Refuting some more pro-life talking points.

Hello again!

The Aristophrenium has written an article in direct response to my comments on the matter of "How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric"

Aristophrenium Article

It seems like I'm wasting my time making these articles, as they just go round and round ad infinitum. I wish I had the literary ability to make all my rebuttals terse, unfortunately I have a knack of trying to be as transparent as possible, which leads to a text wall-type scenario.

Although it is written by one of the more astute and well-versed members of the site, "ryft", it still suffers from the same weak assertions and assumptions that plagued the first article. This will be my last reply on this matter, as the dialogue quickly turns into an exercise in futility and I don't care about it that much to continually rebut arguments I don't find coherent.

The article's text is in bold, my replies are non-bold.

1.a. “Pro-choice is not pro-abortion or pro-death.”

I’m willing to concede that “pro-death” is rhetorical flourish intended to make a strong statement, but the term “pro-abortion” simply reflects accurately the state of affairs, because it is not ‘choice’ in itself that is advocated but a very specific choice: abortion. Through information, advocacy and access to abortion services, what they advocate is the woman’s right to access abortion, pressure governments to change laws and policies that restrict access to abortion, condemn political or social barriers to abortion, etc.The context of ‘choice’ which Tavarish presents is likewise abortion. When elective abortions were illegal, women did have choices. But the so-called ‘pro-choice’ sector was not at all satisfied, because they wanted a very specific choice: abortion. The paper trail history of their fight is not without a wealth of evidence for this.

So your argument that pro-choice is somehow lacking because it strives to provide more choices for the woman, rather than omitting ones you find morally abhorrent? Do you not understand that choice is also realized in whether or not the mother wants to opt out of the pregnancy?

Pro-choice is necessarily presenting all the options available, not necessarily pushing abortion. Though the topic can get hung up on this issue, the actual term refers to allowing the woman to come to an informed decision with all of her options open. I am pro-choice, but I think the abortion rate should be reduced and limits should be put on the time frame in which elective abortions are to occur.

Pro-abortion is simply what they are, and it makes very little sense why they should be so opposed to the term. Since they view abortion as simply a specific medical procedure and the unborn as just an astonishing collection of biological matter, they have no real reason to shy away from labelling themselves ‘pro-abortion’.

I thought this was a discussion between me and you, not between you and a caricature of what you think pro-choicers hold as a common ideology. I have never illustrated abortion as simple, or that the unborn is simply "biological matter".

Their side does not think abortion is morally wrong. Our side does.

I find it morally wrong, but I don't impose my ideology on those who don't share it. That's what "your" side does - but I digress.

Why are they so willing to concede to our side the moral high ground, by protesting that the term ‘pro-abortion’ is injurious? Why do they in one breath characterize the unborn as a biological clump, while in the next breath claim that the decision to have an abortion is one that is difficult and distressing for a woman to make? (The existence of this dissonance makes very little sense when looked at from their own frame of reference. On the Christian view, their dissonance actually makes a lot of sense, in that their inconsistency proves that their God-given conscience is still functioning as it was designed to; on some level which they are loath to acknowledge, they actually know better.)

Whoa there. I don't claim a moral high ground, as the name of the game is relativism. What may be moral to me may be immoral to another - so let's make that clear. Your assertion that somehow a dissonance occurs in the "pro-choice, anti-abortion" camp and that individuals with such ideology necessarily borrow from a Christian worldview is so ridiculously cheap that it doesn't command a response. However, being the glutton for punishment that I am, I'll entertain it just like any other self-refuting claim some theists put forth when trying to spread their personal feelings as gospel to the rest of us.

Agreeing that a woman should have all the choices available to her doesn't mean that I agree with all the choices that are presented. By your reasoning, a person who agrees with certain legislation (example: healthcare reform) will necessarily need to agree with everything proposed by that legislation. This does not follow. Dissonance isn't a product of borrowed ideology, or subconscious load-bearing guilt, it's the product of a functioning mind that places values based on life experience and societal norms and takes every claim and tenet on its own merit, rather than just blindly accepting things under the umbrella of general ideological banter.

1.b. “It’s for the woman’s right to choose what she does with her body.”

And the pro-life view does not dispute that. However, we happen to go one step further by stating that in civilized society, grounded in moral sense and the rule of law, her right “to choose what she does with her body” is no longer unfettered when that choice directly affects another human being. No one disputes that her unborn child is inside her body. Let’s not construct straw-filled canards over that point. But there is something else that is beyond dispute: it’s in her body, but it isn’t her body.

When you said straw filled canards, I got a mental image of a stuffed duck and it made me giggle.

Back on topic.

Let's try to understand your point here. The unborn fetus is entirely dependent on the mother (it cannot survive outside the mother's body and cannot develop any other way), resides inside her body alone for the entire gestation period, she is solely responsible for its development, safeguarding and nourishment, yet somehow she is detached from it.

What you're essentially describing is that if for some reason, the mother gets pregnant, it's tough titties for her, as she has no control over what goes on next. She has absolutely no say in the matter, because it's an independent entity growing in her, simply taking up residence in her body until it's ready to be born - all of which she must endure, as her rights are voided. Does that make any sense?

If life is of such intrinsic importance, why not condemn those who take antibiotics and kill thousands of bacteria? Conversely, they are actually independent entities and can have the ability to reside outside our bodies, but tend to set up shop inside from time to time. Why not let a developing organism, with its own unique DNA flourish, as the woman is merely a vessel? It's because the organisms that depend necessarily on us for their vitals have no rights and how we deal with them is ultimately up to our discretion. Simply put, you can't assign rights to something that isn't an independent entity yet, especially in this regard.

Now, I know what you're thinking - you place value on human life above all others, so let's repeat a question I've been asking for a while now. This is an excerpt from my last comment on this topic:

"By the way, you never answered the question of when the fetus is alive and when it dies. If a fetus develops without a brain, at what point is that fetus dead? When was it alive? If the mother knew beforehand that the baby would develop without a brain, would elective abortion be appropriate? "

So, let's hear it.

When a woman makes choices about her own body that jeopardizes or harms her child, she is morally and sometimes criminally liable for that and the child can be removed from her care and placed somewhere safe. How much greater is her culpability when the health and safety of that child is entirely dependent on her, such that it cannot be removed and placed somewhere safe when her choices endanger the child? It is in her body, yes, but it isn’t her body. Her freedom to choose what to do with her body stops at her body, when those choices come up against another human body.

Here's where you're getting a bit off track here. A woman doing something with her own body (like using drugs or alcohol) that puts her child in a dangerous environment can have that child taken away, as the child is not dependent on the mother alone. There's a bit of difference here. When the mother is carrying the unborn, she cannot delegate this responsibility.

Her decisions ALONE influence the fetus, but they remain her decisions, since the entity isn't independent of the womb yet. Do you understand? Only she is accountable for bringing that fetus to term. The fetus has no rights until it is ex-utero.

It is plainly evident that my argument against elective abortions is a moral one, which renders his rebuttal on a legal point remarkably irrelevant. He might raise the point about to whom protected rights are extended, but that has nothing to do with what is morally right or morally wrong. As demonstrated by the Dred Scott decision in 1857 by the U.S. Supreme Court (which ruled that blacks “had no rights” that anyone was bound to respect), what is moral and to whom rights extend are two different questions.

And how is slavery relevant to our discussion? Please realize that we, as a civilized society, have changing values, striving to promote freedom and social advancement rather a certain ideology, because people are vastly different. I'd like to also remind you that we don't live in 1857 and the situation in the country is such that not only embraces black individuals and culture, but the President of the United States is of African-American descent. This is a digression, but please realize that society changes, and the values within that society changes. Would you like me to quote you Bible verses in which slavery is morally just and permitted? Let's not get off on a tangent here.

Morality is relative. You can say you operate by a higher, absolute standard, but that still does nothing to address the issue at hand, nor demonstrate the truth of your assertions.

If we decide that blacks have no rights, does that mean it is moral to kill them? Legal, certainly, and yet still immoral. Ergo, because we know that to whom rights extend can be an immoral decision, that angle is simply irrelevant for responding to a moral argument like above. It’s not about who has rights, but about what is moral.

Killing blacks is moral if you believe it to be moral, the same way that killing infidels is a moral action justified by some believing in the Qur'an. People will find justifications for just about anything if you give them enough drive and indoctrination. If the issue is solely moral, I don't understand why you're so up in arms about it and trying to push your beliefs down others' throats. Recognize that not everyone thinks the way you do and there is no objective "ought to", there is just a "can" and "can't", which has a far greater effect within society.

3.a. “Abortion is a multi-faceted issue …”

The pro-life view recognizes that as well. One would have to be frightfully ignorant to think that is a contested point. No pro-life advocate pretends that abortion is an issue with only a single facet. Even elective abortion is multi-faceted. And morally wrong.

You effectively said "Abortion is not a black and white issue, but abortion is obviously black"

Good job.

3.b. “… [insofar] as morality is relative and heavily dependent on the society administering it. What you think is wrong may not be so for [someone else].”

Tavarish is simply assuming the truth of his moral view in this response to my moral argument. If all it takes to defeat your opponent’s argument is to simply assume the truth of your own view, then I can defeat his argument by assuming the truth of my view. It either works both ways or it does not work at all. Insofar as the Special Pleading fallacy indicates that it works both ways, his tactic here was quite inept.

So let's get this straight. You proclaim that this is a moral issue, knowing well that I don't wish to take a moral approach on the grounds that different people views morality differently, then say that my view is invalid because I recognize this? I don't operate under religious guidelines, and neither do a lot of women that legislation dealing with this issue would directly affect. You say it isn't a legal issue, but would be in favor of banning such an action based on your moral criteria. Tell me now, who's assuming the truth of their view in order to further their point? I don't assume the truth of my moral view, as this isn't a moral issue - it's a legal one dealing with human rights. I have my own moral qualms with it, but they are IRRELEVANT.

He is certainly free to reject any of the premises of my argument, but he should not be so foolish as to think that rejecting a premise establishes its falsehood. An argument is said to be valid when the conclusion follows logically from the premises, such that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, and an argument is said to be sound when it is valid and the premises are true. My argument is self-evidently valid, so the question is whether or not it is sound. In order to claim that it is unsound, Tavarish would shoulder the burden of proving that at least one of its premises is false, which is not done by simply presupposing it to be. The burden of proof takes more work than that.

