Legal yet immoral

David Epps's picture

Two weeks ago, six people were killed and 14 wounded in what has been called the “Tucson Tragedy.”

One year ago, 200,000 people were killed and 1.5 million remain homeless as a result of a devastating earthquake in the nation of Haiti.

One decade ago, some 3,000 people were killed in Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington, D. C. on Sept. 11.

One generation ago, in January of 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the killing of children in the womb was legal. Since that time, in the United States alone, the death toll is 52,000,000 boys and girls who were destroyed without ever having seen the light of day.

We often make the grave error of believing that if something is legal, then it must be moral and right. At one time in this nation it was legal for one human being to own another. Slavery was legal and many believed it to be right. No one believes this was moral and right today. It may have been legal but it was immoral.

At one time in this nation, husbands could beat, mistreat, and rape their wives without fear of legal consequences. No one believes this was moral and right today. It may have been legal but it was immoral.

At one time in this nation, children could be exploited and abused almost without restriction. In fact, if one desired to protect children, laws protecting the abuse of animals had to be invoked because there were no such laws protecting children. No one believes this was moral and right today. It may have been legal but it was immoral.

There is nothing moral or right about the destruction of any innocent life, but multiply this by 52 million and the results are horrific beyond comprehension.

Americans have killed nearly six times more unborn children than Hitler and the Nazis killed Jews during World War II.

The United States, since the first shots of the revolution were fired, has been involved in 30 wars, including the various Indian wars, the Boxer Rebellion, the Barbary Wars, as well as more modern conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, El Salvador, and the major wars of which we are all familiar.
The total number of U.S. military personnel killed during the entire history of the United States from 1775 through 2010 is 1,317,588.

Tragic as that is, it pales in comparison to the number of American pre-born intentional deaths. There have been approximately 50 times more children killed since 1973 than the number of soldiers killed during the entire history of the Republic.

But even that is not the full story. I was born in 1951. From me came three children. From them were born 11 more children, my grandchildren. That means that in three generations there have been produced, so far, 15 people.

Had I been aborted, it would have meant, not just one death, but the elimination of 15 people who are alive today.

If only 10 people are given to a family in three generations, that means that not just 52,000,000 lives have been ended but, rather, a staggering 520 million!

Over half a billion people do not or will not exist over the course of three generations, thanks to an act that is legal. But moral? Right? Not by a long shot.

In the days to come — at some point — I have a dream and a fervent hope that abortion will join slavery, wife rape, and child abuse on the trash heap of acts that used to be legal but were so morally wretched and ethically repugnant that society could no longer bear them.

Not everything legal is moral or right.

[David Epps is the pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the King, 4881 Hwy. 34 E., Sharpsburg, GA 30277. Services are held Sundays at 8:30 and 10 a.m. (www.ctkcec.org). He is the bishop of the Mid-South Diocese (www.midsouthdiocese.org) and is the mission pastor of Christ the King Fellowship in Champaign, IL. He may be contacted at frepps@ctkcec.org.]

Locke
Locke's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/14/2007
Pastor Epps

Do you therefore support contraception and other birth control methods? Or does your Church actively fight against their use?

I notice Mr. Hoffman is also blogging about abortion. Yet his Church leads the fight against any preventative measures against unwanted pregnancies.

And Pastor Epps and Trey, what should the penalty be for the woman who has an abortion? If you think that they killed a baby, why should she not be charged with premeditated murder?

common tater
common tater's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/25/2009
question for Pastor Epps and the pro-lifers.....

Do you just talk the talk or do you walk the walk too? How many children have you fostered or adopted? Just curious what you're doing for all those kids who were not aborted by the moms who chose life. You know the kids born to crack addicts, inmates, the mentally ill, the destitute. How's going raising those kids? I'd love to know how they're being brought up in your loving, stable home.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Hey Tater

What an interesting concept that you espouse--that one cannot have a contrarian opinion unless one actively participates in the process. I cannot support tough drug regulations unless I am willing to volunteer in a methadone clinic? I cannot have a fixed opinion on the potential NFL lockout because I have never played professional football?
Realistically, placing significantly scarred babies can be difficult. We most likely need more Murphy families around. But last I checked, babies are placed decently well in homes throughout America. So much so that Americans adopt babies from other countries. And what an intersting person you are. I asume that you are a foster parent or very active in that community, of which I support. If you do not, then what courage you have for your convictions!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Interesting concept, indeed!

Wedge, presuming you hold both sides of the political aisle to the same standard, I could've used your help in the "Building a home for Christian Predators" thread a few months back.

In that thread, Hutch was dogging me for daring to have a contrarian opinion about someplace that I'd never been to. He followed me around for months like a puppy, accusing me of being "afraid" to answer his loaded questions. When I finally did answer his questions for the third time in this thread, he still ragged on me for daring to have a contrarian opinion.

When I turned the tables on him and asked him how he could have an opinion about child molesters when he'd never had any first-hand experience with one, he flew into one of his patented Situational Outrages and accused ME of accusing HIM of child molesting. True to form, he then accused me of being a child molester, because that's how he rolls.

