Ben Affleck, Hypocrisy Be Thy Name....

Ben Affleck went on NPR yesterday crying about the people on Wall Street for becoming too rich for doing nothing... What does Ben Affleck do? He's an actor in Hollywood! He hasn't made a good movie since... well he has NEVER made a good movie. Meanwhile, he is living in his multi-million dollar mansion, sitting next to his olympic sized pool with Jennifer Garner and his two kids eating dolphin burgers! And he's angry at the people in Wall Street?!

Affleck should be folding paper hats in the back of White Castle somewhere. Affleck should be standing at the end of a checkout asking if you want paper or plastic. Affleck should be walking around town posting flyers on poles for his dog walking company! Better yet, Affleck should be riding the short bus.

This idiot all of a sudden wants to relate to the everyday man? Hey Ben! When was the last time you couldn't pay your light bill? When was the last time you had to use coupons at the grocery store? When was the last time you had to get out of your  car to pump your own gas?! When was the last time you had to peel you own grapes?!! Are you kidding me?

You're angry because people are making insane amounts of money for doing nothing?! LOOK IN THE FREAKING MIRROR BEN!!

What is it about all you liberal celebrities? What is it bout Hollywood that turns you into a bunch of fools who think you're political specialists? I know it's "cool" especially among my age group to be liberal and hate on "The Man" and follow the crowd. But how about you guys look at all of the major cities in the country where the liberal agenda is at its finest. The financial situation in those areas couldn't be worse! And you guys have the cajones to hate on conservative economics i.e. capitalism?! You do realize that if it weren't for capitalism, and the ability to make large sums of money for doing nothing, your lifestyle wouldn't even exist right? No wonder liberals are a bunch of ignorant, platitudinous, hypocrites.. They look up to you guys!

I think it's about time for actors to be actors. Shut up, look pretty, give your lines, and talk about things you actually have a clue about... Just sayin'

Dear, Juan Williams

Hey! What are you thinking!? Don’t you know you’re a liberal? Don’t you know that you can’t say anything that doesn’t agree with other liberals? Don’t you know that it’s bad to go on Fox and talk to Bill O’Reilly? Don’t you know that NPR doesn’t allow freedom of speech and you can’t give your opinions if it’s not PC?

Liberals do NOT say anything that isn’t PC... Well it’s not that they don’t say anything that isn’t politically correct, it’s just everyone knows liberals are open-minded and would never say anything out of line. Only conservatives do that… Those close-minded racist bigots!! You’re a liberal, which means that the only religion you can be uncomfortable with is Christianity. Even though Muslims attacked us by use of a plane and killed thousands and no Imam or Muslim official has condemned the actions on 9/11 publicly, only a foolish bigot would maintain a slight fear of flying on a plane with a Muslim (Or at least admit it out loud).

Being a liberal, even if you know you’re wrong, YOU DON’T ADMIT IT!! You especially don’t say something contrary to what the established media has deemed correct and righteous by means of their superior left intellect. Demagoguery is king. Don’t let facts common sense and truth stand in your way! You must appeal to the popular desires and prejudices rather than use rational arguments.

When someone who is conservative says something that you even might agree with, you must (I can’t tell you how important this is) YOU MUST disagree. Follow the rules the left has established for you. You must not deviate! 1) Deny deny deny! 2) Give every excuse possible. 3) Blame the Right. 4) Repeat as necessary. 5) If all else fails, attack the messenger, not the ideas. Follow the example of your fearless leader, the anointed one, Barak Obama. He’s just SO good at it… Especially rule #3. There’s no doubt he’s been following these rules since the day he was immaculated.

We all know Fox News is just a propaganda machine. This has been proven by the studies of Fox’s competition who are liberals so you know, of course, they aren’t biased and don’t have an agenda. With this in mind, why would you even talk to them Juan? What makes you think that it’s a good idea to share your opinions and have an open discussion of ideas? There’s no use in arguing over what 2+2 equals. After all, conservatives will always say 4 but liberals know better. Liberals know that it depends on their feelings and what Obama says. Everyone knows liberals are always right. Besides, even though more people get their information from Fox News than from any other source, they’re all just a bunch of redneck, ignorant, racist, bigots and they’ll never learn if they haven’t already, that they are wrong no matter what. What a bunch of buffoons! You have every right to stick your nose up at those mental infants.

The best thing about being a liberal is; as long as it’s not aimed at the left, there’s no limit to the hate that can be shot forth from your lips. Nothing is too hypocritical, too divisive, too shady, too misleading, or too dishonest. The standards are much lower. For example, if you’re a leftist feminist you are entitled to burn with indignation when a woman on the left is attacked and you are protected when you, as a feminist, attack a woman with Christian values. Remember when feminist advocate Gloria Feldt said this about Ms. California, Carrie Prejean after she voiced her opinion against gay marriage? “I think that what Ms. Prejean needs is perhaps a heart transplant rather than the breast implants.” BOOM! Well-said Ms. Feldt! Perfect case in point of the clear double standard of the left. If the roles were switched and Laura Ingram had said the same thing about Mrs. Obama or even Carrie Prejean, she would have been fired on the spot. Isn’t it wonderful how much you can get away with? Even at the pinnacle of hypocrisy, the liberal media will never report on what Gloria Feldt said.

You just can’t attack the dogma of the left Juan. Instead of talking about Muslims You should have said, “I went to the tea party rally this weekend, I saw what they were wearing, they were all Christian, they were crazy, and it scared me!” Not in a million years would you have been fired for that kind of comment. Remember, it’s only PC if the left says so… Freedom of speech schmeedom of schmech! That’s for suckers who believe in the constitution. Not liberals! No way!

Juan, you have an obligation to follow in lockstep with the liberals no matter what! Because of your honest opinion about the Muslim problem, you are a disgrace to the liberals. Honesty is frowned upon within the Left. You know that Juan! Come on man! Just stick to the program and everything will be fine! If not, you’ll see who the ignorant, racist, intolerant, bigots REALLY are! Oh crap… I guess NPR already showed you…

Love,

A racist, ignorant, intolerant, bigot who, despite attempts, will also not be silenced.

No... HE DESERVED IT!!! O_o

Affirmative Action: The "Cure" that Creates its Own Disease

I don't get it! I don't see why people with half a brain can think this way! The other day I read in an article, somewhere off of the U of U's website, "opponents of Affirmative Action claim that 'more deserving' white students/employees are being denied educational/employment opportunities." ....News flash: If the student has better grades or the employee is more qualified, THEY ARE “MORE DESERVING”!

Affirmative Action is reverse racism disguised as charity and compassion that, in the end, does more harm than good. When we employ Affirmative Action policies we devalue accomplishments and credentials of those who are qualified based on skin color. There’s a quiet racism behind Affirmative Action, which, if actually understood, speaks volumes about the supporters of it. When we are forced to lower standards and accept less qualified individuals into the business place or education system because of their social group, we are telling them that they can’t do as well and need the extra help in order to compete.

Justice dictates that a scholarship or admittance into a school should be based off of merits regardless of race. We need to understand that Affirmative Action has nothing to do with equal rights. If a minority is better qualified but a white student is chosen over him the minority can take them to court and essentially win the lottery. If it were the other way around, the white student would have to essentially bend over and take it. Affirmative Action is a practice that discriminates against the more qualified white individual and gives a much higher priority to the minorities. Lets take Jesse Jackson for example. He is a black millionaire who said, “God gave you your skin color, so why not use it to your advantage” by the way. If his son were to go to school, his application would be favored above that of a white student who was raised in absolute poverty and had better scores. That’s not even debatable.

In order to illustrate a point, I want to tell a little story. We have a student who we shall call Jane. Jane grew up in a low income broken white family. However, despite her misfortune, she excels in school and works hard. She applies for a respected college but finds out that the lower scoring minorities are given preference over her. She ends up going to a lesser college and again she graduates at the top of her class. Recruits from the top fortune 500 companies come to her school. Jane quickly finds out that all of these companies have policies in place that favor diversity. Not to be deterred, she finds a job with a lower salary than she deserves but she works hard. Promotion time comes around and she sees that this company discriminates on this front as well... The discrimination Jane faces is real and it happens every day.

Now, I’m in no way saying that diversity in the schools and the workplace is a bad thing and I’m not saying that a change wasn’t needed when Affirmative Action was put into place. I am, however, saying that replacing old wrongs with new wrongs is not the way to do it. Stanford Magazine said it well, "The basic problem is that a racist past cannot be undone through more racism. Race-conscious programs betray Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind community, and the heightened racial sensitivity they cause is a source of acrimony and tension instead of healing."

To deny that racism exists is foolish. There are some people who are very racist and some institutions founded on a legacy of a much more racist past. But racism is not everywhere like the Left and the NAACP love to suggest and there's very little in the collegiate realm. Perhaps the problem with affirmative action is that we are trying to solve a problem that really doesn't exist. Moreover, there is a growing sense that if affirmative action has not succeeded in ending discrimination after 25 years of determined implementation, then perhaps it is time to try something else.

Affirmative Action shows who the real racists are. Imagine if a corporate executive were to discriminate against a black man by hiring a lesser-qualified white man. The New York Times and established media would be howling with a burning indignation. So you tell me who are the real racists: those who support Affirmative Action that whispers to the minorities that they don’t have to do better because they can’t do better (which of course is untrue) and discriminates against whites or those who support real equality by hiring and admitting people into school based on merits alone?

Merit should be individual achievement.. Of course this doesn't just mean grades and what you got on your ACT or SAT. A broad range of accomplishments should be taken into consideration. Athletics, music, drama, student government, school clubs, and other extra curricular activities should be considered. But race and ethnicity (or gender or sexual preference) have no place in this list; these are traits, not achievements.

