Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Ten Biggest Lies of My Lifetime
Rational Review ^ | September 27, 2009 | J. Neil Schulman

Posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman

The Ten Biggest Lies of My Lifetime
by J. Neil Schulman

This is my short list of “Big Lies” — propaganda which is promoted by major movements, and which denying often gets one tagged as a lunatic, denier, hatemonger, or simply irrelevant.

If you’re looking for me to put the Holocaust of European Jewry or Jihadis being responsible for 9/11 on this list, look elsewhere.

I’m 56 years old, born in April 1953. So I’m limiting myself to Big Lies present in my own lifetime.

Here we go, not in any chronological order.

1. The biggest threat to the human race today is man-caused global warming.

Every assumption behind this statement is either provably false or unproven. It’s uncertain whether the long-term climate trend is towards global warming rather than global cooling. It’s false that carbon dioxide and methane are the major “greenhouse gases.” (The major greenhouse gas is water vapor.) The most reliable climate-change models on planet earth don’t track with production of greenhouse gases as closely as they do with changes in solar radiation, and measurements of climate change on other planets in this solar system tend to match up with our own planet’s climate change. Industrial particulate air pollution reduces solar radiation so would produce global cooling rather than global warming. And the global warming crowd reveal themselves as a subset of the Zero Population Growth movement when they advocate not having children as a method of reducing global warming. Which brings us to Big Lie #2.

2. Human population growth must be curbed because it is increasing faster than the availability of resources needed to sustain itself.

No human being on planet earth is starving or sick because of the technological inability of the human race to feed, clothe, or treat most of their epidemic diseases. Third-world famines and epidemics of diseases no longer epidemic in the developed world are caused by warfare, theft of private property and relief supplies by warlords who sell them for personal luxuries and weapons, and anti-capitalistic policies which exterminate all attempts to invest or entrepreneur the creation of newly existing wealth. The assumption of a zero-sum game whereby one party’s gain is assumed to be stolen from another party is one major false premise underlying this cause of endless human tragedy; another is that technological advances caused by economic growth play no part in reducing demand on finite natural resources by multiplying the efficient use of these resources and creating artificial alternatives which also reduce demand on natural resources.

Nor is there any actual “limit to growth” when you bring in the virtually unlimited space, energy, and mineral resources available starting as close as earth’s own moon and asteroids in permanent earth-moon orbit, then expanding out to the entire solar system and eventually other solar systems. Star Trek got this, at least, right. The technology to harvest these resources is off the shelf and the cost would be less than what the United States has spent on the War in Iraq.

3. Abortion is murder.

The assumptions behind this statement require religious people to substitute the concept of eternal life with a secular biological one that defines life as mortal. The statement that a new human life begins with conception is biologically true but not true according to anyone who actually believes in the existence of an immortal soul. If one believes in an immortal soul then a new human life begins the first moment that an immortal soul exists within a human body. The Hebrews believed that the soul enters the body with its birth and first breath — thus the English word “inspiration” comes from roots meaning “intake of breath.” Christianity and modern Judaism often abandon the roots of their own religions and substitute the revisionist argument that the soul is present from the moment of conception — an absurd and actually horrible idea if you look at it from the point of view of an active conscious being imprisoned within a tiny cluster of cells.

Furthermore, the idea that an embryo or fetus has human rights can only go back to the beginnings of the concept of human rights with the English Leveller’s movement in the 17th century — a decidedly modernist development. Nowadays there are attempts to extend the idea of rights beyond the human species to all other living things (including microbes) and even to inanimate objects including the earth, itself. The self-named pro-life movement which attempts to extend human rights to the unborn use the same logic and arguments as the animal rights and Gaia-rights movements. Which brings us directly to #4.

4. Animals have the same fundamental rights as humans.

The concept of opposing cruelty to animals has morphed away from this noble and purely human esthetic concept into an attempt to make the idea of human rights absurd and deniable by forgetting their origins and meaning, debasing them like fiat money replaces mediums of exchange possessing intrinsic utility.

Rights are a moral concept, and morality is meaningless if split off from the concept of moral actors. Unless one is ready to accept dogs, cattle, and fish as having the mens rea to be held accountable for their actions, the concept of animal rights is an absurdity, and the animal rights movement is a criminal racket that relies on the empathy of human beings to attack the individual property rights and civil liberties of other human beings.

