Category Archives: Science

A dialog with a professional child-killer

I’ve taught pro-life reasoning for over 10 years and debated countless people online, but had never dialogued directly with an abortionist until now.  Professional child-killer Willie Parker is not just an abortionist, which would be bad enough, but he claims to be a Christian and that his work is for the Lord.  As an introduction, this Newsweek interview with him has the usual pro-abort rationalizations.

  • He thinks of himself as heroic by aborting the child of an incest victim, as if killing her child solved her problems.  The abortion industry routinely protects sex traffickers, rapists and those who commit incest.  Not only does killing the child not undo the crimes, these abortionists send the victims back to their abusers!
  • He refers to “reproductive justice,” but that’s when you don’t kill the child who has already been reproduced.
  • He says he won’t do abortions for those who express race or gender differences, yet he simultaneous claims that those he kills aren’t people yet.
  • He claims to be a Christian yet says the Bible supports sexism – i.e., he admits to disagreeing with the Bible.
  • He spouts gibberish like this, which of course would justify anything anyone would ever do: “If God is in everything, and everyone, then God is as much in the woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy as in her Bible.”
  • He says women will do unsafe abortions if he doesn’t do them, ignoring that many women do unsafe abortions even when legal, that making them legal increases abortion rates, and that one is never obligated to make it safer for someone to have her child killed.
  • He gladly performs abortions like these: “women in poverty and women of color. He has seen patients from a recently divorced mother of three, with a 1-year-old at home, to a 21-year-old middle-distance runner trying to trim seconds off her 800-meter time to qualify for the Rio Olympics.”
  • In the Newsweek article he denied that life began at conception, but he admitted it during the Twitter exchange.

So that’s a little about Willie.  Someone reTweeted him so I commented and he actually responded.  A few of the comments and my replies (multiple Tweets sometimes combined into one):

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — As someone who provides abortions and who witnesses the relief and gratitude of women who obtain them safely, I could say, TOLD YOU SO!, but gloating is overrated. Abortion doesn’t cause depression, but pro-birth zealots sure do. [There was a link to an article alleging that many women don’t feel guilty about having abortions.]

Note how he calls us zealots, yet later whines about alleged name-calling on my part for my precision in calling him a child-killer.  I choose my words carefully.  Some call the unborn babies, and I know why.  But it lets pro-aborts say that isn’t the correct term.  They still try that when I say children, but then I point them to the dictionary.  Same thing when they deny personhood.

eMatters‏ — Whether your conscience is so thoroughly seared that you don’t regret killing your children is irrelevant. It will always be morally wrong.

My reply was actually about whether the mothers felt guilty, but he took it personally.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — My critics are many. Occasionally, I reply to make a point, like fetuses aren’t people, women are. My reply: If the world were as simple as you think it is, you’d be right. But since it isn’t & since I’ve never killed a child, you didn’t make a point, you stated the obvious.

eMatters‏ — You are wildly ignorant of science. Check any embryology textbook: A new human being is created at fertilization. Must have been too busy learning to kill at school What else would two humans create?! http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/   And see http://dictionary.com . You kill CHILDREN.  Oh, and the seared conscience comment applies to the MOTHERS as well. They should feel guilty for paying you to kill their children, but whether their consciences are seared is irrelevant. I meet lots of unrepentant murderers doing prison ministry. They were still wrong.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ –Insults don’t make your point. Fetuses are human beings, because women don’t give birth to puppies, but to be a human being is not the same as being a person. In my “scientific ignorance” I know the difference between a frog & a tadpole, and an acorn & an oak tree. Do you?

eMatters‏ –Yes, you are ignorant of science. And vocabulary. Once again, the nice folks at http://dictionary.com  can help you out: Person: a human being, whether an adult or child: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.  So your anti-science word games fail you again. You kill human children for a living. That’s sick.  Surely you know the logical fallacies with your acorn / oak tree illustration, right?  https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorns-and-oak-treesand-abortion.html

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Women die during childbirth, but we don’t outlaw childbirth. Check any person who delivers babies.

eMatters‏ — Gracious of you, as a professional child killer, to put these fallacious sound bites out there for all to see. You’re the pro and that’s all you’ve got? Willie says women can die during childbirth, therefore it is OK to kill children to their 1st breath. Non sequitur much?  Conflating death by natural causes vs. actively killing them? Such great pro-abort logic. Most people can see the difference: A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb) B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)  The fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Always human and always worthy of protection.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Developmentally your argument is that human conceptions are persons throughout: fetuses are babies are toddlers are college graduates. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, baby and toddler are not. How deftly you switch from science to culture, key for embracing pseudoscience.

eMatters‏ — That’s completely false. Why do you feel the need to deceive like that? I couldn’t have been more clear. It is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Given that your thinking is linear, your arguments circular and legalistic, and your reference materials are Webster’s dictionary and live action news, you get to have the last word, insults and all. I’ll keep honoring women’s decisions, and you can judge them and call me names.

eMatters‏ — Yeah, referring to dictionary definitions and medical textbook citations for the specific words being debated is legalistic. 🙂 Pretty lame dodge, Willie. Live Action was just quoting PP. Your attack is an example of the genetic fallacy.  If I call you a professional child killer, I am being very precise. You get paid, and by medical and standard dictionary definitions, you kill human children. Killing the children when mothers pay you is a peculiar way to honor them.  And you never demonstrated any circular logic. I just pointed to scientific facts: Every fetus you have killed was a human being at a particular stage of development. You tried to weasel word you way out by calling them [non-] persons, then I showed how you were wrong.  I hope you repent and believe someday – and soon, before you kill too many more children. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. If you don’t, you’ll have eternity to be punished for your countless crimes against God.