It seems there are more than a few people on this site that have a double standard on contrarian opinions. Heck, I've probably done it a time or two myself.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Bacon

Come up with some new lies, and maybe some new phrases, since you pull the outrage thing out every time I say something, it's losing it's bang. Besides you were the one that brought me into it yesterday, you're getting kind of trollish here, don't ya know. I will give you this, you can twist anything someone says into a lie better then anyone I've ever met.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Decide for yourself

Hutch claims he doesn't have a double standard. Why not decide for yourself, folks?

I invite people to click on THIS LINK where Hutch criticizes me for having an opinion without firsthand experience.

Next,go to THIS LINK where Hutch rips me again for daring to have a contrarian opinion without firsthand experience.

Then scroll down two posts and see how Hutch reserves for himself the right to pass judgment without first hand experience.

hutch866 wrote:

...Not at all Bacon, I don't have to know a molester personally to know he's bad, but you're criticizing a place that you know nothing about, that would be like me calling you a child molester, I don't know if you are, and would reserve comment until you were caught and convicted.

(Emphasis added)

Is this a double standard? You tell me.

Edited to add: I found this interesting post by our buddy Muddle on the non-necessity of first hand experience

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Wedge: Well said

I agree 100% with your points.

madprof
madprof's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/08/2006
keeping remorse at bay?

The point of Father Epps' column was simple: Not everything that is legal is moral. Surely anyone familiar with history would agree. Yet look how many people were enraged by it. It seems as if the topic of baby-killing hits too close to home for many people--and given the number of abortions in the US since 1973, I suppose that's natural. I was listening for a while this afternoon to Rusty Humphries on WGST. He invited callers to tell their own stories of abortion without fear of criticism, and one after another spoke tearfully of pain and regret, often many years after an abortion decision. Clearly, they understood the point Father Epps is making here. Probably some of the angry people commenting here also understand it, but they use invective and sarcasm to keep remorse at bay.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Anecdotal evidence

I'm sure there are a few "pain and regret" stories out there, yet study after study has shown that the primary feeling that most women experience post-abortion is relief.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
"Remorse"

Some people do the greatesr acting job I have ever seen, especially on TV, showing so-called "remorse (painfully sorry).

I actually heard a judge rule against a perp in Atlanta that he was ruling against him because he didn't see any remorse!
Does this judge go home with this person, sleep with him?
Does just "saying it" do the job?

normal
normal's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2009
Ya roundabout

That judge just may sleep with him the way its been going

ImFedUp
ImFedUp's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/07/2010
Thank you, madprof

Yours has been the most common sense post on this blog. I think we can ALL agree that not everything that is legal is moral?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Legal shouldn't necessarily equal moral

THAT has been the whole point of "libertarian" thinking forever and also going back way before the LP existed. WAY BEFORE. YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY is the whole point, but I doubt that a handful that agree with Pastor Epps believe that. They spend night and day hoping and hoping to in fact to legislate morality and create a theocracy of imposing your beliefs on others yet some more. Seen that over and over with the Repubs, Moral Majority, ultra-left social engineering, etc.

Somewhere in the history of this nation, we got to the ridiculous point of "if it's good, it's legal, if it isn't, it's illegal" where people decided to codify laws based on floating standards of "right and wrong." All that does is cause people to NOT have to make moral choices because they have big gov to tell them what is supposedly "right or wrong." That's not a "choice," that's total BS.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Women: Pa. abortions left us sterile, near death

"By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press – Sun Jan 23, 1:41 am ET
PHILADELPHIA – When Davida Johnson walked into Dr. Kermit Gosnell's clinic to get an abortion in 2001, she saw what she described as dazed women sitting in dirty, bloodstained recliners. As the abortion got under way, she had a change of heart — but claims she was forced by the doctor to continue.
"I said, 'I don't want to do this,' and he smacked me. They tied my hands and arms down and gave me more medication," Johnson told The Associated Press."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_clinic_inves...

"Johnson learned last week that Philadelphia prosecutors believe Gosnell frequently delivered late-term babies alive at his clinic, then severed their spines with scissors, and often stored the fetal bodies — along with staff lunches — in refrigerators at the squalid facility. Tiny baby feet, prosecutors said, were discovered in specimen jars, lined up in a macabre collection."

This is what the Democrats are fighting FOR.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Other Democrat belief's on Abortion

Obama’s Science Czar: Babies Aren’t Human Until They’ve Been Socialized

"A large part of the horror of abortion lies in the monstrous presumption of liberals declaring that human life begins not at conception, but whenever they say it does. Maybe that’s six weeks, maybe six months. Maybe it’s years. Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren (the guy who wanted to put a sterilizing agent in our drinking water) gives us an idea of how slippery this slope can get. From his book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, via Patterico’s Pontifications:
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.

We knew that human fetuses aren’t human, according to liberal ideology. Now we learn that they remain nonhuman even after they are born, until such a time as priests of The State like Holdren deem them to have been sufficiently socialized."

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/29/obamas-science-czar-babies-arent-h...

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Human consciousness
Observerofu wrote:

Obama’s Science Czar: Babies Aren’t Human Until They’ve Been Socialized

"A large part of the horror of abortion lies in the monstrous presumption of liberals declaring that human life begins not at conception, but whenever they say it does. Maybe that’s six weeks, maybe six months. Maybe it’s years. Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren (the guy who wanted to put a sterilizing agent in our drinking water) gives us an idea of how slippery this slope can get. From his book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, via Patterico’s Pontifications:
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.

We knew that human fetuses aren’t human, according to liberal ideology. Now we learn that they remain nonhuman even after they are born, until such a time as priests of The State like Holdren deem them to have been sufficiently socialized."

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/29/obamas-science-czar-babies-arent-human-until-theyve-been-socialized/

Wow, you're in full 'tard mode this evening.

Holdren is talking about human consciousness. Remember the day you were born? When the nice policeman fished you out of the dumpster? Of course you don't remember that...you hadn't developed consciousness yet. No one is sure exactly how long it takes to develop human consciousness, many cultures peg it around 2 years. Try and remember your earliest memory as a good yardstick.

Socialization helps develop human consciousness. Your mother (or more likely, foster mother) taught you how to speak and how to basically function as a member of society. Deprive an infant of socialization when very young and you'll likely permanently impede the development of human consciousness.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Uh....NO

but then again why do I expect you to get it. Just keep killing the next Gene Therapist or President and next class of Democrats.

btw- your continued insults are why we need to keep choosing Option #2.

You are a troll. You can't have a conversation without insulting the other. This is why no one comments on anything you write. What is your best results?

100 views and 4-5 comments? The best example of Irrelevant.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Great response, oofu!

Lotsa fact-filled rebuttal, the kind of response we've come to expect from you. (/sarcasm)

I notice you keep telling folks to ignore me, yet day-in and day-out you're consistently responding to my posts, trolling me. Is this another case of the Hutchian Double Standard: "rules for thee, but not for meeeee! DERP!!" ??

I don't define my "success" on this site by how many people read and/or reply to my posts. I can, however, see how you might regard the number of people responding to your posts as an indicator of success, especially when you consider how few times the word "success" has been associated with you.

I'm truly sorry if you believe I have been insulting you. I try very hard not to throw insults at short-bus mouthbreathers such as yourself.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Insults the choice of the witless

and you certainly are.

Let's see in one week you insult all Cancer survivors and now Mentally handicapped people.

You are a piece of work you know that. To bad you didn't have the stones to meet Hutch. I am sure he would have taught you some manners.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
You betcha
Observerofu wrote:

This is what the Democrats are fighting FOR.

1.31 million abortions in the USA last year
88% of them were 1st trimester abortions
10% of them were 2nd trimester abortions

The overwhelming majority of these were safe and legal abortions. It's so safe that it makes the news when a dirty clinic is discovered.

Of course, going 17 years between health department inspections isn't a good idea, but that's just meddlesome government intervention to glibertarians.

A woman should have control over her own body, not you or David Epps.

THAT is what Democrats are fighting FOR.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Abortions at any cost

Keep fighting.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
China

How long before we in the US are allowed one child and are required by the state to murder any extra "mistakes" like China? How about an abortion "Czar", think that is in our future? -GP

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Slippery Slopin' today?
Georgia Patriot wrote:

How long before we in the US are allowed one child and are required by the state to murder any extra "mistakes" like China? How about an abortion "Czar", think that is in our future? -GP

Oh, so now giving a woman a choice to terminate her pregancy will lead to one-child limits and eugenics?

Mighty slippery slope you have there. A variation on the ever-popular Fundie talkin' point “where do we draw the line?”

I realize you are not actually making a point but just throwin' out some rhetorical flourish, the usual "exclamation of outrage", if you will. What you're doin' is no different than yellin' “will someone please think of the children!!”.

2 DERP points.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Father Epps, SDG, and other "embryos are babies" believers.

Let us grant that what you feel of when an embryo becomes a child is true.

What should the punishment be for women who have "killed" their "preborn" children? Murder has no statute of limitations does it? What should the punishment be for those fathers who aided these women in any way? Let's get down to brass tacks. How should our government punish these men and women?

I'm even more curious to know the answer to this one: Why is it that so many well-intentioned folks who believe life and death should be God's decision support the death penalty (adjudicated by man) and tend to be war hawks? Last I checked, war kills alot of post-born children, men, and women. Very confusing to me.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
kevink

Let's face it, when a society begins to legislate morality, it becomes increasingly more difficult to say when there is actually too much legislation. Frankly, we as Americans have little clue as to what laws are in existence today. And, as far as enforcement, it usually boils down to who one knows or what edict is the law du jour.

It does seem funny that those fundamentalist types are the ones pushing for abolition of a practice that has been existence for centuries and regulated (here) since 1973. What is confounding is that if Roe Vs Wade is repealed, does anyone believe abortions will suddenly stop? It's also funny to me that those same zealots would legislate what can happen when two consenting adults are behind closed doors.

Do these folks realize that most other mammals eat or otherwise abandon their young when circumstances dictate.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Yep, that's the fundies

Abortion is murder? check
Death penalty not murder and OK? check
Legislating morality? check
Small government in words and no way in deeds? check
Mike Huckabee the next President? check
Ronald Reagan who as Governor of CA signed the first legislation decriminalizing abortion and yet 99% of the fundies have no recollection at all?, check

opusman
opusman's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/08/2008
Quick question about abortion

Why abortion is not murder but if a pregnant woman is assaulted and the fetus is terminated the criminal is charged with homicide..... Just a question

"Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws.  The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 21 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).  "

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
It's a matter of choice
opusman wrote:

Why abortion is not murder but if a pregnant woman is assaulted and the fetus is terminated the criminal is charged with homicide..... Just a question

The simple answer: the determination to carry a fetus to term, or to terminate a pregnancy, is entirely up to the pregnant woman.

This is the essence of the "pro-choice" position.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Pro-choice. When does that end? Or does it?

Understand the pro-choice position quite clearly. The first choice is to have a baby or not. Or bring a fetus to term for those who like an alternative language. Right?

So, if you decide to have it, you should raise it, feed it, educate it. Right? Surely by now It (the fetus) has become a person, so we will now start calling it a child. OK?

Time to feed the child. Should you as the parent have a right to choose what to feed the child? Pro-choice on food.

Same thing on clothing? Pro-choice.

So, if the child and his or her parents or parent happen to live in a neighborhood with lousy public schools, would it not be fair for the parent or parents to have the right to get a voucher for a better school? Sort of a pro-choice position on education.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Mudcat is bored

Bumpin' three month old theads this morning? You must be mighty bored, Mudcat.

In any event, your arguments were addressed earlier in this post of mine, specifically points 4 ("when does physical independence begin?") and 5 ("when do human rights begin").

I hope this helps!

opusman
opusman's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/08/2008
So being a human is mothers choice

Legal definition of homicide :The killing of one human being by another human being.
Therefore being charged the fetus is recognized as a living human but if the mother decides to abort
It is then considered nonhuman.... Never was aware that being a human was a choice..

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Not "nonhuman"
opusman wrote:

Legal definition of homicide :The killing of one human being by another human being.
Therefore being charged the fetus is recognized as a living human but if the mother decides to abort
It is then considered nonhuman.... Never was aware that being a human was a choice..

Not at all. A few posts down I posted a link to an essay regarding the six critical questions regarding abortion morality.

Question #2 deals with the issue of whether or not a fetus is human. A fetus is definitely human.

There are other issues involved here, specifically the issue of physical independence and whether a fetus has human rights. A fetus essentially has no physical independence from the pregant woman (this is an oversimplification, leaving out fetal viability for now) and also has no "human rights" before birth.

A good explanation is found here
You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

After birth, on the other hand, the potential person no longer occupies the same body as the mother, and thus, giving it full human rights causes no interference with another's right to control her body. Therefore, even though a full-term human baby may still not be a person, after birth it enjoys the full support of the law in protecting its rights.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
If the Kings are done

serving one another, then you could probably see a difference from embryos and convicted criminals. It isn't a stretch to disconnect capital punishment from abortion. It has something to do with culpability. I always look askance on those that glorify any killing as you two are bandying about.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
MIKE

Yeah, but can you imagine a priest or preacher preaching a sermon on how to abandon, or eat, the young in certain circumstances?

We handle populayion in a much better way, maybe. Start a war! Been the method for about 10,000 years or maybe even the dinosaurs also did it.

PTC Avenger
PTC Avenger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/08/2008
Legal yet immoral

This coming from a guy who believes that a cosmic zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your maker so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

The church is and always has been the paragon of morality? Riiight.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Ah yes, the Atheist credo

Feeling intellectually superior, yet not realizing that they take just as much on faith. The Atheists' God is time. It is the great magician. If given enough time, life can naturally perculate from nothing. If you are going to hold a position and mock faith, then know how life began. Start with Miller/Urey and then look at all the holes that faith in time must fill

PTC Avenger
PTC Avenger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/08/2008
Wedge - What credo?
The Wedge wrote:

Feeling intellectually superior, yet not realizing that they take just as much on faith. The Atheists' God is time. It is the great magician. If given enough time, life can naturally perculate from nothing. If you are going to hold a position and mock faith, then know how life began. Start with Miller/Urey and then look at all the holes that faith in time must fill

I don't wager on faith at all. Believing that life naturally perculated from nothing via Big Bang or whatever else you want to call it is also speculation and, in my opinion, quite far fetched. The truth is that no one knows where we came from or how we got here. Anyone who claims they do is lying to you and dangerous. Strong atheism is as equally foolish and dogmatic as religious fanatacism.

Why are we here? "I don't know" is an incredibly unsatisfying answer, but the only answer. The conclusion is beyond humbling. Theists look for patterns, a perfectly human trait, and assume there is a creative purpose behind the patterns they find, but many times patterns are coincidence and nothing more. But how can we come to exist without god? Theists demand an answer when they know that only limited guesswork now exists. The assumption is that because some things are currently unexplainable the explanation is supernatural intelligence. That is a massive leap. Humans, as creative, social beings, try to impose our thinking on the universe. The unknown is not an excuse for god. At best, god is an eloquent metaphor for the human condition, it offers ownership in divinity, supreme purpose, and it cushions our primal repression, that one day we will die and all will be forever lost. At worst, god is a business partner who doesn't take a cut.

As a side note, I love how the entire Christian ideology flies in the face of science yet they're quick to cite studies when it purportedly suppports one of their claims. And for the record, Miller-Urey was conducted 58 years ago, or roughly .96% of the earth's 6000 years of existence (me rolling my eyes).

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Well....
Quote:

Why are we here?

Here is a clue that was pointed out to me: when we are enjoying ourselves, we do not ask that question. Beliefs need faith, experiances do not.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Carbon, experiences are no exception

Our recollections of experiences are completely viewed through our beliefs and biases. Multiple eye witness accounts give different testimony depending upon the observor. An easy example is an encounter with a "ghost". Someone that has the belief system to observe it as a possible "ghost" will report it as such, but someone that discounts any abnormality will deny the occurance or explain it away as a fugue state or a natural process.
Now let's look at something as easy as your byline...evolution. The amount of beneficial genetic mutations that would be required to go from a single-celled organism to something as complex as a hamster would require an astounding amount of genetic mutations and beneficial code insertions to DNA. In our observational and experimental experience, we never see the wholesale addition of code that would be required. Telomeres break off, stuff happens and the amount of mutations such as point insertions, deletions, transpositions, and what-have-you causes a net loss in functionality and vitality. Disease such as Fabry's and Gauchers are caused a small insertion of a base pair. And that is just one mutation. There is a lot of faith and hocus pocus here too, even if we chose to close our eyes to it.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Wedge, reply

You referenced memories and the description of an experiance, one step back from an experiance. Can anyone accurately describe the taste of sugar to someone who has never tasted it? I was refering to the experiance of joy, of enjoying one's existance, which is not dependent on a belief and requires no faith. What does a laughing baby know about faith and beliefs?

Regarding evolution, your issue is actually with the theory of natural selection, implying that it is presented as leaving out consciousness. Evolution is observable. Consider the evolution of a fertilized egg into a fetus, your career from a beginner to an experianced professional, from being a child into an adult, and a beginning blogger into a accomplished one, and using the fossil record, from single cell organisms to the crown of creation, a human being.

Campbell
Campbell's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
speaking of evolution

Very timely post, Mr. Wedge. We invite you, and all the other bloggers, to our Darwin Day Celebration on Feb. 12th at the Starbucks (by Stein Mart). Please stop by and have a chat with our evolutionary biologists to better understand the science behind evolution.

http://www.thecitizen.com/node/5565

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
PTC Avenger, what a loquacious and reasoned post

considering your first posting that was prejudiced and bigoted. But neverless I will engage. Science and experimentation is of an observational and experimental nature. We look at life through the glasses of our biases and prejudices. We all see the same thing, but we distort that view with what we want to believe. Let's take evolution from scratch for example. There are about 2000 amino acids that are known to man, but only 20 that can be found in living things. Amino acids have a handedness - left and right handed. Of those aminos acids that support life, they are all left handed. So a simple particular protein has about 100 amino acids, and they all have to be assembled left handed only. Now this is not a living organism, but one protein. And left and right handed amino acids bound together first. The odds of a protein forming naturally have been calculated to be 4.9 x 10 ^(-191). well beyond the likelihood of it ever occurring by chance regardless of the time. This is just one example, but it would not matter to you. Determined to mock faith, yet really not knowing the truth. You can mock faith, but it does not make you intelligent, only a tool for others to mock, yet they truly know not.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
And yet...
The Wedge wrote:

You can mock faith, but it does not make you intelligent, only a tool for others to mock, yet they truly know not.

And yet you, Wedge, reserve for yourself the right to mock MY faith.

Bit of a disconnect, no?

"Do as I say, not as I do!"

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
What faith is that, Bacon?

I have certainly seen you mock Christian faith, but I have not seen you offer up your faith. I have always assumed that you are a secular humanist, and thus- self described faithless.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Secular Hoomanist? ME?
The Wedge wrote:

I have certainly seen you mock Christian faith, but I have not seen you offer up your faith. I have always assumed that you are a secular humanist, and thus- self described faithless.

I most emphatically do NOT mock Christian faith. I absolutely DO mock those Christian extremists who purport to speak for God and those who insist that others adhere to their rigid moral code. Mandated Christianity is not Christianity in my opinion.

Mocking someone's Christian faith is a surefire way to put the health of one's colon at risk, as God is not mocked. But you knew that.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
I was checking for this

And I appreciate your comment, however I still have no idea about your faith. I also believe in free will so I think we agree about that in general. You had stated above that I had mocked your faith, and I still cannot figure out how I did. I was not, and am not aware of any faith that you have. How could I have mocked it? And subsequently, if, as I do, I believe that you have no faith, any definitive statement from you about God appears to me to be mocking. obviously I could be wrong, but I still do not know the answer to the question I posed.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
wedge

You goofed on this one and can't admit it.

It wouldn't matter what faith or no faith anyone had if it is necessary for you to question them about it!

That is one of the problems of "faith" these days---the Muslims, etc., question our faith (ours being Christian mostly), and the Christians questioning their faith.

What possible difference should it make since we deal with the governments, not the preachers----except for the POPE.

I can see why most all of those old boys in Philadelphia were either Deists or evolutionists.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
wedge

Have you read the article in today's paper about the Fayette School System hiring the new Superintendent's friend from Maine?

Using "an allotment" someway. Do you know what that is. Did they subtract 7% salary? New job, or who left? Hey these are taxes aren't they?

