The "Red Herring" of Fetal Pain

Two Authors of Fetal-Pain Paper Accused of Bias

Conflict of interest in the research? Of course. Does this have the potential to skew results? No doubt. In the world of inductive reasoning, does this matter? Most certainly!

In the emotional debate over abortion, supposedly this omniscient "study" from "experts" is supposed to help us pro-life provincials understand the reality of abortion. And, no doubt, this takes the emotional wind out of the pro-life argument, right? Well...no.

The issue of fetal-pain is a throw back argument to Terri Schindler (schiavo), where it was justified to kill her because she couldn't feel pain. She didn't have the capacity to feel pain. So, people listened to George Felos' siren song "The Beauty of Starvation." The trouble with pro-death ideology is not difficult to refute. That's the fun part. The fact is, I get bored, since it is abysmally dull and lacks any creativity. Can't you people come up with something new? Substantive? Compelling? Are you kidding me: no pain...no guilt? No pain...not human?

The issue with the abortion controversy is and always has been "Is the 'fetus' human?" It is a most important metaphysical question. And if there is any doubt to what the fetus is, then we must cease the dismembering and chopping of innocent pre-born children. The pain issue is a red herring that deviates from the real issue, the humanity of the fetus. We are murdering human beings, pain...or no pain.

Sorry For My Absence

If you have been wondering where I have been, thanks! I have been working hard of late and had NO time for blogging. So I'm trying to get caught up before Marquette begins on Aug. 29! Arg!

I also promised Polanco that I would come up with a comparison between Islam and Christianity. I'll be blogging this weekend. So, in the meantime, read Mohammed and Mohammedanism from New Advent if you want an overall view. We can then draw a comparison between it and Christianity. I want to do this in lieu of our current world situation with my focus being the inadequacies of secularism in dealing with the threat of fundamentalist Islam.

Happy reasoning!

Which Side Saudis? Us or Them?

Saudis' Double Crossing Game

My frustration rises when our government, which is supposed to protect us, acts wishy-washy. First example, when President Bush calls Islam a "religion of peace" while Islam means "submission." I know he's trying to appease the extremely tempermental Muslims and keep them from rioting and killing people, but it's stupid, it's weakness, and in my estimation he's trying to succour bullies. I can't stand it! Second, when our borders are like sieves, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to cross. Al-Jezeera came to do a report on this. That really infuriated me.

And now, after four years of playing both sides in order to "keep that cash flow," the Saudis have got a major decision to make now that King Faud has assumed desert temperature. They had better cease ALL funding of terrorism, training of terrorists, and supporting them ideologically. Several of their countrymen flew planes into the WTC, and up to now, they really haven't explained themselves very well. This very rich and terrorist-doting country had better make an about face, or face some dire consequences.

I don't have much hope though. The nature of the religion of Islam and its call for all Muslim faithful to "jihad" makes this abrupt change wishful thinking. Also, this would mean tough leadership to come out of Washington. I don't know if it's naivete or if either party is trying to primp and pose for the next election. Republican or Democrat, these contortionists will probably continue singing muffled overtures to the Saudis while performing the ever common rectal-cranial inversion!

I and millions of others are watching our Washington colon crooners! They had better pull out and catch some fresh air or there will be some house cleaning soon!

Griswold vs. Connecticut: The Opening of Pandora's Box

Cardinal Criticizes Senator Frist

Amen to what the Cardinal says. And yet, to me, this situation has become exceedingly deplorable and out of control!

The fact that our country is pushing for the "farming" of human beings is based on the fact that we already allow the 'planting" of human beings through invitro-fertilization. Technology has entered the inner sanctum of the womb on a much more sophisticated level. So, what do we do with the multitude of frozen embryos? What's to stop us from harvesting what we need from them? They're not human, right? Besides, we have been conditioned to this sort of thing by a very popular yet barbaric technological practice of forcing a woman's cervix open to suck out a "non-human" fetus piece by piece into a sink. And to think that all of this barbarism came because at one time, our Supreme Court "found" that the same "penumbra" right to privacy which allowed a woman's right to contracept, also allows her to the right to abort the fetus she failed to contracept.

Who would have known back in 1963 that Griswold vs. Connecticut would be a portal to the living hell of this "Brave New World." The naysayers were ignored back then and look where it has gotten us: the devaluation of human life. In our contraceptive culture, we have all sorts of "creative" ways of human destruction. Human farming is just the latest addition to the "industry of death." What's next? The harvesting of human "products" from disabled or "brain dead" patients?

And to think that all of this began because married couples wanted to alter the act of marriage into an act of pleasure without the obligation that such act may put on them, the possibility of another human life.

For more information, see The Bad Decision That Started It All.