5. Disarmament promotes peace and security.

From disarming the airline passengers who flew on September 11, 2001 to the disarmament by both the Nazis and Soviet Union of the Estonians, there is no policy which has directly enabled more genocide, holocausts, and mass murders than reducing the general supply of weapons that can be used to resist and combat armed and aggressive statists, gangsters, terrorists, madmen, and free-lance predators than the unilateral disarmament of civilians and defense forces. I’m not even going to argue the point. I simply challenge anyone to study history, note how disarmament universally precedes mass violence, and challenge anyone disputing this statement to find me a counter-example where a disarmed population suffered less than the armed one which preceded it.

6. Police forces are necessary to prevent crime and keep the peace.

Going back to the prefects of ancient China and the Praetorian Guard of the Roman Empire, police forces have always been extensions of imperial power, providing despots internal domestic control while traditional military forces conquered and controlled foreigners.

The framers of the American system of government were well aware of the millennia-long history of police forces and rejected the concept in favor of civilian self-defense. Local criminals were to be apprehended by raising a “hue-and-cry” whereby the civilian population formed themselves into temporary law-enforcement units under the concept of “posse comitatus” (translation from Latin is “power of the county”) to arm themselves and bring suspected criminals to a magistrate for trial. How these posses functioned can be seen in western movies and TV shows, where an elected sheriff or U.S. marshal had no forces of their own to enforce law or keep the peace, but had to rely on deputizing the local population to maintain law and order. This reliance by government officials on civilians tended to act as a brake on criminal gangs taking over frontier towns, and also prevented organized criminal gangs such as the Black Hand from extending their reach beyond the borders of cities like Chicago and Kansas City, whose police forces were agents of the local power brokers.

Today’s police forces are better trained, more professional, and less reliant on direct bribery than earlier police forces, and in private life are often good neighbors, but when on duty they are still enforcers of political power who shake down the civilian population through draconian fines for parking and minor traffic infraction (for example, $100 fines for failing to feed a parking meter 25 cents), eminent domain abuses, asset forfeiture laws, and the unconstitutional war on the individual’s right to determine one’s own self-medication, mood alteration, and state of consciousness on private property.

Common myths about police are that they have a duty to protect you (they don’t; all states immunize police for failure to protect); that police will save you when you phone 911 (if you’re being held hostage by an armed criminal the police will set up a perimeter outside and not go in until it’s safe for themselves, no matter what’s being done to you by your captor); and that violent crime rates are lower the more police there are per population unit (the opposite is true; rural areas with fewer police per population unit commonly have a lower violent crime rate per population unit than urban areas with more police per population unit).

One can’t argue that increasing legal availability of civilian firearms automatically decreases violent crime (to do that one would have to explain how one city with identical laws to another city can have five times its sister city’s violent crime rate) but one can show that increasing the cop-to-criminal ratio is no more effective than increasing the civilian-gun-to-criminal ratio — and the latter is a whole lot cheaper and far less injurious to civil liberties.

7. Gay couples should be treated exactly the same as straight couples.

Beginning in the 1930’s, Alfred Kinsey’s groundbreaking studies of human sexuality showed human sexual behavior to be almost infinitely varied. I carefully say “sexual behavior” rather than “sex,” because only human acts which have the potential of reproduction actually qualify as “sex.” Perpetuation of the species demands that all other behavior be called something else. I favor the anthropological term “pair-bonding,” the sociological term “coupling,” and the informal terms “sex play” and “love play.”

Human beings who engage in same-sex coupling have the exact same rights as human beings who engage in opposite-sex coupling: the natural fruits of their coupling. Since biology requires opposite-sex coupling to produce offspring, same-sex coupling is naturally discriminated against for this purpose, and social institutions like monogamous heterosexual marriage that have evolved to protect and encourage the perpetuation of the human species must either reflect this biological reality in custom and language or devalue human reproduction. It’s obvious to me that the agenda to equate same-sex coupling with opposite-sex-coupling in movies, television, and other mass media is at least as much to discourage human population growth as it is to oppose the hateful bigotry against same-sex couples which results in denying same-sex couples the right to enjoy their lives together in a free and tolerant society.

I am not a partisan for monogamous heterosexual marriage. I’d be perfectly happy if marriage laws and customs were entirely divorced from both state and church. I have no personal objection to norming any and all partnering or group affiliation between or among consenting adults of any sexual persuasion. Gays have no more right to pride in their sexual lifestyle than a completely heterosexual degenerate like myself, who wants only adult women to do perverted things with me. We’re still hiding in the closet, thank you very much.

