many martyrs today that die under Communist regimes, and other repressive governments. Islam has been a major source of severe persecution in recent decades, with the butchering of converts and missionaries. The Hindus in India torched several church buildings in that country over the June-July weekend, as well as killing or maiming pastors and congregants.
You can see the history of this word and the people that have been killed for their faith, but the Muslims have perverted the word and applied it to their horrible activities. The way Muslims become martyrs is by strapping themselves up with a bomb and committing suicide, while killing countless other people who they view as infidels who have no right to live. There are other ways, such as dying in a jihad, while fanatically shooting an AK-47 at soldiers while being protected behind a wall of women and children. The Islamic clerics and imams assure them that by doing this they will gain salvation.
This behavior is not martyrdom; it is suicide by fanatical people who have been deceived by their local mosque. Christianity does not tell its followers to commit suicide; it does not tell people that dying in a holy war can save them. (The Roman Catholic Church promised this in the Crusades to willing knights, but that was because the old pope needed the money and prestige. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that dying in war can save you.) Christianity tells its followers to evangelize, to live their lives in the service of Christ, to follow the Bible, and to worship God and Him alone. For these reasons persecutors throughout the ages have murdered Christians.
Islam has polluted a term to describe valiant Christians, and warped it to describe fanatical Muslims.
Recent Comments