—
Re. Hillary’s tears: One of my employees is a Certified Fraud Examiner and studies some interesting things. For what it is worth, he had this to say:
I was watching the Hillary Clinton crying incident on the news last night.
While on vacation I was reading a book on body language and detecting lies and deceit.
If a person looks down and to the right (as you face the subject) it indicates that the subject is creating a physical feeling not experiencing a remembered feeling.
Throughout this entire segment, she was looking down and to the right. This is a tell tale sign that the feeling was a created experience (or better known as a lie) not a real emotion.
—
The origins and history of the Golden Rule - you may be surprised where it was written down first!
—
Answers to silly pro-abortion choice questions and More answers to silly pro-abortion choice questions. Here’s a sample:
Should fertilized eggs and embryos get social security numbers? What benefits should they be entitled to?
Social security numbers are assigned in order to gain some form of benefit for a child. The only benefit that the prenatal human being is looking for is not to be intentionally killed in their mother’s womb. Therefore, the answer is no.
Theobromophile did a great job of debunking these at the original post.
—
God, where are you? (After I’ve spent all this energy chasing you away and denying you.)
—
Filed under: Weekly roundup | Tagged: Bible, christianity, God, Jesus, Pro-life, religion
Thank you, Neil.
That “Thank you” is for more than the link-love. I do question my sanity when it’s only me, fighting other people. While I fully understand that the majority is not the standard upon which we judge our morality, when the majority tells you that you are a horrible, terrible, evil person and mocks you with utter cruelty, it gets tough.
The “thank you” is also for setting a good example. There has been the occasional WWND – “What Would Neil Do?” or rather, “How would Neil respond to this?”
Okay, it’s definitely been a WTH day (or two days) since I made the grave, grave error of trying to respond to Jill’s idea that we determine human rights based upon logistics. There’s only so many times I can be called “too dense for words” until it gets under my skin – and even fewer times that (hopefully? ideally? designed to be?) rational, thoughtful responses are greeted with utter cruelty and derision before I start to think I’m the one who has gone off the deep end.
Also, thanks for linking to LTI. Good responses – a lot of it overlaps with what I said. I linked to them, and to Jay’s post about the morality of bean-counting as a mechanism for determining human rights.
Neil,
Theo is right, you do set a good example. I don’t see how you do it. All of this atheist and morality stuff makes me tired. It is one thing to be prepared to tell people the reason for your belief, and quite another to try to defend it against people who don’t really care about your reasons, they just want to deny them.
As for somebody who would call Theobromphile “too dense for words”, I’m too dense to find words to express my opion of them. I rank her as one the the brightest people I have read, and I have read quite widely.
Apparently I’m also too dense to spell Theobromophile.
Sincere thanks to you both, I appreciate that!
Theobromophile, hope you don’t mind me jumping in over there. My last comment is pasted below. I’m sure I just made about a thousand enemies for life (pun not originally intended, but I noticed it and decided to keep it).
“When someone calls Theobromophile “x$%#^@* dense,” I have a term for their accusation: “Concession speech.”
She is the pro-abortionists’ worst nightmare: A brilliant, non-theist woman.
(Written by a not-so-brilliant Christian man, whose views on this topic are often dismissed out of bigotry.)”
Neil and Theo,
The link to http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/01/03/even-more-questions-for-pro-lifers/
gives me a:
The page you are looking for might have been removed,
had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
E.I.
It worked for me… *shrugs*
Hillary would be irrelevant if it weren’t for the press and her husband. Unless the Republican winner is Romney or Paul (I’m sure it won’t be the latter), I can’t wait to see her get fried in one-on-one debate. Then she’ll probably mock up some tears and complain how the GOP nominee is “sexist” like those guys who wanted her to iron their shirts.
Thanks, Neil. I saw that you tried to wade in there and got attacked. They didn’t even wait for you to write anything worthy of analysis; they just went for the jugular. That’s what animals do….
Thank you again. By the way, saw this response and was ROFL:
Um… I read the first few and wondered – how can any moderately intelligent person think that a human is not a person?! Oh, right – slaveholders.
Hey, I know lots of people who died whose deaths weren’t investigated post-mortem. Neil, I’m sure that your wife’s miscarriages were not investigated to detemrine that they were not, in fact, late-term abortions. Wow!
Oh, and on that note, I’ve also seen that consent to driving is consent to showing your driver’s license… that consent to sex for men is consent to child support… that consent for sperm use, without going through a sperm bank, is consent to child support… that holding yourself out as the father, regardless of contracts or biology, is consent to child support… that consent to pregnancy for the first six months is consent for the next three months, during which abortion is illegal….
Causes and effects. I apparently, though, am too (*&@#$& dense to understand that pregnancy is special! because feminists say so.
/rant
Boy, Tough crowd over at Feministe. I’m glad I’m not in their list
.
Another great weekly round up. Maybe I will make another weekly round up on of these days. I can’t believe my John Edwards post wasn’t worthy.
http://jjkaiser.blogspot.com
Thanks for keeping up the fight Neil!..have a beautiful weekend my friend~!
Wow, those Feministe folks were a treat. All sorts of bad arguments and endless attacking the person. Collectively, they make the Raiding Party look like Miss Manners.
My favorite was the guy who thinks a sperm is the same value as an unborn child, and who thinks he’s Mr. Feminist and sort-of thinks gender selection abortions are bad, but wouldn’t legislate against them and can’t explain why.
And of course, how they insist that we “force” women to be pregnant. Please try to stop doing that, Theobromophile!
Oh, and I supposedly don’t care about children because I won’t vote to send your money to pay for universal health care.
My favorite was the guy who thinks a sperm is the same value as an unborn child
It’s alive. It’s separate. It’s human. These are your own arguments for the “human being” status of a fetus. Again, you would deprive a sperm of its humanity because it only has 23 chromosomes? (Hint: you can say yes, but I can just as equally call you inhuman because you do so.)
After all, what is the difference between a zygote and a sperm? 23 chromosomes? Two sex chromosomes? Why do you draw the line at human life so arbitrarily? My unborn sperm are people, too. (And yes, I am mocking you, because your logic is risible, as I said before.)
People are born, not in the process of becoming born. My sperm, a woman’s egg, these are also unborn living human entities. There is no reason not to call them human beings as long as you call a zygote a human being and act like that means something.
Neil said: People are conceived, not in the process of being conceived. A fetus is a human being at a particular stage of development, no different than toddler to adolescent or teen to adult. She just has a different size and location, neither of which impact her worth.
And of course, how they insist that we “force” women to be pregnant.
Not allowing someone to abort forces only one option. Guess which option. (Of course, in a truly pro-life nation, there is another option, which numerous women will take, that will involve either a coat hanger, an back-alley doctor, or a random person who thinks they know what they are doing). I hope you never live to see your pro-life nation, because, in pro-life nations, women die, and their fetuses die too. In larger percentages than in America currently.
Neil said: Yes, and you “force” people to remain parents by insisting that they actually take care of their children and punish them for abusing them.
We used to have a pro-life nation. Compare the STDs, divorce rate, kids without fathers, etc. The sexual revolution, of which abortion is a great part, was a complete disaster.
you may be surprised where it was written down first!
Oh, no, that is not the case, It’s not a surprise that the first recorded instance of the golden rule (albeit crudely articulated, and very racist) was in Leviticus. The surprise is the assertion of religious people that Confucius and Hindu articulations of the same principle were influenced by a culture with which they had no contact. Being first is exemplary, though again, the original statement was not applicable to all people. Granted, neither were the Hindu statements, though the Confucius statement could be taken as egalitarian were it not within the hierarchical society of ancient China.
I still, regardless of any assertions to tradition or what have you, take secular humanism as the pinnacle of human ethics. Divine command theory has nothing on rational ethics, as Euthyphro’s Dilemma proves.
Neil said: Yes, the pinnacle of human ethics (one of those ironic truths, I suppose), where destroying your unborn child is some sort of positive political statement, and a feminist one at that (even if you kill her just because she’s female).
Hi Jack, thanks for stopping by.
Dogmatically insisting that a sperm is equal in value to a 5 mo. old fetus, for example, might score you points at Feministe but will win us most of the middle ground votes. Many thanks for that. That argument wouldn’t even have worked a few decades ago, but with the advent of ultrasounds and 4-D ultrasounds it looks worse by the day.
Re. your faux feminism which can’t even say that gender selection abortions are wrong (you started to say they were wrong, then realized your gross inconsistency and dug in your heels), consider these words from a real feminist, and one who didn’t even have the advantage of 4-D ultrasounds:
Early feminists were pro-life. Susan B. Anthony’s newspaper viewed women having abortions as a symptom of a lack of equality, not the proof of equality.
She called abortion “child murder.”
“When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged.”
“[Is the woman] guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! Thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”
Why should women have to be willing to kill their unborn children to prove they are equal to men?
—
By the way, did you guess correctly about the http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/planned-parenthood-vs-planned-parenthood/ trivia contest? They used to think that abortion killed a child. I wonder what scientific discovery convinced them otherwise?
“Why do you draw the line at human life so arbitrarily?”
As opposed to drawing the line between head inside the woman, head outside the woman. Yes, that’s a great place to draw the line.
Jack said: ” I hope you never live to see your pro-life nation, because, in pro-life nations, women die, and their fetuses die too. In larger percentages than in America currently.”
I would be interested in seeing valid statistics to support your statement that more women and fetuses die in pro-life nations than in America.
Because wherever you heard that, you’ve been grossly misinformed. And I’m sure you wouldn’t just grab that out of thin air and post it to try to justify your position on abortion.
Ha! Hi Tammi.
Ms. Green – My guess is that the country data Jack is referring to isn’t apples/apples to our culture at all. He should compare it to pre-Roe v. Wade America, where abortion deaths were 39 in one year. The death rate went down dramatically with the advent of antibiotics.
Of course, it should still be illegal since it kills an innocent human being.
Thank you, Tammi.
You’re always welcome to join in. Sometimes, a simple argument (“It’s a life, and human beings are too precious to slaughter like this”) keeps the discussion on track. You can get lost in the moral philosophising, and it really does help when someone steps in and centers the debate again.
Nothin’ wrong with a 1-2 punch…
I’m glad I’m not the only one who suspects Hillary played the crying game.
As for abortion, it may burden my conscience to support it, but it would also burden my conscience to subject a child to a lifetime of physical suffering…catch 22 for me.