Since Mar 31, 2008

view home page, enter name:
Here are one or more things that I would otherwise have to say over and over.


Science and Technology proves it:
Abortion is first degree murder.

By MrJesse. Initially posted 10/20/2008

In today's flurry of election slogans and banter, I would like to point out a few facts that ought to be kept in mind regarding one important difference between Obama and McCain: The life of the unborn. Obama supports abortion, McCain+Palin oppose it, except to save the life of the mother.

Scientifically speaking, an unborn human is unquestionably all of the following:
Alive: It's growing, not rotting or shrinking.
Innocent: Never been tried in a court of law.
Human: Every cell is stamped with a DNA code that proves it is human.
Unique: Its DNA is not identical to either parent.

This makes it an innocent human life - and under no other circumstances do we allow (much less federally fund companies which perform) the premeditated intentional killing of an innocent human life.

Furthermore, an unborn baby is not "just part of its mother." (I am speaking scientifically and medically here. Emotionally, a child feels very much like part of its parents and grandparents. But I'm speaking scientifically here - not about feelings.) The baby is inside, and dependent on its mother - but neither being inside nor dependent on is the same as being part of. Every DNA cell in the baby identifies it as somebody else besides its mother -- and the baby's blood does not even mix with the mother's. The baby is sealed inside a special isolating shield.

Besides, if one intentionally leaves a grown man with no coat and no food on the north pole in the middle of winters long night with the intention to kill him, the perpetrator would probably be charged with first degree murder. Just because someone's dependent doesn't mean that they can be killed.

Again furthermore, there are certain cases where it is legal for a person to be killed. (By legal, I mean that the killer will probably not be charged with murder.) One is in self defense, another is just-war (which is corporate and personal self defense) and another is capitol punishment by proper legal process, and another is accidental.

But abortion is a case where the punishment is death, but the crime doesn't fit the punishment. Actually, we can't even really call it punishment because the baby isn't even said to have committed any crime. And it's not self defense, since the baby wasn't threatening anyone's life. And it's clearly not war. Nor is it an accident - indeed, it is planned by several people who conspired together to do it. There is only one scenario other then abortion for the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life - and that is first degree murder.

Let us not forget that abortion providers make millions of dollars killing for hire, and work hard lobbying congress to protect their trade and to continue to get federal funds as well. It is a sick world when these babies are killed because they are worth more dead (in abortion fees to providers) then alive. It is murder for hire! I realize that it's not politically correct to say that, but if you scientifically look at the facts, that is what it is: murder for hire.

"What is it" matters. A hundred years ago we could have feigned ignorance, but with the advanced technology of today, "what it is" has been answered for us.

Scientifically, an unborn human baby is unquestionably an innocent human life, and under any circumstances other then abortion, the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life is first degree murder. If your world view contains the concept of wrong, then surely the intentional killing of an innocent human life must be wrong. And these are the most innocent of all!



What's taking you so long to reply?! I work full time and do lots of other fun stuff on weekends, and sometimes I just don't have time to reply right away. Feel free to ping me again if you think I've forgot!
What do I mean by distinct kind?

How does this classification system work?
By "Distinct Kind" I mean something along the following lines. This is a rough draft hammered out far too late at night.

The basic assumption for this classification system is that all life started out as distinct kinds, and then due to genetic drift and selective pressures along the way, each kind (micro) "evolved" into different varieties/species. This idea is not compatible with the standard evolutionary "All species by evolution (ASBE)" classification system and one cannot translate from one to the other without some obvious problems. Both my classification system and the common ASBE system make dogmatic assumptions about the beginning of life - as a matter of fact, mutually exclusive assumptions.

So the basic classification system I'm describing states that all life forms started out as distinct kinds, each of which then, due to genetic drift coupled perhaps with selective pressures, changed somewhat in appearance and size and other ways involving the loss of genetic information (for example, if a certain genetic feature offered no distinct survival advantage, it might have been lost for good after enough generations.) If a dog and a wolf and a coyote all descended from the same original kind, then my classification system says they are all the same kind - just different varieties, or species. (When relating to my classification system of distinct kinds, there are two levels of difference - a "kind" which is not related to another "kind" and a "species" which is related to all the other species who descended from it's kind. For example, a dog and a wolf would be two species of the same kind, but a dog and a sheep would be two different kinds.)

But you might ask "Well what about animal x and animal y - are they the same 'kind' or not?"(Provide me with a good pair please)

Great question! Due to the degree of genetic drift, I realize that it may be difficult to tell which kind a certain modern species belongs to. The idea's dogmatic foundation is that there were distinct kinds, but that we don't know for certain just which animals were of which kind. But many of them are obvious. For example:

If two species can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, they are the same kind.

If two species can interbreed and produce infertile offspring, they almost certainly are of the same kind. (It is possible though highly improbable that two different kinds could interbreed (and conceive) if the DNA happened to match up in the right ways.)

If two species can't interbreed, but they look very much alike (as in very similar shape, size, etc.) they probably are the same kind - remember, any two species could be separated for long enough to no longer be inter-fertile even though they were the same kind.

So hopefully this will help explain what I mean when I say "distinct kinds."