But to lie about biology, history, anthropology, sociology, and all other attempts to quantify and classify the human experience in order to promote a narrow and ephemeral minority political agenda is wrong and I will continue to expose these lies when they deny that social customs, language usage, and economic institutions should reflect the biological truth that making a baby requires at least one participant from each of the two sexes.

8. The Holocaust of European Jews is unique in human history.

I’m Jewish, and I can’t think of any idea quite as absurd to me as the idea that my kin are superior to the rest of the human species. That’s an ancient Jewish meme that got turned around by the Nazis, with devastating results just before I was born.

I’m not going to argue that Jews and Judaism haven’t made unique and valuable contributions to the human experience. That would be equally false and absurd. But it’s illogical to extrapolate from this that the Jewish contributions to human history are uniquely valuable. The Greeks contributed as much. So did the Chinese. So did the Arabs. So did the English. So did the Americans. The Irish. Can I stop now before this essay turns into a roster of the ethnicities seated in the United Nations?

Nor is the Jewish experience for being discriminated against, enslaved, and massacred unique. Blacks got it as bad. So did the Estonians, the Tutsis, the Kulaks, the Gypsies, the Pariahs, the Christians, the Irish, the English, the Armenians, the Native Americans, the Sicilians, the Cherokee – again, I’d find it hard to find an ethnic group that hasn’t had the crap kicked out of them one time or another.

Having the crap kicked out of your own kind is probably the one most common bond that each of us has with everyone else.

The maximum estimate for the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis is six million. That’s dwarfed in the twentieth century alone by mega-exterminations in the Soviet Union and China, with seven-figure ethnic genocides in Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda trailing not far behind.

My people: Good job. You gave the world Torah and many more non-Jews than Jews follow its teachings — and that includes our historical enemies. But enough already with the chosen people crap. It’s gotten old and pisses off others, which makes it hard to have friends.

9. America is a Christian country.

This one won’t take very long to refute at all. Draw a Venn diagram. A big circle with the population of the United States. In that circle a smaller circle with Christians. Inside the big circle another circle with everyone else — Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccens, Odin-worshippers, atheists, agnostics, etc.

Doesn’t matter how large the circle containing Christians is. America is founded on the idea of individualism, not collectivism. That the majority should be able to impose its values on the minority is un-American even if it were down to half a billion Christians and a single non-believer. And Christians might consider that a turn of the wheel might make them a minority, and a record for tolerance might be useful when dealing with a new majority.

Your ancestors came here for freedom of worship. Honor them by extending the same freedom to everyone else. Keep your peanut butter away from my chocolate unless I specifically ask to make a Reese.

10. America is the last superpower and runs the world.

I’m not even sure I need to refute this one anymore, although it’s been the general assumption in most places for most of my life, both by Americans and foreigners.

By now it should be obvious this isn’t true.

Remember the Doolittle Raid in World War II? A few army planes stripped down to the bone manage to fly off an aircraft carrier and bomb Japan? It was mostly a symbolic attack because there were far too few planes to damage Japan’s war effort. But the reason for the raid was that America’s war “ally,” Josef Stalin, refused President Franklin Roosevelt permission to use Russian soil to launch a sustained bombing attack on Japan.

At the end of World War II when both the Nazis and Imperial Japan were defeated, and even though the United States had a monopoly on atomic bombs until 1949, the Soviet Union managed to occupy half of Europe and foment communist revolutions throughout the world creating a worldwide opposition to the power of the United States and its allies.

This standoff continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when there was a brief illusion that the United States was the last remaining superpower. But during that period, Cuba remained communist and though any agreement President Kennedy might have made with Premier Khrushchev would have died with the USSR, the United States made no attempt to take the island.

Nor did the United States have universal success in staving off communist coups in Central and South America … or even in its own universities.

If anyone thinks that situation fundamentally changed any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, ask yourself how Turkey got away with telling the United States to piss off when President Bush wanted to invade Iraq via Turkey.

When the United States was most influential was not when the United States was most aggressive militarily but when its goods were most craved by foreigners: when a luxury car in Japan was not a Lexus but a Pontiac, when Russians drank Pepsi and the Chinese drank Coca Cola, when the gold standard of cigarettes was Old Gold and other American brands.