Here's your argument.

1. The deliberate killing of innocent humans is morally wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong.

#1 isn't always true - example: In times of war and self defense, killing is not only justified, it is necessary.
Stemming from that, the rest does not follow. If this has anything to do with moral absolutes, you have the burden of proof in demonstrating that these things actually exist objectively. In addition, you have to demonstrate exactly how moral absolutes apply in this particular situation, especially to someone who does not share your ideology.

However, me granting your premises for the sake of argument doesn't mean that you can shift the burden of proof. You still have all your work ahead of you if you want to weigh the truth value of a "right" and "wrong" action that affects everyone necessarily and absolutely.

3.c. “Telling people what they must do according to your ideology is pandering and imposing a belief system.”

What Tavarish doesn’t appear to recognize is that his comment here turns around and roundly bites the pro-choice side, too, for they engage in precisely the same advocacy and lobbying activities that the pro-life side does. They advocate the pro-choice agenda in reproductive health clinics, public school curriculum where they can, the highest courts in the land, and lobbying for legislation domestically and internationally. As a matter of fact, they are actually far more guilty of the above charge than the pro-life side is, which is constantly playing catch-up.

Are you serious? Since when are more options grounds for pushing an agenda? You want to keep the child with respect to your religious background? Fine, go ahead. No one's stopping you. They're just not stopping anyone who views the matter differently and may reach a different conclusion within similar situational framework.

Let's not mince words. The pro-life movement is riding the coattails of religious doctrine and political influence and actively suppressing a woman's choice in the matter, while pro-choice advocates a woman's right to choose what she does with her body on the premise that she is ultimately responsible for the consequences, morally, physically, and legally - whatever the outcome may be.

Name one pro-life campaign or organization that isn't backed by a religious, right-wing organization.

Banning something doesn't magically make the problem go away, no matter how many scare tactic campaigns you throw at it.It just makes it more dangerous to obtain, relying on questionable methods for its acquisition. Be realistic.

I also notice you're using the Tu quoque fallacy here and not addressing the actual issue I presented.

4. “I don’t agree with the methods and actions of abortion. I find it needless. But I won’t condemn someone else for their decision to have it done …”

This is biographical detail that is quite irrelevant, aside from Tavarish telling us a bit about himself. I have no idea why this is even a point for us to address. When it comes to the moral question about abortion, why should anyone care what Tavarish happens to think or not do, etc.? It is entirely irrelevant.

This is to run a parallel between my view and your view, and to illustrate clearly where we differ, since it is a dialogue. I would think that my views in this matter are at least somewhat relevant to this dialogue and backs up the fact that this issue is far from black and white, right or wrong, especially since you so clearly demonstrated your moral standings in the previous paragraphs. Though I agree - to the issue as a whole, my views are irrelevant.

5.a. “People will have abortions. You can’t stop it.”

People will commit rape. You can’t stop it. And so therefore… what? I mean, just where exactly is this line of reasoning supposed to go? If we cannot stop people from doing X, then we should legislate their freedom to do X? Or might this perhaps be a case where the Special Pleading fallacy gets invoked?

You actually made my point for me with that somewhat broken analogy. "People will commit rape" doesn't mean that we should make rape legal. It means that rape, like abortion is a problem that will not go away just because we can outlaw it.

The most effective method of abortion prevention is to educate the public about contraception and to outline ALL of their options in case a pregnancy does happen. The key here is not to limit the scope of the issue, as an individual that feels trapped will often act irrationally and do things that may harm themselves, such as get a "back alley" abortion and risk their own lives without knowing what other options there are out there.

Just as the rape case you presented, we must take measures to prevent it and safeguard against it. The only way to do this is a more educated and more well-prepared public. However, the action of rape and abortion is certainly not a good analogy - one is an elective procedure terminating a pregnancy, and the other is the act of forced sex and submission of an unwilling person.

5.b. “Banning it will only make women resort to questionable means for these procedures.”

First of all, I am not aware of anyone who is calling for a ban on all abortions entirely. The dominant call is for banning all elective abortions; if we banned all abortions but those for reasons of rape, incest, the health of the mother or the health of the unborn, that would ban an incredible 93% of all abortions.

Banning most abortions wouldn't make the issue disappear. I think that's the fundamental issue you're not considering. Making something illegal will not stop people from doing it, it just creates bigger problems for those that do. If the basis on which to ban abortion is moral, what ground do the lawmakers have to impose their morality on those who aren't asking for it?

Third, if this is a veiled attempt by Tavarish to suggest that making abortions illegal would throw us back to a time when “back alley abortions” posed a dangerous health risk to women who require an abortion, it is an extraordinary failure: (i) if a woman required an abortion for some reason due to rape, incest, her own health or that of her unborn, that would be a legal abortion in our scenario, performed by qualified medical doctors; (ii) the dangerous health risk to women formerly experienced was not due to abortions being illegal but rather the tools and techniques that were available at that time (e.g., the medical use of penicillin in the forties, the vacuum aspiration method introduced in the sixties, etc.). One has to go back to the pre-penicillin era in order to find the significant rates of death due to abortions. From the 1950s until Roe v. Wade, there were exponentially fewer maternal deaths due to illegal and legal abortions. The dots are not difficult to connect.

So we've established the fact that you granted elective abortion to be justifiable in a certain context (rape, incest, medical emergency), the question separating the action from being moral or immoral is intent. This is sort of a case in which you want to have your cake and eat it too, in which you try to argue to absolute moral stance of something, only to say that there are exceptions to such an endeavor.

While I do agree that this is a multifaceted issue, I don't agree that putting a ban on abortions that don't have a certain qualifier is effective at all. The only thing that will happen as a result when you assign legality to abortion in case of rape and incest is the increase of alleged rapes and incestuous situations. Like I've said before, women will continue to get abortions, whether you find it morally repugnant or not.

5.c. “Making an appeal to emotion doesn’t work …”

Actually, it works very well. But it is not rational, nor is it what our argument does.

When you refer to "our" argument, I will assume you mean the pro-life point of view. Let's try to look at this realistically. Pro-life advocates are the ones showing videos intended to shock and scare those into believing their ideology, as evidenced by the video posted in the previous article, where they show a montage of rather humorous aborted fetuses being prodded with tweezers next to quarters.

Pro-life advocates are the ones funding Crisis Pregnancy centers, which have the exact same aim - to scare those contemplating abortion into conforming to a certain ideology.

I agree is it's irrational, but it's exactly what advocates on your side do.

If I've misunderstood your use of the word "our", please elaborate.

5.d. “The best method to reduce abortions is an outline of the options available to women who don’t wish to keep the pregnancy.”

And we can see how effective that has been at reducing abortions.

Actually, we can. The countries that offer programs which outline all the choices that pregnant women have, rather than prohibiting certain decisions, are among those with the least abortions, despite having the highest sexually active adolescent population.

->Abortion rate chart <-

Consider a far more effective method: ban all abortions except for those related to rape, incest, the health of the mother or that of her unborn; according to the Guttmacher Institute, those comprise only 7% of all abortions.

We're brought back to the same broken point that you tried to assume earlier. It's fine if it falls into the criteria that you presented, but morally abhorrent in any other context. Not only that, you attempt to put forth that banning an action solves the problem that the action creates.

For example, smoking weed is illegal in most of the country, however, that does not stop people from doing it on a daily basis. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by banning 93% of abortions? Will that get rid of 93% of the problem?

Answering "reasonable" Creationism

I'll give a bit of background info on who I am and what I do in my spare time to illustrate where I'm coming from.

In a nutshell, I'm a 23 year old college student who holds no religious beliefs and heavily researches debating styles, rhetoric, and arguments - particularly about religious topics and certain conspiracy theories. I am persuaded by evidence, preferably empirical and verifiable, but am not above changing my mind on any given topic if new or more accurate evidence is presented, contrary to my original view. I hold no underlying dogma over my decisions, I just seek to plant the seeds of healthy doubt into those who care to listen.


A topic that has been absolutely beaten to death on the internet is creationism. Whether it's Young Earth Creationism (YEC) or Ancient Earth Creationism (AEC), the main tenet is to mix religious doctrine with scientific discovery and make an internally consistent view of life and universal origins. I've been having a conversation (one-sided commentary is more like it) with Duane, from The Aristophrenium, a blog in which Christian apologetics strive to find grounding in their belief in Christ.

I'd like to point out some things here before I start addressing points.

1. I don't care what they believe in.
2. Rejecting the claim that God exists is not the same as a positive claim that God does not exist.
3. Atheism is not a world view and has no doctrine, it is simply the lack of belief in God or gods.

I posted a comment that wasn't deemed suitable by moderators, and perhaps it was a bit off topic, but these questions bear repeating, perhaps in a context of their own.

I wrote it as a response to Duane's take on the Mt. St. Helens eruption over two decades ago - he used it as a launching point for the "reasonableness" of an explanation of Noah's Flood and the act of "witnessing" to people, or proselytizing.

For that, click here (You can see a few of my comments)

Duane's Article on Aristophrenium



A further clarification: Duane, the author of the article, is a Young Earth Creationist. He has not made his personal beliefs transparent, but YECs typically believe that the Bible is a literal and accurate account of what historically took place, at least as far as Genesis is concerned. The Earth, in their view, is around 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and macroevolution - or evolution on a large scale (speciation), never occurred, as beings were created in their current states. Noah's flood actually happened, people lived with dinosaurs, and lots of other things fill this particular religious doctrine with a lot of claims to account for, not to mention problems with inconsistency.

If this is not Duane's perspective, then I apologize and I'll ask him to discuss what his views actually are.


On to the argument!


My denied comment was:

"You gave me a link of answer in genesis - something that's not exactly foreign to me. It's like that whole site strives to build up false dichotomies, make bald faced assertions and tells people that what they believe can be rationalized into a historic event.

Creationism has thus far failed to provide any relevant applications for its use, other than proselytization and preaching to the choir.

Are there any sciences that would benefit from the theories presented by creationism?

How about any peer reviewed papers by distinguished and consistently unbiased sources in favor of creationism?

Are there any theories that can be put forth in creationism that first define God, demonstrate that he exists, then demonstrate that these claims are necessarily dependent of the actions of such a deity, all with credible, verifiable evidence?

Let's all put on our "biblical glasses" - and ignore evidence to the contrary. AiG ranks up there with the "Miracles of the Quran" page and creation myths.

It saddens me that intelligent people would willingly commit to such nonsense."



I admit, it was a bit off topic, but it does contain some questions that are relevant to the discussion:

1. Are there any sciences that would benefit from the theories presented by creationism?

Clarification: Let's, for a second, grant the false dichotomy of evolution v. creation and say that evolution is absolute bunk and is a religious belief, and all the other stuff creationists usually say to further their point across. What would the applications be to a creation-based science system?

Within evolution, we have a multitude of biological disciplines, medical innovations, cosmological theories, and numerous other examples stemming from one underlying theory. (note theory is not an assumption or assertion, it is heavily based in facts and evidence and is falsifiable)


2. Are there any theories that can be put forth in creationism that first define God, demonstrate that he exists, then demonstrate that these claims are necessarily dependent of the actions of such a deity, all with credible, verifiable evidence?

Clarification: In order for you to make a claim that a God did something, you must first define such a God, then demonstrate (not assume) with credible evidence that he exists. After all, why would you make a claim regarding an entity that may not exist? The entire thing has to be internally consistent for the theory to work.



In addition, I'll address some new points Duane brought up in light of the original conversation.

Here's his reply, my text is in bold. :

"“The ideal of the coolly rational scientific observer, completely independent, free of all preconceived theories, prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science (and, indeed, most scientists) as a simplistic myth.” - Professor John Lennox, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University."

Yes, as humans, we hold biases, but that does not mean we can't form conclusions that are unbiased to the highest possible degree. Disinterestedness is a key factor in peer review, a main tenet of distinguishing fact from fantasy. A fully unbiased person is practically impossible, but that doesn't mean they can't be impartial to a certain topic.

"Just to demonstrate how misinformed Tavarish's position is on this (and there are plenty of examples like this), consider what Charles Darwin wrote in his journal while exploring the Santa Cruz river as part of his journey on the Beagle, which later included the now famous stopover at the Galapagos Islands.

"The river, though it has so little power in transporting even inconsiderable fragments, yet in the lapse of ages might produce by its gradual erosion an effect of which it is difficult to judge the amount." - link"

And once again we link to a creationist site and not a peer reviewed paper or scholarly article on the subject by an impartial source. With a slogan like "Biblical. Accurate. Certain.", they sure have science as their top priority here.

(As an aside, science is a lot of things: descriptive, predictive, reliable - but it is never certain. When a site says that they are absolutely certain of what they say from a scientific standpoint, it's time to take them with a grain of salt, even more so when the first part of the slogan has to do with religious doctrine. )

"Darwin saw the river and he applied a uniformitarian geological interpretation to what he saw. Where did he get such an idea? Are such facts so plain from a cursory observation of the rocks and the river? No, it was Lyell's uniformitarian influence. How do I know that? Because Darwin was reading Lyell's book while on the Beagle. "

Yes, Darwin read Lyell's book on the HMS Beagle, and was influenced by him heavily in his geological studies.


"Referring to his voyage on the Beagle (1831–1836), [Darwin] wrote, “I had brought with me the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, which I studied attentively; and this book was of the highest service to me in many ways. The very first place which I examined, namely St. Jago in the Cape Verde islands, showed me clearly the wonderful superiority of Lyell’s manner of treating geology, compared with that of any other author whose works I had with me or ever afterwards read.” - link"

And another creationist site. This is turning into a bit of a pattern here.

"In fact the second volume of Lyell's work, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo."

Yup, Darwin was a big fan.

"As Marc has already pointed out, evidence does not interpret itself. Uniformitarianism was Darwin's framework for understanding everything he saw on that voyage, including his biological observations. Evolution by the slow and gradual process of natural selection is nothing more than uniformitarianism applied to biology."

You haven't demonstrated a damn thing. You take the fact that Darwin was wrong (whoa, shocker!) about the forming of a landmass and apply it to his theory of evolution by natural selection. Uniformitarianism, by the way, is simply put, how the " present is the key to the past".

First, the valley was formed by local glacial flooding. Here's a link to an article published and peer reviewed in a scientific journal:

-> CHARLES DARWIN AND THE OLDEST GLACIAL EVENTS
IN PATAGONIA: THE ERRATIC BLOCKS OF THE RÍO
SANTA CRUZ VALLEY <-


Second, Darwin was wrong about lots of things. His theory of evolution was incomplete and he knew nothing of DNA and the human genome.

Here's a list of his errors:

-> Darwin's Mistakes <-


If you had read the text of Darwin's work instead of quote mining, you would have understood they had to turn back due to the speed of the water. They never found the source, turning back before finding the glacial lake at the foot of the mountain.

Here's a link to the text, unabridged:

->Voyage of the Beagle <-


However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that evolution by means of natural selection is the most important construct in the natural sciences. Without this understanding, we would not have the knowledge of the world we possess today. It is backed up by mountains upon mountains of evidence, and gives the most accurate description of how life changed on this planet.

Within the study of evolutionary biology, there are plenty of controversies - whether it happened gradually or suddenly (punctuated equilibrium), morphology of certain structures, and what defines a species - but there is no controversy as to if it actually occurred or not. That's my gripe with creationists, particularly of the Young Earth variety. They will ignore an overwhelming amount of evidence, then still have the audacity to say that nothing of the sort occurred because their holy book told them it was so. It reminds me of the guy arguing with a donkey on Family Guy about if Kevin Bacon was in Footloose or not.

-> This is what it's like debating with a young earth creationist <-


A few more, for the road (My replies are in bold):

"Thomas Kuhn documents in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, that a conclusion-first approach is in fact the way ALL science works, and has always worked throughout history! Moreover, Steve Austin's floating log mat model was demonstrated to be accurate as a result of the Mount St. Helens eruption. Why doesn't that count?"

Duane's referring to me saying that science isn't necessarily dogmatic in its approach. It is quite funny to me that he can't understand the difference between constructing/testing a hypothesis from a conclusion first and rationalizing information to fit a conclusion. One is scientific, the other is not.

Also, about Steve Austin (not the wrestler):

-> Rebuttal to Steve Austin's claims on Mt. St. Helens <-


"Oh yes, ridiculing creationists. That totally helps your argument. Many AiG staff (and staff from similar ministries) hold respectable qualifications in geology and other sciences. So exactly what is it about the qualifications of people like Dr John Whitmore, Dr Graeme Mortimer, Dr Steve Austin, Dr Andrew Snelling, Dr Emil Silvestru or Dr John Morris (to name a few), that make them unqualified as an authority to publish on this topic?"

Qualification doesn't mean they're not batshit insane and hold some weird beliefs. Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, but it doesn't detract from his work in the theory of gravitation. Any scientist by himself is not a qualified authority to make a practical and definitive conclusion. The theory must pass the rigors of peer review and come out unscathed. Scientists don't just publish articles and go on their way, it must be put to the test continuously to ensure it is the most accurate description of the world around us.



One last one, I promise:

"In fact in a 2003 lecture I listened to by Steve Austin he reported that the sign at Yellowstone that glorified the uniformitarian understanding of this area has now been removed. The sign said something like; "...the forest you see there today is only the latest chapter in a remarkable story. Buried within the rock layers ... are 27 distinct layers of fossil forest that flourished 50 million years ago." A Scientific America magazine article in 1960 claimed it was proof positive of millions of years of multiple forest growth.

And then Mount St. Helens explodes and produces a multi-layer forest on the bottom of Spirit Lake in one day! No wonder they removed the sign. To quote Steve Austin, "What we saw at Mount St. Helens impacted the study of Yellowstone National Park."

That is, unless Creationists stole the sign in denial? ;) "

I offer this:

-> Review of the ICR and Steve Austin's lectures <-


-> Rebuttal of Austin's Claims regarding Coal Beds <-

A response to Aristophrenium's Adam on "How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric"

The entire exchange:

How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric


His comments are numbered and bolded:

1. "Potential? This whole argument is about what the unborn IS. Not that one day it may become president. How is value ascribed that way? So far all you have done is disagree with our points and provided very little in response."

I outlined exactly what I think the unborn is, and provided reasons for thinking in this manner. It is not an independent entity and has no "human rights" until it leaves the womb and is responsible for its own physical development. It isn't hard to understand.



2. "Your “proof” that the unborn has no rights, is not valuable, is not a person etc, is that it receives its nourishment from its mother. How does the source of nourishment determine what it is?"

First, I never said it wasn't valuable - quite the contrary. I said the potential to become human is important and should weigh heavily on an abortion decision.

Second, it's not only nourishment from the mother. The unborn is nearly 100% dependent on the mother ALONE to guide its development from a fetus into a full grown child. This is a bit different than the simple "nourishment" that you make it out to be. The mother and unborn undergo physiological changes, and have a special physical relationship that no other person can replicate. She absolutely has to take this responsibility if the child is carried to term - she can't delegate her responsibilities. That's why it isn't a person yet - it's not responsible for its development and vital physical functions and depends NECESSARILY on its mother for nearly everything.



3. "You claim it is parasitic. And yet in this same conversation you claim that a woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes. Make up your mind."

First, the relationship is parasitic by definition in some aspects.
Second, how would those two cancel each other out? I don't see how having a parasitic relationship can prevent a person from doing something about it.



4. "Is it a parasite or is it part of her body?"

Let me make this clear for you, since you seem to construct false dichotomies around pretty often.

An unborn child is not a parasite. The relationship that the unborn child holds with its mother, however, can be parasitic in some aspects, such as the transfer of vitamins and hydration. Ever wonder why pregnant women are "eating for two"?

I'm not calling a fetus a ringworm, so let's get off the soapbox for a minute.



5. "We have demonstrated that the baby defends itself from its mothers T-cell attacks and has a distinct genetic human DNA code which you seem to agree with. So drop the “her body” rubbish."

And I came back to that same argument with the fact that differences in DNA don't change the fact that the unborn necessarily depends on the mother for all its vital life components and developments in utero. The unborn is an extension of her own physical systems, and this is physically demonstrable. I really don't understand how you can think an unborn child isn't part of a woman - I'd urge you to actually ask a pregnant woman about her experiences before spouting nonsense.



6. "HOW it happens is morally irrelevant to WHAT happens; the termination of a human life by an outside agency."

First, it's not termination of human life. It's the termination of what could be a human life. Difference.
Second, are you trying to make the point that punching an unwilling pregnant woman in the stomach is the same as a pregnant woman that makes a decision to get an abortion? Seriously?



7."After all, you said in an earlier comment that intention is irrelevant. “What does intention have to do with anything?” For the law to identify it as murder or manslaughter, it has to recognise the quality known as personhood and ascribe it to the unborn."

Don't quote mine. I said intention is irrelevant as to the nature of the unborn in regards to the pregnancy. This was a direct result of Mathew's question: "do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?"

This is 180 degrees removed from an attacker that does harm to the mother and unborn by force, against her will.

Also, fetal homicide is already law in many states - which don't necessarily grant human rights to in utero fetuses, but recognize the potential for human life. It doesn't necessarily need to recognize the unborn as a seperate entity.



8. "You say this does not happen until it becomes its own “entity” apart from its mother. So therefore, under your worldview, no instance of the termination of the unborn can be considered murder or manslaughter, if you are going to be consistent."

Why are you just repeating yourself? I addressed this already in the last post.

See here:"The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however."



9. "Further, this points to an inconsistency in the law, not my argument; that selective abortions are ok, but forced miscarriages are not."

It's actually funny that you can't see a difference between selective abortion and forced miscarriage. Funny in a disturbing way.



10. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Where do you get your medical data on the brain development and subsequent emotion and pain processing of the unborn?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-development-in-fetus.html



11. "The brain and spinal cord begin to form at week 3 and structure has been established by week 5; Well before most abortions are performed."

And the nervous system comes together in week 23, and only after that can the brain regulate body functions. Rudimentary concepts such as emotions or dreams are formed in week 27.




12. "So how can anyone say that there is no brain function, emotions or even a soul present. Hence my demolition analogy."

Your definition analogy still fails in the same way. I never said anything about brain activity, I said emotion, and I outlined the reasons why. In the first trimester, when most abortions are performed, the nervous system isn't even fully developed and the brain isn't even capable of developing neurons at that point.



13. "You completely missed my point. It was an analogy. "

And you missed the point of my analogy.



14. "My point is you don’t know for sure. So why kill what may be an innocent, human person with thoughts, feelings and emotions. You can’t know for sure. So why take the chance?"

First, this sounds like a weird Pascal's wager.

Second, I just gave you specific examples of how you can know what facets of physical development the unborn undergoes. It's not an unknown unknown. It's quite a studied topic. Here's a compilation of the studies performed:

http://primal-page.com/mf3-7.htm



15. "For starters it showed you a first trimester unborn human; what you thought only looked human in the third trimester."

And this isn't news to me, and nowhere did I say it ONLY resembles a child late in the pregnancy.




16. "And reality is not a “scare tactic”.Clearly if someone hasn’t seen the end result then they haven’t weighed all the options in the issue. Even a picture of what it looks like and how it moves etc would be beneficial in “weighing” up all the options. "

It is when you propagandize your views with added shock value to a public who doesn't necessarily like seeing a bloody fetus. Not to mention twisting the words of a civil rights leader and throwing in religious overtones. It's not educational or informational. It plays on emotions instead of facts and testimony. This is by the same types of people that hand out brochures of dead babies on college campuses and public parks trying to shove their ideology down everyone else's throat.

Perhaps they should make the woman wear her aborted fetus as a necklace, because after all, reality isn't a scare tactic.

You want to change the world? Find a pregnant woman that wants to abort and tell her you'll adopt her child and give it the home it deserves. Then do that a few times over. It would be a hell of a lot more change than watching videos of tiny baby parts next to quarters.

Regarding "Sex without consequences"

For the past 2 days, I've had an active dialogue going with Mathew from The Aristophrenium, a Christian apologetics site, about his assertions regarding what he believes to be an appeal to "Sex without consequence" - whatever that means.

Here's a link to his article, I suggest you read it before you read my response for a clearer understanding of the context. It's a bit of a long read, but I think it illustrates some very important key points.

Sex without consequence?

Here's the exchange we've had thus far: (his words are bolded and in quotation, mine follow)



"As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless."

The point isn't to feel sorry for them, it's to bring to light the fact that people are willing to break the law to get this done, and criminalizing it does nothing for the society.



"To be brief, the tone of Ms Funnell’s article is that women ought to have every right to be able to shack up with any Tom, Dick or Harry and not have to worry about those pesky things that promiscuous sexual activity has a history of causing. You know, things like unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, responsibility and accountability …?"

1. Women do have the right to sleep with anyone they want as long as both parties consent.
2. At no point does accountability and personal responsibility take a backseat. People are responsible for their actions whether they like it or not.
3. You're painting a picture in which sexual discovery is some kind of wild orgy where no one has the self respect to protect themselves from its ills.




"Well, two of these three have no guarantee of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the third only proves my point."

What does that even mean? The fact that something isn't 100 percent guaranteed to prevent pregnancy means you can just throw it out? A seatbelt can't guarantee your life in a crash, but it would be foolish to drive without one. The third is an assertion that you made when referencing an argument you interpreted. It only proves your point to yourself and doesn't demonstrate that it's somehow not effective or viable as a solution to an issue.




"For more than 50 years women have had access to the Pill and couples have had access to other types of contraceptives and yet society is still educating its youth about STDs and unwanted pregnancies with reduction of either."

Education about sex is the only way for people to make informed decisions. How is that a problem? Would it be better to demonize it and scare people into not doing it?




"Something’s broken and it seems to me that throwing condoms and medication at the situation is doing precious little to resolve the issue. In fact, using condoms seems more like a band-aid solution to a much larger issue: an unrestrained sexual appetite."

I'm by no means an expert, but I've been to almost every World AIDS conference in the past 10 years, am a youth speaker at Hyacinth Aids Foundation, and have done many charitable events and fundraisers for AIDS awareness. In my experience, I've seen and heard many stories of people contracting illnesses, seen 11 year old mothers, and have counseled many inner-city children on this exact topic.

Abstinence does not work - at all. Younger people will find ways to do it, and the statistics agree. Adolescents need an outlet for the sexual tension and development their bodies go through. The only way to combat teen pregnancy is to have all options available and have a good foundation of sex education so they can make the right, informed choices.

To deny them of desires that are perfectly natural is going against the grain in the worst way possible. It teaches kids that they should dislike and deny themselves and their urges. This, coupled with lack of education on the subject, is a ticking time bomb.




"But it is precisely an unrestrained sexual appetite that Ms Funnell believes ought to be made available to young women as an innate right. As she says, University life “is often a time of sexual experimentation” and then believes it is an unethical practice for campus pharmacists to deny young women access to emergency contraception."

I agree with her. Young adults engaging in sexual activity is healthy, and to deny them contraception is a bit backwards.

Why are you all of a sudden harping on emergency contraception? I though the issue was abortion.




"Hold up, Ms Funnell. How’s about the young lasses keep their gear on?"

Yes, because it's that easy. Please be realistic.

People die in car accidents all the time, some even wearing seatbelts. Would you then say "How about you walk everywhere"? Abstinence isn't a viable solution when we're talking about the needs of people, many who don't share your ideologies and have varying stances on morality and degrees of will power.




" There’s nothing in the books that says every student must get their kit off when they’re at Uni."

And why would there be?




"I know personal responsibility and accountability can be viewed as old fashioned, but, y’know, when employed it would preclude any notion of the desire for emergency contraception altogether."

So you would actively tell young adults out of highschool not to have sex and expect it to work? Do you live on Earth?

I can say hacking your foot off is a good way to get rid of athlete's foot, but it presents more issues than solutions.




"This brings me to the title of my post as what Ms Funnell is really pleading for is the “right” for women – actually, even men – to have the freedom to get jiggy with the happy-lappy dance. In other words, she wants to have sex without consequences."

1. You saying "jiggy" makes me think you have no idea what this issue even entails.
2. It's not sex without consequences - it's the ability for people to have all options open to make an informed decision and not have to rely on back alley and criminalized practices. There's a difference.





"… Sex without consequences … I can’t even imagine what that would begin to look like and shudder at the thought. In fact, I don’t think it is actually possible."

Everything in life has a consequence.




"Even if all contraceptive forms had a 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs, there is still the physiological, emotional and social aspects that stem out of the sexual union."

And what exactly is wrong with that, given that all contraceptive forms would be 100 percent effective? At that point it's just consenting people having fun with one another with no ill side effects. I fail to see your point.




"When sex is enjoyed under “restraint” (ie. Lifelong, committed and monogamous union, to the exclusion of all others) the aspects of pregnancy, emotion, physiology and social impacts seem to be most favorable, in my opionion."

And why should your opinion be imposed on someone else's rights? Why is sex only to be enjoyed in a monogamous relationship? Who are you to make such a comparison and condemn others for doing and thinking differently?




"I’m not all to sure that Ms Funnell at all knows what it is that she is truly asking for: a strictly mechanical activity? Where’s the fun in that?"

I'll also take it you've never had sex before.




"Women don’t need a right to abortion on demand. Women need the respect and courage to put men back in their boxes and not give into wanton sexual desire at their own expense. (After all, men are typically the ones who get off scott-free when sexual encounters “go-wrong”.)"

You go girl! The only way to liberate women is to prohibit them from making decisions with their bodies! Also LOL at "put men back in their boxes", as if men are the only ones that desire sex. Sexual encounters go wrong for a multitude of reasons, again you're painting this issue black and white.




"And, frankly, I believe the only way that can happen is to teach men to keep their zippers up and focus instead on growing up to actually become, y’know, responsible men."

...because men who have sex are anything but responsible individuals. Right?




"Counter-culture stuff? Sure. But deep down, I’m sure that’s what most women want of their men, anyway. Am I right, ladies?"

No, you aren't right. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Personal accountability can be had with sexual activity, and sexual exploration doesn't equate to ignorance and disregard for self-interests just because you believe monogamy to be the best thing since sliced bread.




I'll post up any subsequent dialogues in the coming days.

Thanks,
-Freddy