I really didn't know that high officials, as described, had always been able to being in family, and ("others") as an incentive. I didn't know that.

I think they said before in this paper that he also has a previous "family" with children, still in Maine. How far do you suppose the allowances extend?

I couldn't comment on the article today about this subject since they didn't allow any comments, so I thought I would ask you if you knew any details, or aren't we supposed to ask any details? GOODBYE!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Wedge, Bacon, Epps

Your question about what faith bacon means, also means that you think yours is the only legitimate one! Otherwise your question would not be necessary or needed.

Anything we do which has no proof by vision or testimony with proof, had to be by "Faith" Faith meaning that you think it to be true and necessary for your salvation.

Except by "Faith," I don't think we know about creation and evolution. Scientists have a good deal of "proof" about evolution, but it is only faith about creation.

The universe could not occur from nothing--absolutely nothing. As far back as scientists can go is to a small heavy black ball, compressing everything that now exists into it's mass---it then explodes and millions of years later, WaLa!

So, there was and maybe is now a Creator of infinite power who either created us from that little ball, which he allowed to happen, or from something else. I have faith in that statement.

The truth is, we do not know!
So live, that when your time comes to join..................

It does no good nor real harm to argue extreme details about snakes and ribs--- so much more complicated things to ponder.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Wedge & "Thinking"

You said "Your question about what faith bacon means ALSO MEANS THAT YOU THINK YOURS IS THE ONLY LEGIMATE ONE!" There, is that clear? Not only did you draw a ridiculous conclusion about what he actually wrote, but then you have to infer you know what he actually "thinks". Got it now? No, didn't really think you would. Worry not, I won't bother again--ever.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Roundsnout, Wedge & "thinking"

Snout, perhaps you would be better off commenting only on what Wedge actually says and not about what you THINK he THINKS. At least that way, you will only appear partly ignorant and not totally stupid.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
GYM

I can't make heads or tails out of your comment above.

What did I think he said that he didn't?

The name is "roundabout," unless you can't think of anything else to say except to criticize faces, names, etc.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Roundabout blather

oh well, now I cannot edit my reply above. No matter... Bacon, i truly do not know of your faith beliefs. Do you have any?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
avenger

I think that was a magic apple!

The church is not a building or an organization on paper, but is "People"

I don't know about paragons! Isn't that a perfect pearl or something?

Cosmic zombie is a little much for me! What is that?
One can be their own Grandpa! I heard the song.

As to "rib-women," they are still around and still pests.

You have to understand that all this gibberish you copied down is not religion.
Faith in your salvation in any fashion, is religion.

PTC Avenger
PTC Avenger's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/08/2008
Faith in your salvation in

Faith in your salvation in any fashion is not religion. I have faith that one day I'll be dead and rot away and will eventually degrade into nothing. That makes me religious?

Christians give what is unreal precedence over what is real. They delude themselves with the cheap sense of certainty called faith.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
PTC Avenger - faith

The fact that you will die and rot away and degrade into nothing, is a fact, not religion.

The belief in salvation and an afterlife through Jesus Christ is faith and a religion.

That's why they call it faith, the belief in something in spite of logic or facts.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
PTCObser... regarding that "faith" thingy...

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." - Mark Twain

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."
--Ferdinand Magellan

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Main Stream

None of the quotes are inconsistent with the definition of faith. Those that don't believe in something believe that reason and fact prevail over faith.

(edited)

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Guns don't kill peole......

Abortion doctors kill people

Accused Philadelphia doctor also worked in Wilmington clinic

The 69-year-old Gosnell also was known to have directed women who were too far along in their pregnancies to get abortions under Delaware law to his West Philadelphia clinic to provide them with late-term abortions, according to prosecutors.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Fewer than 2%

Fewer than 2% of abortions are provided at 21 weeks or after, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy.

But hey, statistical data doesn't mean a thing to a jackwagon like Kawfi becoz he's got an anecdote! You betcha!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
2% Bacon

Here's some statistics for you Bacon.

Let's say 1% - 50,766,331 abortions 1973–2008 = 507,663
2% about 1 million

But of course they are "unborn" so it doesn't make a difference, right Bacon, in fact you would count them only if they drew a breath, right? Then again, we may not want to keep the "defective", or maybe a certain type of person like a religious people, or let's say "right wingers". Oh, wait I guess the socialist have already done that one.

Have we learned any lessons? Guess not.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Let's have an ABORTION IS MURDER reality show!

I'm trying to come up with a way to placate you and your ABORTION IS MURDER fellow travellers.

How about this...the next time we have a Republican President, Huckabee will do, we could have a government-sponsored ABORTION IS MURDER reality show.

We'll identify every woman who has ever had an abortion in America and incarcerate them in a special concentration camp. Then we'll parade them in front of a television camera, 100 every two hours, where they can tearfully plead for their lives with the heart-wrenching story of why they chose to "kill their babby".

We can have 1-800 numbers scroll across the screen and the one "lucky" woman will be selected by popular vote to live with the shame of their abortion, while the other 99 are herded into gas chambers, where an intimate encounter with Zyklon B gas can reunite these murderesses with the babby they killed. Not sure if we should have the lucky "saved" woman push the button to start the Zyklon B showers, that might be dramatic overkill. Maybe David Epps would volunteer to administer "summary justice".

We could have a spin-off show just for pro-life women who've had an abortion, and call it The ONLY Moral Abortion Is MY Abortion

Since it takes "two to tango", we should probably round up all men who've impregnated women that resulted in an abortion, too. Put them to work, 20 years hard labor, for aiding and abetting murder. Hey, we could clear the roadbed for high speed rail in 49 states this way!

Whaddya think?

allegedteacher
allegedteacher's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2009
from David Epps sprang all these other folks

I don't know the good preacher, but what's so great about that? Ever heard of overpopulation?

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
God, the abortionist

"...at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, then God is the greatest abortionist of them all.” - Francisco J. Ayala

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/science/29prof.html

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Main Stream

Good point, then let's leave it to God.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
which "god" do you prefer?

Allah? Vishnu? Xenu? Maybe Thor or Zeus? Or maybe we should leave it up to a Goddess? A "she" god would surely understand and be sympathetic towards a woman's right to choose.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"Let's leave it to God"?
PTC Observer wrote:

Good point, then let's leave it to God.

Are you one of these folks who spends hours praying when your kid has a 108 degree temperature instead of taking them to the hospital?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon

nope, but I don't go around intentionally stepping on caterpillars either.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Whose side politically do priests favor?

Great philosophers (not me) have written that for some odd reason most priests are always on the side of the right wing of the right wing party.

They also favor despots, dictators, royalty, and usurpers.

It would be hard to position yourself, if a priest, as for a woman's choice, credit (takes away from the church), divorce (can't pay two wives and the church), tolerance for other religions (competition), public discussion of sex, criticism of priests for any fault by other priests, gambling (for obvious reasons), 2-4 marriages with 3 sets of kids, usually for wars we fight, and for TEAS, Palins, Gingrichs, Barrs, Limbaughs, Hannities, Becks, and most talk radio and columnists!

Boy, Jesus sure didn't follow the example of Solomon and those dudes did he?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Interesting numbers!

Can you imagine how many people we are missing on this earth if there had not been the total destruction of all the ones we have killed with wars and crusades since Able bit the dust? I can't even think about how many just in recent times, say just before the Civil War here, and on through WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and several smaller ones---and that is just the USA!

Poor old Africa has lost half or more of their citizenry by one method or another. Germany, and Italy, and Japan also lost a few.
Why, we practically wiped out the American Indians.

China stopped a few more births not long ago in an odd way---destroy female babies. The Catholic method of rhythm, and most other religions using condoms & pills. Coathangers, scissors (recently), and trash cans
also helped.

One would think that conservatives wouldn't want to interfere with laws and regulations restricting a woman's choice, but they do.

Most people aren't "for" abortion or avoiding pregnancy, but reserve the right to make the decision for themselves.

I would say we would now have instead of 6 billion people that there might be , oh, maybe, 6 trillion on earth---providing disease hadn't killed most of them due to crowding or starvation!

Such things are not for me to decide for others.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Caterpillars and butterflies...

A caterpillar is part of a butterfly's life cycle.
It is not, however, a butterfly.

An acorn is a part of an oak tree's life cycle.
It is not, however, an oak tree

A zygote is part of a human being's life cycle.
It is not, however, a human being.

Insisting that a caterpillar is a butterfly, that an acorn is an oak tree, or that a zygote is a human being is to be willfully ignorant of basic science.

Those that insist that abortion is immoral because they consider a zygote to be a human being are enabling scientific ignorance.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon

If you destroy a caterpillar you destroy a future butterfly

If you destroy an acorn you destroy a future oak tree

If you destroy a zygote you destroy a future human being

Are these statements illogical?

If not, then you believe that destroying future human beings is OK?

Or should we put it thus, that if we risk destroying life, we should err on the side of life as opposed to speculating when life begins?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Petey C...illogical

Technically, your logic is flawed

Invoking a potential future state (B) as a consequence of action (A) is the Fallacy of Untestability (aka the argument to the future).

Future state (B) may or may not become true in the future, it is simply irrelevant to the argument.

Your statement "...you believe that destroying future human beings is OK?" is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion".

ImFedUp
ImFedUp's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/07/2010
Potential future state?

If PTCO's logic is flawed, then why is future value (i.e., potential future state) considered when determining damages in a wrongful death matter? That is "invoking a potential future state" and as you say, and it "may or may not become true in the future".

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Legal definitions vs. scientific definitions

Because legal definitions are an altogether different arena from scientific definitions.

For example, if you accept sdg's "whole and complete" blather as gospel, why don't we get the child tax deduction from the moment of conception?

ImFedUp
ImFedUp's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/07/2010
Lacking

Your analogy is lacking. Some truths are so simple, we reject them just because of their simplicity.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
My analogy is lacking?

My analogy is lacking? why is that, pray tell? Because you said so?
*points and laughs at ImFedUp *

As I'm sure your mother told you over and over...you're going to have to do a little bit better than that!

ImFedUp
ImFedUp's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/07/2010
Failed argument

I thought it was obvious, though I’ll spell it out if I must. My point about lawsuit damages being determined by future value was most definitely analogous to your comment about “potential future state” because they both presuppose a plausible or likely outcome – no definitions, just probabilities. However, bringing into the conversation the definition of “child” in the tax code has no relevance – it was an irrelevant stretch. On two things I believe we can agree, though - first, we have diametrically opposed views on when life starts; and second, your logic failed.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
failed argument

Okay, I believe you are mixing and matching cherry-picked legalisms to create your legal bouillabaisse.

You can now sue for wrongful death of a viable fetus. To my knowledge, though, you cannot sue for "future earnings" as a result of a wrongful death of a viable fetus.

Once you've got that all-important birth certificate,though, the rules change. Then you can sue for future earnings, etc.

You're attempting to confer the rights and privileges of the rule of law that apply to those people who have been born upon the unborn (or "preborn", if you use Christian Reich-speak). This premise, of course, is laughable and absolutely not germane to my previous statements.

Please keep trying, though, you might end up learnin' something here.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
ImFedUp - Simple?

Well Bacon is a simple person.

Humble too!

AND unpretentious.

He isn't alone we have a whole bunch of folks like Bacon running our governments. They are looking out for us the uneducated masses, people who can’t make right choices and are unable to take care of themselves. They will decide for us, they know what’s best for us.

Bacon is the poster child of the left and if you want more government like him, next time you go to the polls make certain that you vote for people that reflect the Bacon's philosophy.

I know I won’t. ;-)

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
I'm sitting here smiling Petey

I'm sitting here smiling at you Petey.

You've lectured us that things like the FDA are unreasonable encroachment of the Federal Gummint and drug companies have the right to sell us adulterated pharmaceuticals because der Market uber alles.

You've hectored us on how Health Care Reform is wrong because of the possibility that the gummint might....might... interfere in medical decisions between yourself and your physician.

And yet...and yet...

You seem to be talking out to the other side of your mouth when it comes to abortion. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing for massive gummint intervention in medical issues between a woman and her doctor.

Is this just basic glibertarian inconsistency or is there a nasty little streak of misogyny causing this "intervention for thee but not for me" duplicity?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Smiling - Bacon?

It is I that should be smiling, if there is double speak going on it is from you. On the one hand you want to give women a choice on the other hand, if you had your way, the state would make all decisions concerning everthing thing else. You seem to have no limits on the power of the state, except the decision on abortion. Double speak Bacon? ;-)

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Nope - Bacon

wrong again, I don't support government interference in our lives.

Period

If you re-read my posts you will not see one claim that government should have a role in this issue.

However, personally I believe that as individuals we should err on the side of life. I am expressing a personal belief.

Hope that clears it up for you.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
PTC Observer

Very principled ideas you are expressing. I can't help but respect that. I am also heartened by how civil this thread has been.

cheers

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Bacon

And your response to my last statement?

sdg
sdg's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2007
Science disagrees with Bacon

Bacon/Sniffles/Basmati-

Every embryology textbook in every medical college in America says your poem is scientifically incorrect.

No new material is added to the human DNA from 9 days old until 99 years old.

Let me help you complete your poem (with another stanza) that carries it to its logical conclusion.

--A newborn is not an adult. Her ability to be self-aware hasn't developed.

--Those who insist killing a newborn is immoral are enabling scientific ignorance.

I sure hope your sales job doesn't involve having to present real science.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Logic disagrees with sdg

Here is where your premise falls apart.

A newborn is part of a human being's life cycle.
It IS, however, a human being.

Using your inane logic, night is day, at an early stage.

Keep those logical fallacies of yours coming!

sdg
sdg's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2007
PTC Observer nailed it

PTC Observer got it right in that any excuse Bacon proposes to kill a preborn human works just as well to kill other groups of humans at other stages of development.

Chris ole buddy, people may be noticing that you did not refute the science you simply said you disagreed.

zygote,fetus,newborn, child,adult, senior citizen--all stages yes but all equally human.

It's your logic that breaks down.

Here's some more science for you. The human heartbeat starts at 19-23 days after fertilization. Thus, every surgical abortion stops a beating human heat.

Does that bother you?

PS-FYI neither night nor day is human-just so you know.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Sdg

Insofar as refudiating your "science", I've done that many times here in the past and I'm not interested in rehashing the science of embryology or your tortured interpretations of it. I'm not going to convince religious zealots like you to change your opinion and you lack the intellectual firepower to change mine.

With regard to your beating heart argument, a beating heart is not generally accepted as proof of sentience (the general standard for state-change in human development). Again, you and your kind resort to "appeal to emotion" logical fallacies.

sdg
sdg's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2007
Follow up comment on Bacon+Logic Parts vs Whole

I forgot to mention for those fans of logic that Bacon-sniffles-basmati is using a logical fallacy known as the parts vs whole argument.

To say a car isn't a car until it rolls off the end of the assembly line is true. Throw some bumpers and tires on the floor and they never (without outside help) form themselves into a complete automobile.

The preborn are, from fertilization, complete, distinct, and whole members of the human race. As such, no new information is added to the DNA for the rest of natural life. Unlike the automobile, they are not parts of a whole they are the complete human package requiring only time and nutrition.

This is why his Oak Tree and acorn analogies et al fail the test of logic.

Recent Comments