The United States was once the world’s shopping mall. Not anymore. Not for a long time. The path back to the glory days is when the American people get shut of the debt its government and corporations have run up in their name, and instead use their money to invent and make new things the rest of the world wants.

—–
J. Neil Schulman is author of the classic novel of agorist revolution, Alongside Night, which can be downloaded free from www.alongsidenight.net, and writer/producer/directer of the comic thriller, Lady Magdalene’s (www.ladymagdalenes.com). Full bio information can be found on Facebook, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, IMDb, Amazon.com, and his personal website at www.jneilschulman.com/.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; humanrights; libertarian; populationgrowth; propaganda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last

1 posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Nope, Abortion IS murder. No amount of faulty logic can change that.


2 posted on 09/27/2009 5:09:41 AM PDT by NewCenturions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

You lost me at “Abortion is Murder”


3 posted on 09/27/2009 5:11:36 AM PDT by TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed (YHWH Yahushua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Sorry, but anyone who feels compelled to post a vanity thread set in oversized bold type under red headlines isn't really confidant of the wisdom of his or her own argument.
4 posted on 09/27/2009 5:15:08 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Yeah, Neil, 7 out of 10 isn’t bad.


5 posted on 09/27/2009 5:15:43 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds ("The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
The statement that a new human life begins with conception is biologically true but not true according to anyone who actually believes in the existence of an immortal soul. If one believes in an immortal soul then a new human life begins the first moment that an immortal soul exists within a human body.

Good article, but the author gets twisted inside out on his own logic here. If you believe in an immortal soul, the soul existed BEFORE the cells combined to start a new life. If you destroy the cells, you destroy the avenue by which the soul would have come into the world. Duh.

6 posted on 09/27/2009 5:17:54 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Maureen Dowd is right. I DON'T like our President's color. He's a Red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
I like Neil a lot, even if I don't agree with him all the time. He is someone who thinks outside the box and who writes extremely well. His novel, Escape from Heaven, is a wonderful, humorous read that makes you think.
7 posted on 09/27/2009 5:18:20 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Ixnay on 3 and 9. Othewise I agree,


8 posted on 09/27/2009 5:19:16 AM PDT by catfish1957 (Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

11. Obama is a natural born American, certified
by an open birth certificate, the DNC,
the US Congress and, of course, SCOTUS. [do I need a /s?]


9 posted on 09/27/2009 5:20:09 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Do you realize you’re posting to the author in the third person? Neil is the author and the poster if I read this correctly.


10 posted on 09/27/2009 5:20:33 AM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Per #3. A body becomes “ensouled” when it draws its first breath?

This opens the way to “full birth abortion.” Just put a plastic bag over the baby’s head as he’s being born.

No breath, no soul, no murder.

Why our concepts of when human personhood begins should depend on the pre-scientific musings of ancient Hebrew priests is beyond me.

BTW, the Catholic Church long considered human life to begin at “quickening,” when the mother becomes able to feel the baby moving. Their change of this position was based on better scientific understanding of the pregnancy process.


11 posted on 09/27/2009 5:23:35 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
So sorry. You fail. Only got a 60%

Study some more and take the test again next semester.

12 posted on 09/27/2009 5:24:54 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
If you believe in an immortal soul, the soul existed BEFORE the cells combined to start a new life.

So for a soul to be immortal it has always existed? I don't think that is Christian doctrine. Sounds more like some sort of Eastern reincarnation dogma. Or possibly Scientology or Mormon.

13 posted on 09/27/2009 5:26:08 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
If one believes in an immortal soul then a new human life begins the first moment that an immortal soul exists within a human body.

Your ancestors came here for freedom of worship. Honor them by extending the same freedom to everyone else.

Sounds like a bit of a contradiction. The practical definition of human life, the one that transcends religious questions and applies to all human communities regardless of their religious makeup, doesn't rely on questions of the soul. Unless, that is, you want to impose your religious beliefs on them.

14 posted on 09/27/2009 5:26:37 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Per #6.

You seem to be confusing correlation with causation.

Do you really plan to get up an inner-city posse to combat crime? A posse made up of the criminals themselves? Good luck with that.

I agress 100% that cops often get out of hand. In particular, the ongoing militarization of the police is troubling. But very few people will agree that we would be better off without police. If nothing else, a tremendous number of crimes would go unsolved without forensics, which requires a high degree of professionalism.


15 posted on 09/27/2009 5:30:56 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; Admin Moderator

Shilling for your book here on FR?
Is that even allowed?
-
You are wrong on point #3.
I believe that abortion IS murder.
And my belief is not based on a religious reason.
It is a scientific and moral belief.


16 posted on 09/27/2009 5:31:11 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; ReleaseTheHounds
As ReleaseTheHounds said, 7 out of 10.

Maybe you'll do better with you next large font posting.
17 posted on 09/27/2009 5:31:57 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Warning: Sarcasm/humor is always engaged. Failure to recognize this may lead to misunderstandings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

BTW, kudos for 1, 2 and especially 8.


18 posted on 09/27/2009 5:32:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
3. Abortion is murder....
The statement that a new human life begins with conception is biologically true but not true according to anyone who actually believes in the existence of an immortal soul.

Reason #1 why most Jews are RATs! And also a lie.

I seriously doubt that most of the world's major religions believing in an afterlife, would agree with that baby-killer position...starting with the Pope.

19 posted on 09/27/2009 5:33:59 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, nothing more than bald haired hippies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The soul is created at the moment of birth, as distinct from the body which is formed and passed genetically and grows within the womb.

There is association with perceptions between body and soul, but too many phenomenon of perceptions in the soul, which are not associated with the body, to identify the body as the soul.

The issue is a classic Creation vs Seminal interpretation of the origin of human life.


20 posted on 09/27/2009 5:36:50 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Abortion isn’t murder? OK, imagine taking an hour-old baby swinging him by his heels and crushing his head against a tree? Is that murder? What would be the difference between that and killing it in the womb i.e. an abortion 61-minutes earlier?


21 posted on 09/27/2009 5:39:09 AM PDT by Tribune7 (I am Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I didn’t give the article an in depth reading. Why? Because after surfing through it, I didn’t see my initial thought upon reading the article’s title; Ronald Reagan, and the left’s outrageous campaign against him. You know, Ronald Reagan will take your grandparents’ Social Security away from them and force them to eat dog food; Ronald Reagan will start WWIII; etc.


22 posted on 09/27/2009 5:39:16 AM PDT by LRS (Just contracts; just laws; just a constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
This is the exact reason conservatives are in trouble because eventhough the majority of people who hold these view have a conservative basis, they fail to connect what are the most important character traits... unselfish individuality, and honesty.

Libertarians R us!

23 posted on 09/27/2009 5:39:30 AM PDT by sirchtruth (Gravity Of The Situation...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Your list stinks.

One of the Founders' primary stated purposes for the existence of our Constitution is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our POSTERITY."

Your ideology guts the Constitution, destroys the foundations of our form of government and the premises of liberty, while politically empowering the continuing daily slaughter of thousands of innocent and helpless children.

You're a holocaust enabler.

24 posted on 09/27/2009 5:40:10 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you're not a Personhood Pro-Lifer, you're a holocaust enabler, either actively or passively.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I guess I agree with more than half your points though. Kudos for being outspoken.


25 posted on 09/27/2009 5:45:03 AM PDT by Tribune7 (I am Joe Wilson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
So for a soul to be immortal it has always existed? I don't think that is Christian doctrine.

Except that the LORD personally proclaims this in Jeremiah 1:5. This is Jewish doctrine, which was then inherited into Christianity.

It is sad, really, the author and poster make good points, but by contradicting an irrefutable Jewish and Christian law regarding murder, he elevates the legitimacy of the other myths that he tries to debunk.

26 posted on 09/27/2009 5:46:02 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The soul is created at the moment of birth

You are welcome to your opinion. I disagree.

I see very little difference between a child partway down the birth canal and the same child after takings its first breath. If the second one has a soul, then so does the first.

The very idea of a soul is religious, BTW. From a scientific standpoint the development of the new life is continuous from conception to birth and adulthood. Deciding that any point on that continuum constitutes "personhood" is inherently arbitrary.

27 posted on 09/27/2009 5:47:05 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The soul is created at the moment of birth

How do you know?

Do you think you're God?


FACT: The human PERSON comes into physical existence at the moment of biological inception, when a human egg is fertilized and the first division of cells occurs. A unique individual with unique DNA.

The United States Constitution

"No PERSON shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law."