And it was just as creepy seeing all his fans calling him a hero and such for being so caring.

P.S. And of course, I got the usual pro-aborts chiming in with fallacies about how we don’t help the poor after they are born.  I usually post this when I get those comments.  

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The 97% climate change lie

Consider it the inverse of Planned Parenthood’s “child-killing is only 3% of our business” lie: The widely cited “97% of scientists agree on man-caused / man-fixable climate change” is a lie.  It always has been, but the low-information people listening to the malicious hypocrites keep spreading it.

Via New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’ – Breitbart.

Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming.

The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement.

The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters.

Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, yet so ingrained has the 97 percent consensus claim become that The Guardian has an entire section named after it, and President Obama has cited it on Twitter.

 

The reason the Left loves the “climate change” charade

This is a really important concept for everyone to understand. It is one of the reasons the Left loves vague but all-encompassing topics like “climate change.” Once they bribe or coerce the scientific community to agree with their lies they have unprecedented control over the populace. And no matter what happens, they win. They have no accountability. If the weather gets warmer, their solution is more government. If it gets cooler, same solution. If it goes up and down? More government.

Too bad so many low-information voters believe the lies, and too bad so many wicked people like the “Christian” Left spread them.

These “useful idiots” are leading us to destruction and don’t realize they’ll get destroyed themselves.

We should celebrate Louis Pasteur, not Charles Darwin

Darwinism is atheistic philosophy masquerading as science.  Not so with Louis Pasteur.  Is it any wonder that the allegedly pro-science “Christian” Left celebrates Darwin Day?  Via Louis Pasteur on life vs matter | Uncommon Descent.

Few people have saved more lives than Louis Pasteur. The vaccines he developed have protected millions. His insight that germs cause disease revolutionised healthcare. He found new ways to make our food safe to eat.

Pasteur was the chemist who fundamentally changed our understanding of biology. By looking closely at the building blocks of life, he was at the forefront of a new branch of science: microbiology.

Here, from a letter to an atheist:

Science brings men nearer to God.

Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.

I encourage you to read it all!

“Christian” Leftists deny science at least five ways

They deny the humanity of the unborn so they can support abortions up to the child’s first breath, they support homosexual behavior (denying the created order), they support “transgenderism” (denying the obvious real gender of these people), they deny real climate science so they can support an unlimited Leftist power-grab, and they press the Darwinian evolution myth despite the scientific — and biblical! — evidence to the contrary.

They are malicious and/or ignorant on all counts and no different than your average atheist.

Yeah, evolution just happened to create your 37.2 trillion cells

The human body is endlessly fascinating.  Jesus created such spectacularly intricate designs in us!  Did you know there are 37.2 Trillion Cells in Your Body?  The evolutionists believe on blind faith* that the universe came from nothing**, that life came from non-life and that we just evolved to what we see today.

Their life (death) passage:

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

—–

*Atheist scientist Richard Lewontin’s quote is a classic example of Darwinist question-begging — that is, assuming what they claim to be proving:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

**Here is a list of scientists who claimed something came from nothing.

Everyone relies on eyewitness testimony for their beliefs, even Darwinists

The question is whether you have good reasons to trust those witnesses.

Skeptics often claim that we believe that Jesus really rose from the dead based on blind faith and that you shouldn’t trust anything you can’t prove via scientific experiments.  But they haven’t thought carefully about how their own beliefs are formed.  You can also ask those raising that objection whether they have created all their own test equipment and replicated every single experiment upon which they rely.  Since no one has done this, you can then point out how they rely on the credibility of eye witnesses all day, every day.  You can also point out how many frauds we’ve seen even in peer reviewed publications.

Here is an excellent example of this reasoning, via Everything You Believe Is Based on Personal Experience and Testimony:

In other threads, certain people have claimed that personal experience and testimony are not as valid as other forms of evidence. In fact, some would dismiss thousands of years and the accumulation of perhaps billions of witness/experiencer testimonies because, in their view, personal experience and testimony is not really even evidence at all.

The problem with this position is that everything one knows and or believes is gained either through  (1) personal experience (and extrapolation thereof), or (2) testimony (and examination thereof), for the simple fact that if you did not experience X, the only information you can possibly have about X is from the testimony of others.

In a courtroom, for example, the entire case depends on testimony, even when there is physical evidence, because the jury relies upon the testimony of those that produce and explain what the physical evidence is, how it is relevant, and explains why it is important to the case. Unless the jurors are swabbing cheeks and conducting DNA tests themselves, the DNA evidence is in principle nothing more than the testimony of an expert witness. The jurors have no means of ascertaining the DNA “facts” for themselves; they entirely rely upon the testimony of what they assume to be a highly credible witness.

. . . Similarly, unless one is a research scientist in fields where one believes certain theories to be valid, he is (and we are as well) entirely dependent upon testimonial evidence – found in the form of research papers, books and articles written by such scientists. “Peer review” is nothing more to the reader than the testimomy of supposedly credible sources that the testimony of the authors is not blatantly false or contain factual errors.

Outside of what we personally experience, virtually all of our knowledge comes from testimony delivered via some form of media or another. We consider the source of the testimony, and the media it is delivered through, credible or non-credible to one degree or another – but that doesn’t change the fact that when we read or hear it, it is nothing more than testimony. If you are a scientist conducting research, you are personally experiencing the process and accumulation of data.  Beyond that, it is only testimony to others unless they perform the same experiments.  Often, the conclusions of scientific research hinge upon the testimony of other researchers, which may turn out to be fraudulent or mistaken.

We have very good reasons to trust the testimony handed down to us through the Bible. For those interested in why we find the Gospels and the rest of the Bible so reliable, here is an interesting book by a former atheist and cold-case homicide detective: Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels.