I generally stay away from discussions of this type on internet forums like this, but after reading this article, I felt like i had to post something. Family, be aware i will likely ignore/delete your post because i love ya.

Here is the article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/justice/pennsylvania-abortion-doctor/index.html?iref=allsearch

We all have heard all the arguments before. Is it a baby? Does it have rights? Does one have a right to choose? Etc… 

While i will make other points, i want to start off with this: Regardless of your opinion, how does the article make you feel?  Anger?  Disgust? I would hope you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would side with the doctor in this article. Most would clearly say that is murder. Anyone disagree?

So tell me, how is this any different from regular abortion? One may make a comments related to negligence  or how most clinics are more professional etc, but the end result is the same right? If you are an abortion supporter, then you simply shouldn't be bothered by this article. It’s just an unwanted "fetus" that the mother had a right to choose to abort by a doctor, right?
No, your gut is right, you are bothered by the article. We all know it’s wrong, some of us just convince ourselves by making it sound better. Supporters somehow justify abortion with silly arguments that have an appearance of being more intellectual.  They even turn it around to justify abortion as somehow more humane and to make it sound good, but if really considered, these justifications are rot with holes and are at best a bad joke.

It’s popular today to seem tolerant. Many say, "i don’t force my opinion on others", and this is usually followed or implied, "so you shouldn't imposes your opinions on others too" LOL this is comical at best, as it actually IS DOING what it says it’s not. A typical example is the people who bash the other people they think are being intolerant, when in reality they are hypocritically being intolerant of people who are intolerant. I've literally seen a sign that says, "intolerance will not be tolerated . Its looks better, while being just as guilty. The idea behind this is, 'truth is subjective'. I heard a story in a college classroom where the professor asked if a person should decide what is right and wrong for themselves. The majority of the class said yes. Later the professor asked if its right for a person to torture and kill kids for fun, the class unanimously answered no, which then proved the point the professor was making; we may think "truth" is subjective to us, but in fact these truths are universal. Please don’t read into this. I’m not referring to futile things like should a person brush their teeth 2 or 3 times a day, Im talking about ultimate truth, whats right and wrog universally. You may have to read this slow or twice:  Anyone claiming that “knowing ultimate truth is impossible”... just claimed what they said was impossible.

I heard the "quality of life" used a lot. The argument is this unborn child will have a bad life, poor living conditions or birth defect and thus it’s better for it to die. I honestly am dumbfounded how many people hold this point of view. Think about it, you’re saying that because you THINK a child MIGHT have a life not up to SOME arbitrary standards YOU made up, then they shouldn't be allowed to live. WHO make this determination? Again this is a subjective truth, and this is forcing your view on others. Yes, the exact same argument a typical pro-abortionist makes is the same thing they are guilty of here. How poor is too poor to live? How good does the parenting situation have to be to live? What percentage of chance for downs syndrome is the cut off for life? Come on, thank goodness it wasn't Hollywood that decided for me, my income would never be up to their standard so i would have never been born if left up to the rich, right?
Why don’t we take this a step further? Why don't we start euthanizing people when they become very sick, paralyzed, or lose a limb? Then the next step is killing off the poor and maybe races and or religions of people that we don’t feel come up to our standards or won’t have as happy a life as us? Isn't that the same thing? Well no, because these people CAN TALK, unlike the unborn people.

The longest running argument is: a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. Absolutely correct. But how are you missing the fact that there is a second body, a second heart, and second set of lungs, and second set of DNA, and second soul, a second brain with thoughts and dreams already, and no one has the right to take its life. Your body is giving it nutrients to grow, just like a mother will continue to do after birth. Saying "the government shouldn't tell me what i can do with my body" is just a feel good cover for murdering kids. What the difference between that and me saying, "The government shouldn't be able to tell me i can’t kill my 2 year old! After all, it’s MY kid!”  They have no right to tell me what i can and can’t do.   BOTH of these statements are crazy and stupid.

What about rape and incest? No one will deny this is a tough subject and is not to be taken lightly but a crime has a criminal and victims.  We always punish the criminals. Killing the child in a case like this is the equivalent of a drunk driver slamming into a family, injuring everyone, affecting everyone lives emotionally and physically, and then executing the children for justice.

Others argue that the government has no right to tell you what you can do. Again, an argument designed with the appearance of being more tolerant, intellectual and plainly just to "sound good", but it rot with holes. You're free in America to do or say just about anything, UNLESS that infringes on someone elses right. Obvious example, you can’t hurt or kill anyone. This is usually where those who support abortion turn it back around on the hypocritical argument I've listed above.

While most of the arguments are practical, the angle or topic that the lawyers use in courts to justify abortion is the question: is an unborn baby a person or not? They disenfranchise the unborn baby, simply based on its current dwelling. I live in Florida and there are turtle nest everywhere and it is a felony to tamper with the eggs because you might harm the unborn turtles. Yet it’s an absolute fact that most of these turtles will die before adulthood by prey in the ocean and air. That sounds like a bad life, shouldn't it be UNFAIR to let them hatch into such a cruel world? There is a show on TV called Whale Wars. It documents the battle for life in the Antarctic against Japanese whalers who kill hundreds of whales a year. What do you think would happen if a person loaded up a large syringe with Drain-0,  strapped on some diving gear, and started injecting it into the baby whales while they are still in the womb and saving them from a possible life of terror and become a future orphan? There would be a social and legal outrage!

The point is, America sugar coats the ugly things that they want. They create arguments with the appearance to be intellectual and modern, but are really hypocritical and contradicting to justify these heinous acts. Deny it all you want, you do not have the right to murder, even if it would be convenient or make your life easier. This truth is built into the gut of every rational human being.

Many atheist laugh at the idea that God formed man from the dust of the earth and then breathed life into him. Initially, it does sound to be an old tale or fable brought on before the age of science. I recently heard a interview with dr neil degrasse tyson where he was asked what he thought was the most astounding fact. His reply, " that the Universe is in us. When I reflect on that fact, I look up — many people feel small, ’cause they’re small and the Universe is big, but I feel big, because my atoms came from those stars" Interesting, right?So, its somehow crazy to say we came from the earth, but when tyson talks about stars blowing up and then the atoms forming into people, then its just... cool?

One thing everyone will agree on, when you die, and your last living breath comes out of your body, you will be buried in the ground and over time, your body will turn to dust.

Dr. Tyson's said in the interview that the universe is made from elements, like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon etc. We find these element on earth and in our own bodies. I find it quite interesting this the bible and science are in agreement here, we came from the dust of the earth.
So that lead me to my next question for you; What is the difference between a alive person, and a dead person? If you were to evaluate them, they both contain all the same elements, Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon etc and all these elements are joined together in the same fashion to make up the same organs, same parts, same everything. Yet one body can think, see, reason, love, breath, move... it has consciousness. Science still cant explain what consciousness really is. They cant duplicate it, they cant give it to machines, they cant bring it back to creatures that have lost it. 

So what is it? Its more than just neurons firing in our brains. If you think about it, it really is quite supernatural. One of my hobbies was to build computers, buy a hard drive, some ram, a motherboard, processor, power supply and a case and like magic you have a computer! Actually no, its not magic, although complex and intricate, its all explainable and duplicatable. We know some of how the brain is made up, and we know some of how it function. We even can duplicate some of its signals, but science has no idea how it thinks, stores info, or has consciousness. Rocks dont have it, trees dont have it, water doesn't have it, yet we contain all the same elements and we do.
Think about this, what was the first thing to evolve consciousness?
why did it evolve consciousness?
How did it live before with no consciousness?
Is consciousness even related to genes thus able to come into existence from a mutation?
Can something live without consciousness?

Welcome to my blog. These are my ramblings, my opinions, my observation, in a rough draft form. 


There is a saying you cant argue with science and in many respects this is true.  But what is science? By definition, Science is a system to acquire knowledge about a subject usually based on observations or test/experiments. The definition really could go on for probably more than a page but i wont waste my time. What Im getting at is, is everything labeled science, true? Can there be a bias? I know some of you with a background would probably be squawking, but i'll let you make your own blog. As of now, I am just pursuing the conceptual side of these topics. To clarify, my goal is not an argument, I'm not even out change anyone's opinion. Sometimes I think you can be so fixated on the individual pixels that you fail to decipher the entire picture.


Topic 1
The impossibilities of evolution are somehow justified by using crazy amounts of time. Its like when they actually looked at these ideas, they thought, "there's no way anyone will believe this" so they come up with these huge time frames that people cant even wrap there heads around; millions, billions, hundreds of billions. 

For my example, lets actually give them the benefit of the doubt and go with it. This assumes time is a constant and has always been around as well. Im trying to think of a way to illustrate this since its somewhat hard to grasp. Imagine the evolutionary timeline of the universe in your mind, then start to just zoom out, and out, and out...finally to the point your brain cant comprehend it any more, the time line shrinks and soon you have nothing but eternity in both ways. Eternity? I hear them throw out a lot of numbers, but i never heard an evolutionist take it that far.

Simply stated, evolution (yes im blending the big bang to) says that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, forever, without a beginning and it was always like this for not just billions of years, not just hundreds of trillions of years, but for infinity. And then all of a sudden there was a dense speck of gas ( called the Planck epoch) that exploded in to the universe and out popped everything we know today.... Really? what caused it to explode? Where did this entire universe speck come from? If it was always there, then where did it come from?

Lets take another theory, maybe the universe is constantly expanding, then collapsing on its self over and over for all of eternity (still doesn't explain where it came from). Well that would be impossible for one, it violates the laws of physics and the sustainability of energy over all of eternity is impossible.

What about space? currently the universe is observed at 8.8x10^26 meters. or 93 billion light years. So lets say you have a ship that could travel at 93 billion light years...per hour, and you get the the edge of the universe. Then what? is it a wall like the movie "the truman show"? are there more stars? lets say there are more stars, so we keep traveling and traveling until there are no more, then what? Is there no end and just darkness? Does this darkness go on forever? Really think about this concept, Is this possible for something to go on forever? If something is infinity wide, then where is the middle? There cant be a middle in infinity. What are we? Just some meaningless endless blackness that doesn't matter or have a purpose? 

So science explain to me this; How did matter start? How did this huge endless area we call the universe get here. If it really was endless for eternity, then how did the matter (which came from no where) which is spread out over an infinite universe some how converge together in the middle?