The worst part about affirmative action and perhaps the most tragic is that the very significant achievements of minorities are easily compromised. Because of affirmative action, it's much harder to tell if a minority genuinely deserved to get into a prestigious school or top position in a job or if they just happened to fit into this forced agenda. If a person were to suspect that be the case, they are immediately labeled as a racist or a bigot or a misogynist even when the suspicion is correct.

An America without affirmative action will be an America in which the question of who belongs here will no longer need to be answered. It will no longer need to be answered because it will no longer need to be asked, not even sotto voce.

God Created Adam and Eve... Not Adam and Steve

In light of recent events concerning an LDS Conference talk Boyd K. Packer gave and the surge of hatred towards the LDS, I wanted to put in writing my thoughts about homosexuality. Due to the need many people have to stay mainstream and politically correct and the ignorance perpetuated by common misconceptions, there are a few issues I feel need to be addressed. In an attempt to cover a more comprehensive range of issues I am going to dive a bit into a lengthy comment written to me on facebook by a friend of mine named Adam, who is a part of the gay population.

President Boyd K. Packer gave a talk in this year’s October General Conference only a couple weeks ago from now. He unapologetically spoke upon the controversial subject of homosexuality which I applaud him for. He said things that people don’t like to hear, but that is what the Lord’s anointed do. They aren’t “people pleasers” or politicians that just tell the masses what they want to hear. Nobody wants to hear that they, or even a family member of theirs, are not obeying God’s commandments. Because Packer spoke about a hot topic in society contrary to liberal beliefs, he was immediately in the crosshairs of the opposition.

In summary, Packer, in his talk, mentioned The Family: A Proclamation to the World and talked about the sanctity of marriage and the value of a righteous priesthood holder in the home where a man and a woman are lawfully married. He spoke of love, forgiveness, and repentance. He said obedience and the priesthood could “show you how to break a habit [and] even erase an addiction.” He admonished us to wake up and know what’s going on in the world around us. He made the pint that if we enter into any relationship that isn’t in harmony with the gospel, it is wrong. A faithful member or even just an honest Christian can’t disagree with any of this. All of this leads to his point concerning homosexuality that got everyone all up in arms and offended.

Packer states, “some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father.” He reminded us of Alma’s words in the Book of Mormon that there will be people who will call evil good and good evil and so forth. He warned us, after telling a story about a child who brought a kitty into class and they decided they should take a vote to see if it was a boy or a girl, that there are people who wish to do the same laughable thing. “There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality. As if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature… We cannot change. We will not change our moral standard.”

Many would like to take the above statements and twist them into a message of hate and intolerance. Those same people, however, in all probability didn’t even listen to the whole talk but were still more than willing to jump to an anti-Mormon/religion conclusion. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard in the past couple weeks alone that this talk by President Packer proves that Mormons hate the gays. The truth: exactly the opposite. If I may, I will give quotes from the church pertaining to the area under discussion that people like to conveniently overlook.

The Church calls on those involved in the debate over same sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harasses or subject to erroneous information.”

-Kim Farah, Spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called ‘gay-bashing’ – physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.”

-Dalen H. Oaks

Members of the church “should love [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God.”

-Gordon B. Hinckley

I know of no group more loving than the leaders of the LDS church. If people hate the gay community, it is of no fault of these men. They teach only compassion, love, and understanding through the doctrine of Christ. Any act of hate towards the gay community is not tolerated within the church.

One may say that the actions of the members are in direct correlation to the stance of the church. As I just pointed out, obviously, the members who are engaging in hatful acts aren’t, in reality, listening to the messages of the church. They act out of their own accord, not what they have been taught and they will eventually reap what they have sewn.

Adam, my aforementioned friend said, “the issue is… the self-hate that the church's actions and words create in people who are born gay.” We would have to presume that people are born gay to even begin to prove this to be a legitimate assertion. The fact of the matter is, there is no consensus as to what causes homosexuality. There is no “gay gene.” The American Psychological Association (APA) issued a statement in 2008 indicating that most scientists think that homosexuality is caused by “a complex combination of nature and nurture.” They go on to say, “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” A. Dean Byrd, Ph. D concluded that researchers whose studies have attempted to find biological causes for homosexuality have all admitted that they failed. F.S. Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project also came to the deduction that homosexuality is “genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.”

The facts sustain what President Packer said in his talk when he said Heavenly Father would not send someone to earth as a homosexual if homosexuality is wrong and there’s no way to overcome it. Heavenly Father is a perfectly just loving God and would never allow us to come to earth immediately condemned to Hell without a way out. This misunderstanding causes some people to loath themselves because they think they are evil due to a mixture of God’s wisdom (homosexual activity is wrong) and the wisdom of the world (gays are born that way). If there is a problem with self-hate, it’s not because of the church’s standing on homosexuality, it’s because the world wants people to believe that they are born that way. Of course, this is simply not true.

My heart goes out to those who feel that they are less of a person because they are gay and I hope they see that, no matter the lifestyle one maintains, they are still loved unconditionally just as much as anybody else in this world and has just as much worth. This misunderstanding has caused much anguish and grief through suicides because they have been taught by the world that they are born that way and can’t change. So naturally, God must hate them because of the sinful nature of homosexual activities. The actual message of the church regarding homosexuality couldn’t be more converse.

Another point Adam brought up that I wish to address is that he claims nobody is 100% gay or straight 100% of the time. This idea that sexuality is fluid and that everyone is gay and straight at one point or another is ridiculous. I think I can speak for the majority of straight guys at least and say that I have never been even attracted to another man, in fact, it repulses me to even think about. It’s not natural and there isn’t even a biological need for a wishy-washy sexuality.

“’Ex-gay’ stories aren't true triumph over the devil, or even over biology. Rather, they're a natural change of attraction over time.” I have to disagree. Seeing as how there is no scientific evidence showing what causes an individual to be gay, I will stick with the words of the prophets, common sense, and the simple fact that homosexuality leads to a genetic and genealogical dead end. To practice homosexuality, one is breaking the law of chastity. A desire to do that which is ungodly, unclean, impure, or simply bad is a temptation. Anything unclean, impure, or leads one to break God’s commandments is of the devil ergo, to rid yourself of a temptation is in a sense a “triumph over the devil.” Finally, to suggest that one can naturally change ones attraction over time is an admittance that homosexuality isn’t something one is born with. No matter how hard a white man tries, he will never be black over time.

The notion that one cannot change their sexual orientation is simply a myth that has been spread around in the promotion of homosexuality and the liberal agenda. It was noted in the American Journal of Psychiatry that William Masters and Virginia Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported a 65 percent success rate after a five-year follow-up on a research of psychological care to help men overcome unwanted homosexual attraction. Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who ironically was the psychiatrist who led the effort for the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from the psychiatric manual, said “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that is untrue – some people can and do change.”

To suggest, even to hint that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind elicits an illogical rage within the political left. However, there is no denying that gay activism, not scientific evidence, has influenced national mental health organizations regarding homosexuality. By vote of 5,854 to 3,810, the American Psychiatric Association eliminated homosexuality as a diagnostic category from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1973, making it the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than by scientific evidence. In her book Queer Science, Simon LeVay, an activist researcher and self-identified homosexual stated, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality.”

The opinion that homosexuality is an innate and immutable trait has fueled the argument for same-sex marriage. Referring to the biological argument that often serves as the basis for civil rights of homosexuals, Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a developmental biologist and self-identified lesbian, notes in the New York Times, “It provides a legal argument that is, at this moment, actually having some sway in court. For me, it’s a very shaky place. It’s a bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and moral question.”

Why the gay community even cares to change the definition of marriage is beyond me. Elton John with his long time partner, David Furnish had a few choice words concerning proposition 8. In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified, "we're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.” John and Furnish, and their two cocker spaniels, Marilyn and Arthur, were in town for Tuesday's annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation when he said,
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Finally a voice of reason in the gay community. A prominent homosexual says NO to gay marriage. 
Does this make him a bigot? 
Does he hate you? Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council said it best when he said, “it’s time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.”

What’s ironic is that it’s ok for the homos to vandalize LDS temples with graffiti, defile our garments in public, and protest on temple square during general conference but it’s wrong for the church to make statements about them. I can’t say I’m surprised though, as much as liberals preach “open-mindedness” they mean we should be open-minded about THEIR beliefs and agenda. It’s a one-way street to them.

It is time to stop the name-calling and the terrorizing, intimidating, stealing, and vandalizing. It is time to listen to logic. There’s no need for all of the contention on both sides and it’s time for the gay community to stop playing the victim card when they commit just as many hate crimes against those who feel homosexuality is morally wrong. As for me, especially because there is no real evidence supporting the contrary, I will remain on the side of the prophets, apostles, and God. There’s a reason why God created Adam and Eve instead of Adam and Steve.

Human Life: When Does It Begin?

"A human zygote, blast cyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is therefore murder and should be illegal.” Joyce Arthur said this but in the next breath she claimed that this logic is “deeply flawed.” My purpose in writing this is to say that's absolutely false. “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” by Joyce Arthur came to my attention while in a friendly debate with a liberal friend of mine. I found it to be a dishonest and a misleading piece of work. I have decided to go through Arthur’s work and correct the “facts” she has stated to justify her stance on abortion.

As I commonly say in my debates with liberals, I want to call a spade a spade and I will go into a little more detail on this subject later on. The subject is abortion. The stances are either for or against it. I will not call someone who is for abortion “pro-choice“, inversely I will not call someone who is against abortion “pro-life.” I will refer to them as pro-abortion and anti-abortion respectively. Another tactic I refuse to use is to call pro-abortionists “anti-lifers” the way Arthur insists on calling those who are anti-abortion “anti-choicers.”

As Arthur begins her argument, she immediately casts aside the life of the child in the womb and refers to it as a peripheral issue “regardless of whether a fetus is a human being” and clearly places the fact that “women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives” as priority number one in the abortion debate. Her Olympian detachment to the life of a human being should automatically disqualify her as one who’s opinion matters in a discussion about a fetus being a human being or not. She goes on to say that because these women, even if they believe abortion is murder, will be doing it anyways, “we should leave the decision up to women’s moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions.” One could write a book about all of the logical fallacies in that statement alone. With that logic in play, we should make murder legal and leave it up to the people’s moral conscience and provide them with safe, legal, accessible murders... I’m pretty sure almost every person who commits murder knows it’s wrong... She goes on to say, “ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman.” Not only is this misleading due to the fact that the status of a fetus is not a subjective opinion which I will cover later on, but it puts a paramount on the extremely biased thoughts of a woman when she is pregnant. This is absurd and a plague through the ranks of pro-abortionists and feminists alike who think they are the center of the universe.

Now on to the fun part.

Deconstructing the Pro-Abortion Language

Before I get into language of that specific to pro-abortion rhetoric, I need to point out some obvious errors in Arthur’s writing. She claims that the words “human” and “human being” are completely different. This, of course, is false. One only has to get through middle school to realize that words may have multiple meanings and a word that is an adjective in one context can be a noun in another. In a way that insults the reader, she conveniently omits the fact that the word human can be used as an adjective and a noun. She uses the example that a flake of dandruff is human but not a human being. True, however, the question she says which she is often confronted with is, “isn’t it human?” referring to the fetus. The answer is yes in every form of the word human. One must wonder why she is straining at this grammatical gnat and what camel she is trying to silently digest here. It’s almost as if, judging by her explanation, she was once caught up in this grammar war in a previous debate with someone and had to write it down and leave out half of the truth so that she can be unequivocally right. (Which, by the way, is another tactic of the pro-abortionists and the left in general. They will never agree even when you have a valid point, except on rare occasion).

Arthur herself admits that she doesn’t actually know what “humanity of the fetus” means. She said, “[people who use the phrase] may mean its physical human qualities.” and after that assumption she takes one step further in her demonizing tactics by saying, “but it’s ambiguous, maybe purposely so.” Not only is her explanation of the phrase wrong, but I take issue with her building a case without knowing anything about the foundation of the argument. Surprisingly enough this can be done quite easily and is a very common practice when one is lacking evidence. Here is an example by the late Hugh B. Nibley who was illustrating the same point on a different subject through a story he called "The House That Jack Built."

Nibley said:

1. It is common knowledge that Jack built a house. It is this house which we are discussing.

2. There are rumors that a great deal of malt - very probably stolen - was stored in the house. What lends plausibility to the report is the building of the house itself - by Jack. Why a house, if not to store the stolen malt?

3. It is said that the malt was eaten by rats, and in view of the high nutriment content of malt (see Appendix A for references to scholarly and scientific studies proving beyond a doubt that malt is nutritious), there is no good reason for doubting this report.

4. The rats may very possibly have been killed by a cat, as some believe, and there is certainly nothing intrinsically improbable in the event. On the contrary, studies made at the Rodent Institute of the University of So and So, etc… The report that only one rat ate the malt is of course erroneous, since the consumption of such a large quantity of malt would require many years and probably a large number of rats.

5. That the cat was chased by a dog is only to be expected. Only a fanatic would question it.

6. The same applies to the dog’s being tossed by a cow, though it is admittedly a less common event.

7. ‘At any rate’ (a very useful expression) we can be reasonably certain that the cow was milked by a milkmaid - what other kind of a maid could it have been? - and also (since there is no good reason to doubt it) that the milkmaid, whose name may have been Bertha, was wooed by a man all tattered and torn. There are unmistakable references in the newspapers of the time (or at most a generation later) to poorly dressed men known as ‘tramps’ roaming parts of the country. There can therefore be little doubt that Bertha was engaged in a passionate public wooing.

8. The exact date of Bertha’s marriage to her tatterdemalion lover is not known, though it may have been some time late in January 1858. Certainly the court records of the time are silent on any earlie or later marriage.

9. Though there is no direct evidence that Bertha was mistreated by the man who wooed her so passionately, there is every evidence of cruel neglect both in the proven fact that Bertha apparently had no house to live in (at least there is no record of her having a house in the country archives) and in the character of the man who married and abused her.

It will hardly be necessary to point out to the student the solid advantage of such little touches as ‘the exact date’… in No. 8. Since no date at all is known, it is perfectly true to say that the exact date is not known, implying that an approximate date is known: ‘It may have been in January 1858” - true again, perfectly true - it may also have been in September 1902 or May1320. Again, if there is no evidence whatever that Bertha was mistreated (or even that she existed), it is both shrewd an correct to say that there is no direct evidence, implying, while not saying, that there is plenty of indirect evidence.

Let the student check the above ten points for evidence. There is none! We have given the world a suffering Bertha and her brutal spouse without having to prove a thing.”

Even though the phrase “humanity of the fetus” refers to the pain the fetus can feel, this doesn’t matter because she went off on her own tangent and injected her own opinion as to when an infant can feel emotions.

As for the other phrases she tries to discredit such as, “it’s a life” and “life begins at conception”, I will show in the next section how those phrases are, in fact, scientifically accurate and correct. In the remainder of this section I will address the phrases used commonly by pro-abortionists.

“Pro-choice” is the preferred label by those who are pro-abortion. It is a fluffier way to say pro-abortion which makes the pill easier to swallow while detracting from the real issue, abortion. Abortion is wrong, so naturally they would want to step away from the association of even the word. If it wasn’t wrong, then why not be proud to say, “I am pro-abortion”? The argument from the pro-abortionists is that they have the right to choose to abort the child inside of them followed by a list of justifications and endless detachment techniques. Anti-abortionists are guilty of it also by calling themselves “pro-life.” However, at least "pro-life" is still more in line with, and honest to the actual subject of abortion while “choice” is just changing the subject entirely. It’s wrong, misleading, and dishonest.

Another phrase that usually follows the choice argument is, “You can’t tell a woman what to do with her body!” Actually, yes we can. A woman (or man for that matter) cannot use her body for prostitution. You cannot use your body to harm another. You cannot use illegal drugs. You cannot use your body to take away the right to life, the right to liberty, and/or the right to the pursuit of happieness (wealth/property). Abortion does just that to the life inside of the womb. The irony is that there are laws in many states that prevent a mother from using drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, although the same mother can kill the fetus at any time. The comeback is usually something along the lines of, “it’s part of the reproductive organs.” Wrong again. Here's a list, for those who aren't familiar, of the actual female reproductive organs. We’ll start from the most superficial of the internal female reproductive organs. Vagina, Cervix, Uterus (womb), Fallopian tubes, and finally the Ovaries. No fetus. You can find that information in any anatomy book of any size anywhere. This one is a no-brainer. Comparing the fetus to a parasite to justify that claim doesn’t hold any water either. The fetus has it's own circulatory system and unique DNA. To such a statement Professor Peter Kreeft made the rather comical observation, "But in that case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises! Clearly, the absurd conclusion came from the false premise that the fetus is only part of the mother." You wouldn’t consider a tape worm a part of your digestive system would you? Didn’t think so.

This is one of my personal favorites, “the fetus is just a mass of cells.” Well, I hate to break it to you but… technically, so are you. Here is a quote from a doctor who has actually seen an abortion. I don't think you're gonna convince him that "it's just a mass of cells." "I opened the sock up and I put it on the towel and there were parts in there of a person. I’d taken anatomy; I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula and there was an arm, and I saw some ribs and a chest, and I saw a little tiny head, and I saw a piece of a leg, and I saw a tiny hand. ... I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head, etc., and I turned and said, I guess you got it all ... It was pretty awful that first time... it was like somebody put a hot poker into me."

-Dr. David Brewer. Testimony of David Brewer, MD, former Abortion Provider. Priests for Life.

There’s, of course, many more phrases to be covered but I want to move on to our next subject.

Of Course a Fetus is a Human Being.

Instead of pointing out every error and blatant lie Arthur has under her category "Is a Fetus a Human Being", I'll just let the facts do the talking. The science is pretty clear about the beginning of human life. Life does, in fact, begin at conception.

Here's some examples from textbooks:

"Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

-Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

-Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp. 1-17.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

-O'Rahilly, R. and F. Muller. 1996. Human Embryology & Teratology, Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 5-55.

If that doesn't convince you then here's a few quotes from doctors on the subject:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

-Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania)

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being."

-Dr. Jerome LeJeune (University of Descartes)

"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

-Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic)

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

-Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School)

Yes, that's right ladies and gentlemen. Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth said it is "SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT." But does science really matter to those who have an agenda? It's pretty convenient that the political left decides not to mention the science behind abortion when the science proves them dead wrong seeing as how science is usually their mantra. Why am I not surprised though?

If you're not into facts, and need a more emotional approach here's a description of an abortion to add to the one previously mentioned:

"I watched as the contents of the woman’s womb came through a suctioning device and into a stainless-steel pail sitting at his feet. I stepped back and wiped the perspiration from my brow. "This is kind of gruesome," I said…. The doctor said, “At this point in a pregnancy, the products of conception aren’t much.” I stepped forward and peered into the pail. This time I broke out in a cold sweat. I backed up and leaned against the wall, my eyes closed. Dear Jesus! I thought. I just saw someone murdered! And I just stood and watched!

-Nurse Don Haines. Don Haines. 2002. The Day I Became Pro-Life. New Man Magazine 10/29/2002.

Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first three weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a "person." In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood.

As you can see, from the medical textbooks to the ones who have actually witnessed the horror that is abortion, the fetus is, in fact, a human being. Here's a couple more fun facts for those who still don't want to face the truth:

Fetal heart begins to form 18 days after conception. Measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception

-Heart Development at the Loyola University Chicago web site

Fetal brain begins to form on day 25

-"Life Before Birth" Life Magazine Educational Reprint 27, April 30, 1965, page 6.

Brain waves produced by 6 weeks

-Brain development slideshow at Temple University

78% of abortions occur after fetal brain waves have begun

-Elam-Evans, L.D., et al. 2002. Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 1999. Surveillance Summaries 51(SS09) 1-28. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention).

Does a Fetus Have a "Right to life"?

The declaration of Independence of the United States of America claims, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” The right to life is one of the most important principles of law within a free republic.

Arthur's whole argument was based on a Fetus not being a human being by using the method previously shown by Hugh Nibley. There was a lot of talk but no proof. With the scientific evidence, which the left basically worships, I just laid out for you, I can say easily and with confidence, a fetus is a human being and human beings have the right to life.

In her argument, Arthur makes the assumption that anti-abortionists believe that the fetus's right to life is "negotiable" and "certainly not absolute or paramount" on the basis that anti-abortionists are ok with abortion in special circumstances such as "rape, incest or a threat to a woman's life, or even health." First of all, most anti-abortionists only believe that the threat to the mother's life is the only legitimate reason to have an abortion. The others should be on a case by case basis and this is basically a compromise to those who want to use abortion as a form of birth control... Which is the case in most abortions. She further insinuates that this compromise (for lack of a better word) is to appease those who rant about abortion being about controlling women's rights. To which, my simple response is: a woman does not have the right to murder and a "woman's rights" are not more important than the fetus's right to life.

The total disregard of life of the infant human being inside of those women who believe in abortion is sickening. Arthur says herself, "even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose" This feminist, women-and-what-women-want-are-above-all-else, ideology is ridiculous. Women are no better than anybody else including the person inside of her uterus. This is just common sense. She goes on to justify this statement by saying that being pregnant restricts her freedoms significantly. What freedoms? A pregnant woman is just as free as anybody else. Yes there are some physical changes and possibly some psychological consequences but she should have thought about that before having sex, let alone letting the man ejaculate his sperm into her. What did you think would happen? Of course there are some accidents where the condom rips or the pill doesn't work or whatever it may be but you made the choice to participate in the act that creates life. If you're not ready to have a baby especially if you're not married, don't have sex. It's quite simple really.

Can a Fetus Be a Legal Person with Rights?

We all remember Roe v. Wade right? Let me refresh you on a couple points I want to hit on. Jane Roe (a.k.a. Norma McCorvey), of Texas, claimed to have become pregnant as a result of a rape which led to special laws or legal exceptions for women such as a woman’s right to abortion based on a "right to privacy," (which is not specified in our U.S. Constitution). Roe mandated a policy commonly known as "abortion on demand." On a little side note, In 1987, she admitted that she lied about being raped. (again, why am I not surprised?).

In her argument against a fetus's rights, Arthur says, "the very fact that exceptional laws for fetuses would have to be created proves that they are incapable of having the same legal status as real persons." Is that so? Well I guess since the courts had to make special laws for women, that means women are incapable of having the same legal status as a real person... That would include you Ms. Arthur.

Because I want to talk about the Laci Peterson case, Lets examine the very liberal state of California's laws shall we? CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 187 states, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Even in the state of California, the intentional killing of a fetus is wrong. For example, Laci Peterson was pregnant when she was murdered and Scott Peterson was charged with double homicide. The implications that a fetus could be murdered was not lost of the radical pro-abortion movement. Mavra Stark, the head of the National Organization for Women's Morris County chapter said, "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder." She also said, "There's something about this that bothers me a little bit. Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging [Peterson] with a double-murder." ...What a class act this Mavra Stark is.

Most notable among the exceptions to the California murder law is section b.3., which allows the "mother of the fetus" to consent to the "death of the fetus". However, none of these exceptions to murder correspond to the exceptions listed under justifiable homicide. The fetus is no in way attempting to commit a felony against the mother, but is doing what all fetuses do, including what you did as a fetus.

The terminology in the exceptions is bizarre, since the term "mother" implies relationship. How can a woman be the mother of a non-person (a fetus)? Doesn't the "death of the fetus" imply that it was alive? The law results in some rather unusual implications...

The legal arguments against abortion are examined from the perspective of the rights afforded all persons by laws of the United States. The Supreme Court, however, invented additional rights that were said to surpass the right to life. The legal definition of murder for the state of California will again be examined to demonstrate its logical fallacies. For the state of California, personhood is not established by an impartial set of criteria, but by the whims of another person.

-The fetus is granted personhood if wanted by the mother

-The fetus can become a non-person at the discretion of the mother

-However, a mother may not choose to kill her born child

My question is, how can the personhood of a human being be decided by another person? If the mother can decide that the fetus is magically a person, that fetus was a person all along.

Does a Fetus Have a Social Identity?

Does it really matter? A human is a human no matter how it participates in society, and it has already been established scientifically that a fetus is a human being. I'm not going to get into this section any more than that because it really isn't relative to the discussion.

Is a Fetus a Human Being Physically?

How about another quote from someone who has actually seen a fetus:

"I had a quick sonogram and then received a shot of methrotrexate. After the shot, I came home... I went to bed that evening around 9 p.m… I continued contracting and bleeding most of the night. Around three in the morning, I went to the bathroom. When I stood up, I noticed that the pain and the pressure was not from clots, but from passing the placenta. When I looked in the commode, I saw laying in the center of the placenta my baby. I saw the baby's perfectly formed hands, the little fingers. I remember the scream that came from my mouth... [from a 7 week abortion]

-Char, "I used to be Pro-choice...But…"

Arthur defends her position by stating "the normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities)." No, that's her meaning. She goes on to say, "Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?" The fact that people don't normally see a fetus and it's not really a part of every day life plays a huge role in the perception of a human being. People perceived blacks as inhuman but that doesn't make the blacks any less human. A developing human is still a human no matter how small, no matter how different a fetus may look compared to what our perception is. A tadpole is a frog but nobody questions that. This is a bogus argument for the pro-abortionists.

Are Eggs and Embryos Stable Individuals?

The Last time I checked, we were talking about “a human zygote, blast cyst, embryo, or fetus." Eggs are an entirely different subject. We have already established with scientific evidence that life begins a conception thus an embryo is a human. The argument that the embryo can split is null and void because the argument was based on when the soul enters the body. Science hasn't proven that we even have a soul. Of course, I believe we all have one but once science can prove when this takes place, if it takes place, this is only speculation and is still one of the mysteries of the universe. Personally I believe the people who buy Arthur's crap are the ones that need evaluation as to whether or not they are stable individuals as opposed to the eggs and embryos. But what do I know?

Life Is a Crap Shoot

Again, this is a discussion for a time when one can prove when a soul is placed in the body. But I'll bite and indulge myself as to my personal opinion that isn't based on fact because there isn't any way to know these things. I figure I can do it once because Arthur has been doing it through her whole argument. (the house that Jack built). Her claim is that all those who don't buy her garbage are just hung up on the emotional aspects of it. She says, "If your parents had decided not to have sex the night you were conceived, you wouldn't have existed. If your father had worn a condom, you wouldn’t have existed. Or, you could have been conceived, then miscarried. If you had been aborted, your mother may have had a later sibling who wouldn't have existed without your abortion. And so on. Ultimately, if you hadn't been born, it wouldn't matter to you, the same way it can’t matter to aborted fetuses that they weren't born. The non-existent don’t regret their non-existence, and when the living start worrying about the non-existent, they descend into irrational nonsense." Not everyone thinks this way, myself included. I believe that I would have been born no matter when my parents had sex and that my siblings would also be born. It's possible that the timing and such might have altered my looks and such but it's my soul that makes me me. The fact of the matter is, if a father had used a condom or straight up didn't have sex with the mother that night, the mother would not have been pregnant and there wouldn't have been a life to abort in the first place. Arthur's logic makes no sense. Nobody is upset about the non-existent. YOU CAN'T ABORT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. People are upset about the life being snuffed out because the parents were irresponsible and through no fault of the infant.

"Men release billions of doomed sperm over a lifetime, and virtually all of women's thousands of eggs go to waste. The number of potential, unique human beings forever lost to the world is astronomical." The key word here is "potential." Abortion isn't about the potential life of a human being nor is it about the billions of sperm or thousands of eggs. When you choose to have an abortion, you choose to end a life not a potential life.

"This is not to say that human life doesn't have value. Of course it does, but only the value that we ourselves bestow on it—in biology, life is cheap, life is wasteful, and death is vital. Nature does not value humans any more than worms, and in all species, vast numbers of eggs and seeds don’t stand a chance of reaching maturity." In her endnote to this statement she says, "anti-choicers might claim that such death and wastage is natural or God-ordained, but that abortion is 'playing God', and this makes it wrong. But we play God every time we fly in an airplane, take antibiotics, ... predict a storm, and build a fire." No. No. No. We may risk our lives by flying in a plane, or riding in a car, or getting out of bed. We are playing god when we murder or jump off of a building. We protect ourselves by taking antibiotics or wearing clothes. Protecting our bodies is what God would have us do. Destroying them is not. We are predicting a storm through advancements in science not creating the storms. Do you get the point? Those are not examples of playing God. She goes on to say, "human beings take control of their destiny and manipulate nature in a way that animals cannot—this is what makes us human beings. If we can’t be in charge of our reproduction too, we are no different than animals." Not only is this an opinion of hers and nothing more, it's ridiculous. Being human has NOTHING to do with manipulating nature. And to top it off she says"(And if anti-choicers further say that this still doesn't make abortion "right," I would argue that safe, legal abortion is one of the greatest moral advances of the 20th century.)" Moral advances? This shows you were the morals are for those who are pro-abortion.

Conclusion

Scientifically a fetus is a human being with a right to live. When it comes down to it Abortion, is not about the women's rights, it's about the ability to act without consequences. When the decision is made to abort, in most cases it is used as a form of birth-control which is wrong on all fronts. It's the easy way out. It's not easy to be pregnant but that's life. That's natural. Abortion is not. You are, in fact, playing God.

“The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn’t learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching it’s people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”

-Mother Teresa