28 posted on 09/27/2009 5:48:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you're not a Personhood Pro-Lifer, you're a holocaust enabler, either actively or passively.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Abortion is the planned murder of the most helpless!
29 posted on 09/27/2009 5:50:55 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

You are incorrect.

Few Christians believe in the pre-existence of human souls.

You have every right to believe this is (or should be) Christian doctrine, if you wish, but the vast majority of Christians disagree.

The Scripture you quote can be at least as appropriately read as referring to God’s foreknowledge.


30 posted on 09/27/2009 5:57:06 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“Human organism” is a scientific concept. It starts at birth.

“Human personality under the law” is a cultural and legal concept. It cannot be determined using scientific methods.

For the vast majority of history most live adult human beings were not “persons” with rights under the law. FTM, until not that long ago a married woman in this country ceased to be a “person” legally during her husband’s life. The two on marriage became legally one person, with the legal actions of that person controlled by the husband.


31 posted on 09/27/2009 6:01:26 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
America is a Christian country.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well...Schulman has a valid point.

Christians may not always be a majority. The health, safety, and freedom to practice Christianity depends upon the principles upon which our nation is built.

As some may know, I hammer hard on the government schools. Why? Because they are an offense against every principle found in the First Amendment. They violate free speech, press, assembly, free practice of religion, and can never be religiously neutral.

So...How do government schools serve to illustrate J. Neil Schulman’s point #8?

In the mid-1800’s to the early 1900 virulent anti-Catholic sentiment fueled the creation and expansion of government schools. The government schools created taught all subjects within the framework of a generic Protestant religious worldview.

Ah!...But these foolish, foolish, foolish 19th and early 20th century government school proponents failed to realize the following:

Any government powerful enough to force generic Protestantism on the nation's children ( and make taxpayers pay for it) is powerful enough to have atheistic, Secular Humanist, Marxism forced on their children.

The same principle applies to Schulman’s #8. Christians must fight to preserve the principles of rule of law, limited government power, and freedom that have allowed this great nation to prosper. It is those principles that will protect us, as Christians, if we ever become a minority.

32 posted on 09/27/2009 6:03:39 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
“Human organism” is a scientific concept. It starts at birth.

Name me one person in the history of humanity whose existence started at birth. In other words, one person who was not conceived and then nurtured in a human womb.

33 posted on 09/27/2009 6:05:59 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you're not a Personhood Pro-Lifer, you're a holocaust enabler, either actively or passively.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
You are incorrect.

Nope. If you are arguing about Christian belief, then the Bible is a perfectly legitimate, and heck, probably the only source you can cite to back up a claim about what Jesus or God says is correct.

Few Christians believe in the pre-existence of human souls.

Those who don't may call themselves Christians, but in the eyes of God, they are not, as their belief refutes what is said by God. As Jesus said in James 2:20, claiming faith without living it is BS.

... but the vast majority of Christians disagree.

Contrary to recent events, the fact remains that Christian doctrine is not decided by a popular vote. As believers, we all ignore certain parts of scripture from time to time, it doesn't mean that it is any less wrong to do so simply because a majority of us do it.

34 posted on 09/27/2009 6:07:04 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Of course the poster does! However, the oddity of J.Neil Schulman posting an article by "J.Neil Schulman" warrants the tense.

About all I can say for J. Neil Schulman is that he has had at least a couple of misconceptions about what is true and what is myth for at least 53 years.

35 posted on 09/27/2009 6:07:31 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Did I accidently subscribe to the large print edition of FR?


36 posted on 09/27/2009 6:09:20 AM PDT by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Mr.Schulman,

I disagree with you concerning abortion.

And...There is a special place in hell for those who practice the dark art of shoving scissors into the skulls of viable pre-born babies, scrambling their brains, and sucking the gelatinous mass into a surgical suction jar.

I hold equal contempt for those who would allow a viable infant, who has survived an abortion, to shiver and die from exposure in a cold stainless steel sink in a hospital utility room. If an adult was placed on a cold slab and allowed to die from exposure it would be called torture...but..under Obamacare that, too, is coming.

37 posted on 09/27/2009 6:11:54 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Are you intentionally misunderstanding?

The concept of “person” with legal rights is just not a scientific concept. We can use science to inform us on who we should choose to grant such rights to, but science cannot make the choice for us.

“Person” is a legally and culturally determined concept. Science is no help. Science gives us information about the world. It does not help us choose between good and evil ways of using that knowledge.

FWIW, I agree that personhood begins at conception. I just cannot use science to convince someone else of this fact. Science has nothing to say on the issue.

BTW, under the Nazis “science” was used to show that Jews and Slavs were sub-humans. In our country the Dred Scott decision used “science” to determine that blacks had no rights which white men need respect.

Science is a wonderful tool. Moral and legal issues it cannot solve for us.


38 posted on 09/27/2009 6:13:41 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Contrary to recent events, the fact remains that Christian doctrine is not decided by a popular vote.

Agreed. However, when you hold a decidedly minority view, a modest person would say something like, "I believe such and such to be Christian doctrine."

He would not state his personal opinion as being representative of the generality.

39 posted on 09/27/2009 6:18:55 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Science, history, law, the Constitutition, morality, religion. They all support the protection of the lives of all innocent persons from conception until natural death.

Quit clouding the issue and helping to confuse people. It’s killing human beings and destroying our free republic.


40 posted on 09/27/2009 6:19:09 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you're not a Personhood Pro-Lifer, you're a holocaust enabler, either actively or passively.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

A worthwhile list...except for numbers 3 and 8 where you went way off the rails.


41 posted on 09/27/2009 6:19:09 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

You wrote:

“If you believe in an immortal soul, the soul existed BEFORE the cells combined to start a new life.”

You’re confusing immortal with eternal essentially. A baby’s soul is immortal, but it starts when the life of the baby starts (at conception). There is no sould before there is a physical body to house it (for lack of a better way to put it).


42 posted on 09/27/2009 6:21:52 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Disagree partly.

I agree with you on all but the science part.

Science can inform us on facts, but not on moral choices.

I intend to keep clouding the issue as long as people make claims that science makes moral choices for us.

I am a scientist and I dislike to see it misused.


43 posted on 09/27/2009 6:25:58 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
the author and poster make good points, but by contradicting an irrefutable Jewish and Christian law regarding murder

He should get together with expert Nazi Pelosi and the Pope on that.

44 posted on 09/27/2009 6:31:25 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, nothing more than bald haired hippies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
He should get together with expert Nazi Pelosi and the Pope on that.

It was so refreshing to see the Pope himself... um... correct... HRH Pelosi when it came to her views on Christian doctrine. I hope more Christian leaders are inspired to do the same.

45 posted on 09/27/2009 6:33:39 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

If you indeed wrote this, I have to disagree with your assertion that abortion is not murder.

We can disagree on whether a fertilized ovum that splits for the first time before being aborted is murder, but I want to hear it explained how a fully viable and formed human being at nine months development which is still in the mother and has a partial birth abortion performed on it is NOT murder.

You cannot make that argument. You might make a legal argument, but that simply will not fly.

You should have left that one out. It dragged the credibility of all the rest down with it.


46 posted on 09/27/2009 6:34:04 AM PDT by rlmorel (You cannot reap the benefits right now of the planning ahead you didn't do in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I never said that science can dictate our moral choices. But it can present us facts upon which we can then base our moral choices. And the scientific fact is that the human PERSON has its physical beginning at biological conception.

The moral choice is then simple: "Is it right to kill innocent human beings?"

The founders of the American republic said "NO."

"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law." - the U.S. Constitution

47 posted on 09/27/2009 6:34:23 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you're not a Personhood Pro-Lifer, you're a holocaust enabler, either actively or passively.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
And the scientific fact is that the human PERSON has its physical beginning at biological conception.

That is not a scientific fact. It cannot be, as the concept of "person" is a legal one, not a scientific one.

I believe we as a society have made a terrible mistake in allowing abortion on demand. But science cannot get us out of the hole we have dug.

It appears we must agree to disagree. I respect your sincerity and in general agree with your position. I must respectfully submit that you are in error in claiming that science tells us who is a person under the law.

48 posted on 09/27/2009 6:39:49 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The same person who created human life also has the ability to communicate with that life. It is known as the Word of God.

Volumes have been written regarding seminal vs creative origins of human life. Only an arrogant peanut brain would think the issue is as simple as appealing to a current political impression or a mere retort on a blog.

I have to concur with the author of the post in his assessment of the lie. (BTW, so did the Catholic Church prior to the 60s.)


49 posted on 09/27/2009 6:40:07 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

The biggest lie of my lifetime is that obama is qualified to be president.


50 posted on 09/27/2009 6:40:48 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson