Free debating tips for pro-legalized abortionists

I probably shouldn’t help pro-legalized abortion advocates with their arguments, but our reasoning is so strong that I’m willing to aid them.  Plus, it will save us time in not having to refute so many bad arguments.

Here are some free tips.  Before you type another pro-legalized abortion argument:

  1. Ask yourself what the science textbooks affirm.  Science can be wrong, but it is so unanimous in this case that you should have strong scientific and logical arguments of your own if you are taking the opposite view – especially when the scientific argument is the opposite of the politically correct argument (I emphasized that in anticipation of the  “but you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution” claim).  If you don’t believe the fact of science that the unborn are distinct human beings then I’m not sure why you’d believe anything in science.  And it isn’t like these scientists are biased against abortion.  They probably favor it, but they have the intellectual integrity to state the obvious: A new human being is created at conception.  Therefore, skip any arguments insisting that the unborn aren’t human, are just a bunch of cells that become human later, etc.
  2. Ask yourself whether your argument would also justify killing unwanted humans outside the womb.  If so, you might want to try another angle.  This will eliminate the appeals to viability, dependency, awareness, etc. because infants and others wouldn’t meet some or all of those.  This is the “trot out the toddler” argument.
  3. Ask yourself if the argument addresses the same thing for the rights of human beings in the womb.  If not, you have assumed what you should be proving.  This will eliminate most of your arguments, such as delivering the baby could impact the mother’s economic status / education / career / romantic life / etc. Those reasons may add psychological / emotional complexity to the situation, but they don’t justify killing human beings outside the womb.  Therefore, they don’t justify killing human beings inside the womb.
  4. Remember that your “unborn humans are parasites!” argument makes you look foolish to the middle ground, it fails factually and logically on several levels and it puts you in the position of supporting the killing of fully delivered babies that are still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord (you might be in favor of that, but it isn’t the kind of thing that scores you points in front of undecided people).
  5. Don’t ever play the “most pregnancies end in miscarriage” card, because it fails mightily and contradicts your premise.  First, know that most people understand the difference between someone outside the womb being murdered versus dying of natural causes, and they also understand the difference between deliberate destruction inside the womb and a miscarriage.  Second, using your logic women should never have abortions because miscarriages would be so likely.  Why spend all that money on a risky medical procedure if it will likely happen anyway for free?
  6. Determine whether professional pro-abortionists have already conceded the points you are trying to make.  If so, you probably shouldn’t use those arguments. Here’s an example from one of the most radically pro-abortion people in the country (he even supports infanticide):

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

I hope this helps make your debates more productive!

Thoughts on tithing: Something to offend everyone!


It is stewardship campaign season so I wanted to rerun this post from 2008, which had an interesting comment thread.  I’m also adding this link describing a plan for giving generously.  The four suggestions were simple and excellent.  One that has worked well for us is the Lifestyle Cap:

Lifestyle cap.  As we earn more, we should give more. If you are wealthier than you used to be, have you done more to increase your standard of living or your standard of giving? 

Living below your means — not just within them — is a great place to be.  As you cap your lifestyle in terms of cars, housing, clothes, vacations, etc. you’ll be amazed how much more you have to give and save.


I have mixed views on the Biblical concept of tithing.  On the one hand, I think 10% is a nice, round number and a great amount for people to give.

But I don’t see New Testament support to make it a requirement for Christians, and I see many preachers take Old Testament verses that were just for the Israelites and project them onto the New Testament.  The only NT passage that I am aware of that mentions tithing is Matthew 23:23, and that was to point out the hypocrisy of the listeners (“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former”).

Also, 10% was not the upper limit for the Israelites.  My guess is that many of the people reading this could give more than that.  We’re in the richest 2% of people who ever lived, and I think that as a country we’re wasting a huge opportunity to put our wealth towards advancing the Gospel and his kingdom around the world.

Some think they can’t afford to tithe, though God expected the poorest Israelite to give 10%.  If you really want to give 10%, you can find a way.  Think of it this way: If your boss cut your pay 10%, what would you do – die?

And the hypothetical wage cut figure really isn’t 10%, since your contributions are tax deductible.  Roughly speaking, going from 0% giving to 10% would reduce your spending by roughly 8% or less.  And if you are already giving, say, 5%, then it would only impact you by 4% of your income.

Most importantly, I really don’t like to over-emphasize anything that might turn giving into a legalistic enterprise, because that can take the fun out of it.  Giving should be joyful!

2 Corinthians 9:6-7 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Yet if we really believe what Jesus said and don’t consider this next passage just a sound bite, our giving habits will reach into eternity.  Right after we die I think we’ll have some serious regrets about how we handled our money much of the time, and some serious joy over the good decisions we made.

Matthew 6:19-20 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Is that enough of a contradiction for everyone?  How do you help turn people on to the joys of giving without making it legalistic and burdensome?

Don’t be slaves to the 10% target, but don’t assume you are limited by it, either.  You may be able to give much more.  Are you taking advantage of the opportunity you have in this life to help advance God’s kingdom?

And when you give, give intentionally and give to God first.  Don’t give him what is left over.

P.S. Here’s a good article on why the often-used example of Abraham is not a good justification for requiring tithing.

Tolerance demands disagreement

I figure there are two common reactions to the title of this post.

1. Duh.

2. Huh?

I’m assuming (hoping!) you loyal readers had the first option.

By definition, you can only tolerate that with which you disagree.  Example: I like the Pittsburgh Steelers.  But if you like another team I tolerate your views.  If you are one of those kind and wonderful people who like the Steelers, then I don’t tolerate you.  Why?  Because there is nothing to tolerate.  We agree on the awesomeness of the Steelers!

Sadly, our culture has perverted the word tolerance to mean acceptance and affirmation.  But that is the opposite of the real meaning of the word.  And ironically, the same people who have changed the meaning of the word by 180 degrees are intolerant of others in the classic sense of the word.  If you disagree with them they will be very quick not to tolerate you.

Who are the children of God?


Image via Wikipedia

I was pleasantly surprised this week when a DJ on our local contemporary Christian radio station, KSBJ, made the theologically accurate point that not everyone is a child of God.  Here are some additional thoughts on that theme.


People often say we’re all God’s children.  Since He created us all in his image and every human being has worth, I suppose we have a kinship.  And those who believe in Christ didn’t do anything to earn their salvation, so it isn’t like we earned the right to be his children based on our works.

Yet if you look for the teaching that “we’re all God’s children” in the Bible you won’t find it.  Every instance I could find only references those whose faith is in Christ.  For example:

John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

Romans 9:8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus

Mark 3:32-35 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

And the extensive and important theme of being adopted by God (Romans 8-9, Galatians 4, Ephesians 1) would make no sense if we were his children from birth, because you don’t adopt those who are already your children.

Now consider these verses which point out that before our salvation we were enemies of God and objects of wrath:

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Colossians 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.

James 4:4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

The only passage that hints at the opposite view is in Acts 17, where Paul quotes a Greek author noting that we are God’s “offspring,” but that context is much more clinical and doesn’t outweigh the very specific and numerous passages elsewhere.

If I am missing any Bible verses that teach otherwise, please correct me.  I mentioned this once at church and got dirty looks.  Yet it is a clear message of scripture: You will spend eternity as a friend of God or an enemy.  Communicating the “we’re all God’s children” theme could give people a false sense of security.

Thanks be to God for the gift of his Son so that we could be reconciled to him and adopted by him!  By his grace, God adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

Breaking: Planned Parenthood hires disgraced Penn State football coaches

Press release from Planned Parenthood:

Cecille Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, announced today that the nation’s largest abortion provider will be hiring several former Penn State employees, including Joe Paterno and Scott McQueary.

“Our reasoning is simple,” said Richards.  “To maximize our profits we must perform abortions on countless victims of statutory rape.  Obeying the law and reporting the criminals is really bad for business.

While roughly half of the public has been persuaded by our sound bites that killing innocent but unwanted human beings is a civil right, we haven’t been able to convince as many that it is wrong to cover up sexual relations between 20+ year old men and underage girls.

While the Penn State employees were eventually discovered, their willingness and ability to hide child rape for so long demonstrates their commitment and usefulness to an organization with the principles of Planned Parenthood.  We are especially keen on hiring Mike McQueary, who has the unique ability to see the act in progress and not contact the authorities.  That’s the kind of dedication we need to counter those pesky pro-lifers who catch us over and over with their sneaky and unethical audios and videos.”

It is theoretically possible that the above is satire (I wish I didn’t have to write that, but you never know how people will take things).

I urge you to bring up Planned Parenthood’s long record of hiding statutory rape and sex trafficking when the Penn State topic comes up.  People are rightly sickened by the actions of the football program, yet Planned Parenthood does the same thing on a vastly wider scale and with the blessing of the Democratic Party, the media and countless fake religious people.  If your under-aged daughters were impregnated by a statutory rapist, Planned Parenthood would gladly hide the crime and destroy your grandchild (For a price, of course.  It isn’t a charity.)

Remember, your tax dollars and the rampant media bias makes this possible.  Just count the headlines and op-eds on Penn State and compare them to the coverage of Lila Rose’s video sting operation. Even the Huffington Post and Saturday Night Live can see the perversions of justice that happened at Penn State, but they ignore the systematic injustices at Planned Parenthood.

I was talking to a Liberal who was rightly blasting the Penn State situation.  I got him to agree that statutory rape is evil.  Then I explained how often Planned Parenthood had been caught hiding statutory rape.  In theory, his outrage should have been greater than it was towards the Penn State situation.  After all, the Planned Parenthood evils are for more extensive and paid for with his tax dollars.  His level of outrage: Zero.  His interest in more information or proof of my claims?  Zero.  He just changed the subject.


Hat tip for this idea: Uber-commenter Jeff E., who left this comment on the Joe Paterno post:

Change the location of the discovery of underage rape from a Penn State sports facility to a Planned Parenthood office and see just how quickly liberal media outrage over not immediately reporting such incidents to the police changes. Should we hold Planned Parenthood leadership to the same standard they want to hold Penn State officials?

That’s a perfect question to ask anyone (rightfully) complaining about the Penn State fiasco.

Darwinism definition of the day

Via Thinking Christian:

Naturalistic Evolution (def.): the marvelous (presumed) capacity of nature to create the appearance of design, and to produce beings who have the ability to design and to detect design; but which itself has no ability to design, or if it does have that ability, it is forever undetectable.

Love it.

Hat tip and commentary via The way the Ball bounces: Darwinism Defined….:

The term darwinism has both scientific and metaphysical dimensions. Metaphysically, it assumes materialism is true and then posits a theory consistent with this assumption. The problem arises when, because of this assumption, arguments are made to the effect that because materialism is true, we know darwinism is surely true and the only truth possible. Because it is true, we know it happened, and when inconvenient facts contradict it (like the demonstrably feeble creative power of undirected random mutation, the improbability of the butterfly, or the exquisite intelligence-laden complexity of the cell), it is because we don’t know enough yet. In other words, a belief in Darwin of the gaps.

Joe Paterno liked Joe Paterno. A lot.

He liked him so much that he looked the other way on a serial child rapist even when the guy was caught in the act. But contacting the authorities might have affected the reputation of Joe’s program and put his friend in jail.

Sure, Joe told his boss, but that was it.  What if it was murder instead of rape?  Would he have just notified his boss?  Really, how hard is to press 3 digits on a phone to call the police?

I’m glad that Penn State has fired those involved, including Paterno.

I’m surprised that the students rioted in defense of Paterno.  Really, kids?  The Ohio State coach was fired over what was, relatively speaking, akin to stealing a paper clip.

Sadly, those kids have probably already been victimized a second time if their abuse led them to question their sexuality, as is often the case.  The Leftists will insist that they were “born that way” and steer them from the treatment and care that could help them heal from the abuse.

There is a timeless lesson here about finishing strong and doing the right thing even if it costs you.  Joe Paterno won’t be remembered for decades of winning and the most all-time victories.  He’ll be remembered as a selfish man who put his desires over the protection of victims of child rape.  Who knows how many more victims there were because of the cover-up?

Are you ready for 11/11/11, aka Nigel Tufnel Day? It will be “one louder.”

I hope you are ready for 11/11/11!  Be sure to check your time piece at 11:11:11.

Those of you who have watched the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap will remember the clip below (Nigel Tufnel is the guitarist played by Christopher Guest).  You can join the Declare 11/11/11 Nigel Tufnel Day Facebook page if you like.


“We define poverty in an opulent way”

The title is from a must-read at Pyromaniacs: Open Letter to the #Occupy Movement.  It highlights our covetousness and greed in how we compare our state to the wrong standard.  Why does the (alleged) 99% in the U.S. compare itself to the 1% and affix the blame for all their frustrations there?  Why not compare themselves to the real 99% — the rest of the world, most of whom would love to trade places with the bottom fifth of the U.S. citizenry?


But check it out: the line where you and I would say is the line which designates the poorest of the poor is well above the per capita income of more than 85% of the world’s population.  It’s a level of income 80% greater than the per cap GDP of South Africa, 30% greater than Russia, and six times greater than that of India.

That is: we define poverty in an opulent way.  Compared to the UK in 1800, we have defined the crown of Western Civilization to that time down to a dirty little country which we would be offended to live in.  The great part about this is the punchline: it’s because we’re greedy.

That’s right: the problem is not that “they” are greedy – whoever “they” are (the bankers, the capitalists, the stock traders, but apparently not the movie moguls, the actors, the politicians and pop stars) — but that we are greedy.  We want things we didn’t earn, and we can’t imagine that we might have to live on less than we think we are entitled to.  We certainly couldn’t live on what the average Englishman lived on in1800, and may God forbid we have to live on what the average Russian or South African lives on today.  There was a time when we would say it isn’t “fair”, but today we say it’s actually an injustice — as if “justice” has anything to do with us getting something we didn’t actually earn.

I encourage you to watch this amazing video.  Incomes and life spans have gone up dramatically around the world in the last 50 years. We should be celebrating, not coveting.


From the Dave Barry “I am not making this up” category, the government gives you The Christmas Tree Tax — This is an example of everything wrong with looking to government to micro-manage our lives and economy.

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federalprogram to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

. . .

Here is government at its best: putting a tax, albeit a tiny one, on something that everyone, including the aliens who plan on destroying humanity over globull warming, knows about. There is absolutely no need for Big Government to help with marketing, research, evaluation, and information that strengthens the Christmas tree industry. Said program will probably cost more than any taxes taken in, just in administration.

The only microscopically redeeming thing is that they called them Christmas tree, not holiday trees.  That alone will probably lead to a lawsuit from the ACLU that will cost ten times the taxes they’ll collect.

The White House lied about meeting with Solyndra — did your preferred media sources tell you about that, or are they too busy giving the latest Herman Cain serial accusers 10x the press that all the Obama scandals are getting?

From the Flying Pig category, NOW (the National Organization of unaborted Women) agrees with pro-lifers — see National Organization for Women co-sponsors DC showing of “Eggsploitation”

The National Organization for Women is doing the right thing here, focusing on a very real reproductive injustice – the exploitation of young women for their eggs.

Seriously, I’m always glad for common ground like this.

Oops! Rich Got Richer Under Obama and Clinton — The title says it all.  Shhh . . . don’t tell the OWS movement that they are protesting the wrong people!

Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

So, all in all, under Clinton and Obama, the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. Hey, Occupiers, why not go protest at Obama’s houses in Washingtonand Chicago?


Simple responses to common objections

contradiction.jpgMy guess is that if you have any conversations about abortion or the definition of marriage that you encounter these objections.  They seem to have lasting rhetorical force, which is why they are used so often.  But they crumble under a little bit of analysis.

Here are some easy and bullet-proof responses.  Don’t expect answers, though.  I can almost guarantee that they will change the subject and/or attack you personally.  When they ignore them a second time you can be sure that you are dealing with a dishonest debater.

Use them politely and hopefully you’ll plant a seed.

1. Objection: “You are just forcing your beliefs on others!”

Response: Do you think murder and theft should be illegal?  If so, are you forcing your views on others?  By that definition of “forcing” all laws would be wrong.

2. Similar objection, with bonus anti-religious bigotry: “You are forcing your religious beliefs on others and we have the ‘separation of church and state.’”

  • Since the Bible says murder and theft are wrong, does that mean I’m forcing those religious beliefs on others?
  • Must I vote the opposite of my religious views, such as requiring that stealing from and murdering atheists should be legal?
  • Why are you trying to suppress my First Amendment rights?  The First Amendment explicitly protects religious and political speech, it doesn’t restrict it.
  • How does opposing the destruction of the unborn or stating that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman qualify as forcing others to join my religion?
  • Do you speak as consistently to silence the opinions of theological liberals who share your views, or do you just try to stifle those who oppose you?  (The latter would be hypocritical of you.)

3. Objection: “You pro-lifers only care about children in the womb and you don’t care about them once they are born.”

  • Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims.  
  • If the government wanted to solve the homeless problem by killing homeless people, could you object to their destruction without having to personally house them?  In the same way, we can object to the killing of innocent human beings without having to feed, clothe and house them for life.
  • Your statement is false.  Pro-lifers help women and children before and after pregnancies with their own time and money.  There are more pregnancy centers (which offer services for free) than their are abortion clinics (which make huge profits).
  • Unless you are insisting that poor people must have abortions, the same obligations of support and care that you require of pro-lifers would fall on you.

The usual pro-life debate thread

pro-choice-baby.jpgI haven’t debated any pro-legalized abortionists online for a while, so I had enjoyed this exchange at an allegedly secular site. I say allegedly because they kept bringing religion into the debate even though I was using secular arguments, and as usual they ignored the fact that the “Christian” Left is wildly pro-legalized abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion (because we need to have more abortions so we can keep abortion safe, legal and . . . er . . . uh . . . rare). The topic was the Mississippi personhood proposal.

These are very typical arguments made by the pro-legalized abortionists.  Anyone can learn to refute them with a little practice.  No need to call names and use logical fallacies like they do.  Just be clear and firm.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

The thread went on even longer, so go to the link if you want it all.

Does life begin at conception? The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week that Mississippi voters can decide in November.
You don’t need to vote to decide that. It is a firmly established scientific fact.
Kieres43p· Oh really? Then pray tell why does Judaism say otherwise?
Uh, because Judaism is wrong on a scientific fact? (Did I really have to type that?). It is amusing to see (bad) religious arguments made on a secular site. It is almost as if you really, really like abortion and will use any argument you can, even if faulty and religious.I hope people read the link and realize how explicitly clear science is on the topic. So sad to see all these anti-science people out there wondering when life begins, when the facts couldn’t be more clear.
Personhood USA, like most anti-choice organizations, doesn’t give much indication of their concern for women or children, just embryos. Nowhere on their site do they discuss how they are working to make abortion less desirable, or to help women to raise children they can’t afford to support.
Anti-choice” for what? Oh, the choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings? Yes, we are glad to be anti-choice.

So women who have been raped should be forced to carry the baby to term?

Said another way, so the daughter of a rapist can be destroyed because of his crime? Does the abortion un-do the rape?

Hey, if you want to give the death penalty to the rapist I’d consider your arguments. But don’t kill the innocent offspring.

What kind of embryos are those? Human, of course, as in “human beings, at a particular stage of development.”

At no point do they boast about how many of their members have selflessly adopted unwanted children, or advocate for support of Head Start or other programs to help young poor kids.
That is one of the all-time bad pro-abortion arguments. Do you realize that unless you are requiring poor people to have abortions that you would have the same obligations to adopt these children that you are placing on pro-lifers?

By “support Head Start,” do you mean you support it with your own money, or “support” asking the government to take taxes by force to fund it? There is a big difference.

Finally, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.

Having said that, pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help those outside the womb. There are more pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and the pregnancy centers are almost always funded by donations and mostly staffed with volunteers. They give all their services for free, while the abortionists make incredible amounts of money.

ANd yet those same “pro-lifers” kvetch and moan at the thought of having to pay higher taxes to take care of all those kids.Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
Wow, so you must really go nuts over the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice! It is a bunch of highly organized pro-abortion religious people trying to force their religious views on the unborn.So, are you consistent in blasting the pro-abortion religious left, who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing? Or do you just play the religion card when against pro-lifers?
Conservatives donate more of their own time, money and blood than liberals – . What we don’t do is ask the gov’t to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B and then claim it as generosity on our part.
So, Neil, you and the other pro-life crowd are willing to see your taxes jacked through the roof to pay for the children’s health care, their homes, their food, their education, right?After all..if you’re going to sit there and demand that women do what you tell them and give birth to those babies because you say so then you’re willing to pay for it, right?
That means you pay for prenatal care, their health care as kids, teens, up to adults. If the mother is working lots you’ll pay for the kids daycare right? And if the mother can’t afford to send the kids to a good school you’ll pay for that too? And you’ll also agree to pay for welfare where necessary, right?
Oh and college’ll be ponying up the money for that too right?
Time for you and your fellow “pro-lifers” to actually prove that you give a damn about life after its born. So put up and pay up or shut up, Neil.
Since you keep repeating the same fallacy, how about answering my question first: Again, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.

You see, your attempted logic is that if I don’t raise the children to adulthood then I can’t complain about the immorality of them being destroyed. But you have to live by your logic as well. Could you protest the destruction of toddlers without having to adopt them and raise them?

Cute attempt at adding college to the mix.

Now, are you going to keep repeating your fallacy or are you going to answer my question?

There is another fallacy in your argument, namely that the children will always be poor. That isn’t the case. Oh, and I already pay lots of taxes — probably far more than you — for the 40+ million people on food stamps and such.And also answer whether you going to require poor people to have abortions (like the forced abortions due to China’s one-child policy). If you won’t require that, then you have the exact same obligation to fulfill your hypothetical example of raising the kids to adulthood.
Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
Please point out which religious argument I made that you are objecting to. Or do you not realize that your anti-religious bigotry and prejudices caused you to reflexively play your “theocracy” card even though my arguments were purely secular?

My premise is simple: Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions. Therefore, those abortions are wrong.

I’ll be glad to discuss Jesus’ views on the topic if you like, but I typically save those for those claiming to be Christians.

And even if my religious views align with my secular views, that doesn’t discount them in any way. Or do you think that stealing, murder, perjury, etc. have to be made legal because laws against them currently agree with the Bible?

Personhood USA and many other religiously-motivated anti-choice activists want to control women’s reproductive health decisions
Sorry to be repetitive, but I must point back to scientific facts here. Abortion isn’t about “reproductive health.” The mother and father have already reproduced! If they hadn’t, there would be no abortion to consider.
Neil asks: who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing?Which would be a valid point if I didn’t have to pay for stupid wars and the death penalty. Point? We all pay for stuff we don’t like, Neil.
I don’t follow. If you oppose wars and the death penalty, then you are free to protest those. My point is simply that pro-legalized abortionists don’t want abortions to be safe (they support the substandard conditions allowed by law) or rare (they want to force taxpayers to pay for abortions, which will only increase the number of abortions).You aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. You want there to be more abortions, and you want others to pay for them. Why not just donate your own money to Planned Parenthood so you can sponsor more abortions?
Oh and by the way….no federal funding goes to any abortion.
Oh, they find ways to sneak it in —… . And the reason it isn’t more rampant is that we have fought the pro-abortionists all the way on this.You might want to bother to realize that Planned Parenthood, which is the federal funding you’re bitching about, does other things then just provide abortions.Money is fungible. Just because they do other things doesn’t mean the funds do help these abortionists do abortions. Planned Parenthood has been caught lying many times on many topics (they hide statutory rape, they don’t do mammograms, etc.) – .


The above is being said by the person who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he doesn’t get to force others how to live.

Yes, and that was said by someone who has conveniently ignored it when I asked if you think it should be illegal to steal and murder.  So I’ll ask again: Do you think it should be illegal to steal and murder?  If so, are you forcing others how to live?  Are you forcing your religion on them because the Bible says not to steal and murder?

Here’s a challenge: Answer the questions without changing the subject again.

I appreciate you playing along.  Having a pro-abort make all these bad arguments on a secular site is like gold to me.  I just hope lots of authentically middle ground people read the thread and realize how you have dodged all my simple questions and just responded with hypocritical personal attacks.

But since you’re so interested, Neil, in science and science fact…you might want to look up this term in science: Parasite.
Ah, the parasite argument.  Right on queue!  I just wrote about that this week:… />
I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.

Of course those who use this argument ignore pure scientific facts about the unborn being unique human beings so they can take an overly broad definition of the term “parasite” to dehumanize the unborn.  It smacks of desperation.

This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. Or even kill the child as she is breast feeding, since that would fit their loose definition of parasite.  They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking.  People who advance that argument are extremely unlikely to be moved from their position, but they aren’t the target audience of most pro-life reasoning.

Most pro-legalized abortion arguments — and especially ones like the “parasite” argument — are based on emotions and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.

When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).

The “Brights” outsmart themselves again

Apparently this “Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth” graph is supposed to prove that the lack of widespread support for Darwinian evolution in the U.S. is directly tied to our per capita GDP.  I saw this at a site that worships secularism plus another site that thought the graph was “brilliant.” Then I Googled it and realized that it got virtual high-five’s at a bunch of atheist sites, including those of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers.

Carefully consider what it shows, then let’s see what it proves.  I think you’ll see a triple-fail of cherry-picking data points that (allegedly) support your cause, a confusion of correlation vs. causation and an ironic misreading of the results.

A comparison of belief in evolution versus national wealth, revealing something interesting about one particular country.

Here’s what the graph really proves: That people predisposed to cheer on Darwinian evolution (or their pet topic) will be quick to grab something that seems to prove their point.  That is something we should all be wary of.

First, think of some of the Middle Eastern countries left off the list.  They have roughly zero belief in evolution and high GDP per capita.  That’s odd how the graph’s author forgot those, eh?  Deliberately ignoring key data points is cheating.

Next, the graph shows that the author and those who revel in his work were not taught the distinction between causation and correlation. Just because the U.S. has a lower percentage of belief in evolution doesn’t mean that is what drove our GDP per person (did I really have to just type that?!).

You could draw endless conclusions to prove your points playing this game. Here’s a freebie: Compare belief in Darwinian evolution to which country has the most military power, then draw a graph. Wow, the skeptics of Darwinian evolution must be right!  We’re the most powerful, and by Darwinian definition we are the most fit!

Finally, it isn’t like the U.S. trails the pack.  We’re #2 after Norway, and I doubt that many people think the only reason Norway is better is because of their evolutionary beliefs.  If anything, you should draw the conclusion that we are better off because we don’t drink the Darwinian Kool-Aid.

What a train wreck of bad thinking!  It seriously fails on three levels but was all the rage on many Darwinian sites.

If the author of the graphs and its supporters came from the same environment, then perhaps that would be reason to mock that educational model.  Darwinian dogma has dominated public schools, government, media and entertainment in the U.S. for decades, yet it still hasn’t convinced us.  So those entities have all failed and/or we just have better critical thinking skills to analyze important topics like this.

Sort of like how we understand the difference between causation and correlation.

It is a sad sort of irony: They think they are more logical, but they do things like this over and over.  Remember, these are the same type of folks pushing the global climate change hoax.

There is one important take away from this graph: The remarkably high percentage of “Brights” who reflexively and uncritically trumpeted it as evidence for their view.  This helps me understand why they are so passionate about their other “scientific” claims.

P.S. If you want some more real science and logic see this post on the cosmological argument.

Personhood, religion and science

While it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception, many pro-legalized abortion advocates try to deny that fact and pretend that it is a religious question.  Mississippi has a “personhood” initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that even many Democrats in the state are supporting.  This has the pro-abort crowd very, very nervous.  It has the chances of challenging Roe v Wade.

Fake Christians who support the the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are parroting the Planned Parenthood agenda:

People throughout the country are taking action to defeat Mississippi Initiative 26, the “personhood” initiative. If passed November 8, it will have far-reaching consequences not only for women and men in Mississippi but for individuals throughout the country. It could be the start of a larger “personhood” agenda. We already know that Nevada, Tennessee, and Florida will have a similar measure on their ballots in 2012.


By legally defining a human being from the moment of fertilization, MS 26 criminalizes abortion without exempting cases of rape, incest, or life of the pregnant woman.

But it is a scientific fact that a unique human being is created at the moment of conception.  And the scare tactics aren’t working.  People know that women will get treated for ectopic pregnancies.  The former doctor for our Care Net Pregnancy Center even performed those, and he was more than just a little pro-life. Abortions to save the life of the mother are consistent with the pro-life ethic.

RCRC is working with the coalition of physicians, infertility advocates and reproductive health organizations that has mobilized to challenge the measure and to spread the word about unforeseen consequences of the anti-choice movement’s overreach. Mississippians for Healthy Families, the political committee formed in response to MS 26, says that the amendment “puts politics above the health and safety of women.”

That’s just a series of lies.  Even the name of the RCRC is a lie: Abortion isn’t about “reproductive choice” because a new human being has already been reproduced.  And it ignores the lives of the unborn.  What about their health and safety?

The “personhood” initiative raises troubling moral issues, regardless of a person’s view of abortion. Whil religions across the spectrum respect and value life and many have an official pro-choice position, RCRC has identified these issues as of deep concern:

The initiative is one-sided and narrow – it concentrates solely on the fetus and ignores the woman’s life entirely.

It concentrates on the human being who would otherwise be crushed and dismembered because she is unwanted.

Endowing a fetus with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman could set up a conflict that could place the health and dignity of the woman on a lower level.

That’s just gibberish.

People of faith are also concerned that this initiative would enact into law specific religious views about “personhood” and in doing so, violate the foundational principle of religious freedom.

That’s simply false.  All they need to do is point to scientific facts.  Ironically, they are taking what should be a non-religious argument, turning it into a religious argument, and then trying to force their religious views on the rest of us.

They also trot out the rape and incest arguments, but they are wildly inconsistent on those.  They approve of death for the innocent daughter or son of the rapist, but typically oppose capital punishment for the rapist himself.  And abortions for incest typically hide the crime and kill the innocent in the process.

As always, if it isn’t a human being, then she’s not pregnant.  Don’t be fooled by the arguments of phony “religious” people.


Great advice from a South Carolina sheriff for ladies to arm themselves to defend against rapists.  I loved this part:

 And, of course, there are already the oh-so-predictable cries of ‘but – what about fair trials! Vigilantism!” and ‘oh noes, presuming guilt before innocence’ as an idjit on MSNBC blathered today . . .

The Sheriff’s response? “Well, it’s easy to fix that. Just don’t attack a woman.” But to the left, that’s just pesky logic – reality is hard for them. They are more worried about the rapists and their alleged’rights’ than they are the women being violently assaulted and raped. Let me explain a little something to you, Mr. Craig Melvin of MSNBC – when a woman is being raped, she knows she is being raped. There is no ‘presuming guilt before innocence’because she is being raped; the assaulter is raping her. And self-defense is not vigilante justice. I’m not surprised you can’t tell the difference, though. Given that y’all on the left continue to embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement rather than denouncing it and therampant sexual assaults therein. We women should just shut up and suck it up, right? I mean, what’s a little rape if it’s for an agenda?

Another sad consequence of government recognition of same-sex unions:

Can you imagine forcing foster children to suffer just so you can advance your political agenda?

Of course not!

When I first learned that the gay marriage movement is right now actively working to shut down religious foster and adoption agencies my heart dropped. I could not believe it.

When Illinois passed a “civil union” law, the state began demanding that adoption agencies place children with same-sex couples.

And when groups such as Catholic Charities or the Evangelical Child and Family Agency refused due to religious objections, the state ripped up their contracts!

Ann Coulter on liberal racism — Why Our Blacks are Better Than Their Blacks.  Read it all, but here are some snippets:

By spending the last three decades leveling accusations of “racism” every 10 seconds, liberals have made it virtually impossible for Americans to recognize real racism — for example, the racism constantly spewed at black conservatives.

. . .

The surge in conservative support for Herman Cain confuses the Democrats’ story line, which is that Republicans hate Obama because he’s black.

Cain is twice as black as Obama. (Possible Obama campaign slogan: “Too Black!”)

. . .

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: “Who’s that black woman always standing with George Bush?” Never mind! He’s probably arresting her.

In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.

Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice “doesn’t bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position.” (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)

. . .

Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of “racism” with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting.

It’s a neat trick, rather as if the Nazis had called everything “genocide” right before launching the Holocaust, and then admonished resisters not to “play the genocide card.”

Liberals step on black conservatives early and often because they can’t have black children thinking, “Hmmm, the Republicans have some good ideas; maybe I’m a Republican.”

The basic setup is:

Step 1: Spend 30 years telling blacks that Republicans are racist and viciously attacking all black Republicans.

Step 2: Laugh maliciously at Republicans for not having more blacks in their party.

Modalism and Stockholm Syndrome in the Church — nice recap of a debate with a T.D. Jakes supporter (Jakes holds a heretical Oneness Pentecostal position but gets away with appearing to be a mainstream evangelical).  I loved the starting quote from John Calvin:

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.

Those who put unity over doctrine usually have bad doctrine.

It will be interesting to see where this goes — Breaking: Whistleblower alleges Texas Planned Parenthood committed massive Medicaid fraud (What??  You mean that people who kill the unborn for a living might commit financial misdeeds?)

According to the complaint:

The scheme included the express policy of billing these government health care programs for a predetermined list of reimbursable services for every eligible patient who visited the clinic, regardless of whether those services were medically necessary or ever actually provided to the patient….

PPGC policy regarding which medical services to provide and bill for depended in large part on who was paying the bill…. [S]elf-pay patients were provided services based on medical necessity. WHP, Medicaid, and Title XX patients, however, were provided a series of predetermined servicesbased on what those programs would pay for with the result that patients covered by government health programs were often provided services on an “across the board” basis even when such services were not medically necessary. The medical testing services most commonly provided to Medicaid and Title XX patients on an “across the board” basis… are:

a) Gonorrhea testing (Codes 87590 and 87591);
b) Chlamydia testing (Codes 87490 and 87491);
c) HIV testing;
d) Syphilis testing;
e) urinalysis (Codes 81002 and 81015);
f) hemoglobin blood count testing (Code 85018); and,
g) pregnancy testing

Because Medicaid guidelines allow for reimbursement for counseling on primary birth control and back-up bc, each Medicaid/WHP-eligible patient was also billed for both for every visit, although such counseling was not necessary and not given.

Another trick was to hand every contracepting patient a bag of condoms and vaginal film on her way out the door, despite the fact they were not needed or requested. This allowed PPGC to bill the government for, according to the complaint:

a. Condoms $4.20
b. Vaginal film $12.60
c. Method counseling $30.60 (Primary method, plus film and condoms as ‘back-up’ $10.20 X 3)
d. Problem counseling $10.45 (Under PPGC procedures, handing out condoms justified billing the government for ‘problem counseling’ because condoms are also used to prevent STD’s) (Code 99402 + Modifier FP [$10.45])

Obama knows the mind of God?!

When politicians on either side make claims like this you should be skeptical.  If they quoted some actual Bible verses, in context, then that would be relevant — although in theory, the “separation of church and state” crowd should be going nuts about Obama’s statements [crickets chirping].

See Obama: God wants Congress to pass my jobs bill « Hot Air.

Urging Congress again to pass a portion of his jobs bill, President Obama claimed Wednesday that God is on his side.

Mr. Obama was standing at the D.C. side of the Key Bridge, calling attention to America’s crumbling infrastructure and the need to put more construction workers back on the job. He criticized House Republicans for ignoring his legislation while approving a measure that reaffirms “In God We Trust” as the national motto.

“That’s not putting people back to work,” Mr. Obama said. “I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.”

It’s hard not to ever-so-slightly suspect that, in Obama’s mind, God’s will ought to conform to his and not the other way around … but I’m trying very hard to banish that suspicion. Humility might not be Obama’s strong suit, but surely not even he is that arrogant.

At the daily press briefing, when a reporter asked Jay Carney whether Obama’s invocation of God might not have been a bit much, the press secretary defended it with this: “I believe the phrase from the Bible is ‘The Lord helps those who help themselves.’” Not so, Mr. Carney, not so. Nowhere in the Bible does that adage make its appearance.

Ugh.  Looks like his press secretary knows as much about the Bible as the President.