Video: Preemie born at 9.5 oz finally goes home

posted at 10:00 am on January 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday was the 39th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, so it was a little surprising to The Morning Spew to see ABC feature this heartwarming story of the survival of the third-smallest preemie ever, which the network aired on Saturday. Did ABC connect the dots on this story, which emphasizes life, or was it just a coincidence of programming?

When I saw this video, my mind flashed back to an evening in October, when I attended an event by Pro-Life Action Ministries in which former Planned Parenthood manager-turned-pro-life convert Abby Johnson spoke. Her speech lasted well over a half-hour, but I put together a few short highlights about her painfully honest recollection of her work at PP. Her description of the sterile Newspeak about the outcomes of abortions was especially chilling — and even more so when considering the child who just went home with her parents:

As a grandparent of two girls myself, the first revelation took my breath away, but the second was more instructive. Planned Parenthood wants to pose abortion as an antiseptic tissue removal service, but Johnson’s explanation of the “POC” (products of conception) work is just ghastly. It’s an explanation that exposes the lie that abortions only expel a lump of tissue, and it should be heard more often in the discussion over abortion. (Interestingly, it’s difficult to find links to “POC technician” in the US, but here’s a want ad in India that explains exactly what is involved.)

The “miracle baby” was a product of conception, too. Kudos to ABC for airing this segment on the weekend when pro-abortion advocates celebrate the disposal of millions of “products of conception” over the last 39 years.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

What we can say for sure is highly advanced civilizations do occur.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

One, anyway. If you want to call it “highly advanced.”

One of the problems with the alien civilizations idea is that we know they are not here. As slow as travel across the galaxies is (assuming there is no workaround to the speed of light), if we get off the Earth without killing ourselves first, we (our ‘children’) should fill the galaxy within just a few million years, which is a blink of an eye in galactic terms.

If they happen, they won’t have happened on exactly our time frame, so why aren’t they here? Unless we are somehow the first.

Maybe there could be an older civiliation on the other side of the universe, so to speak, and they just haven’t gotten here yet, but if they do, they will have nothing in common with us. They would be a grave danger not too dissimilar to a wandering black hole in terms of its effect on us. They would likely just suck up all of the resources without even noticing us.

Moreover, that is just the beginning of the argument they do not exist. The Earth is a freak. It has a nearly perfectly circular orbit at exactly the right distance from a highly stable, long lived star. It has avoided getting struck by serious debris. It is a double planet (our moon is gigantic) causing the Earth to have a permanently active surface. The Earth is just the right size in terms of atmospheric retention. And it goes on and on and on.

fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 1:55 PM

You and they have that kind of thing in common. You believe what makes you feel good even when the contrary is baring its fangs in front of your face. “Oh, it has big teeth so it must be like a horse.”

fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

This simply makes no sense.

Connect the dots of your thinking process that has you arrive at the conclusion that you have…that my question in response to the belief that”intelligent life does happen”…and my claim that there is not evidence to support that belief, and your cliam that I must arrived at that conclusion because it makes me”feel good” to think it.

Thats just..I don’t know…really dumb?

But maybe I’m not understanding your claim.
I can’t wait to read it!
Thanks.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Mimzey
Irony of the thread winner! Site someone whom we should have snuffed.

They are taking over the world.

This curve is exponential. Small now. Will get massive.

Hawking — whom I often disagree with about pure physics — has this right.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM

No, it isn’t a fact. It’s an assertion.

You are so sloppy in your thinking, that I don’t consider you worth engaging.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

No..its a fact.

This is how it works. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
You claimed that evolutionary life occurs elsewhere.
What is your proof?
Without proof, you are asserting things that are simply belief and claiming they are fact.

You might want to try any change the subject because many people are kicking your ass in this thread.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Relativists like Random are throwbacks to another era.

Generations of this type of throwback thinking and Random would be placing Copernicus in a tower for challenging the “settled science” that the sun revolved around the Earth.

I’m guessing he won’t get it though.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I can speak to this debate between Choice and Life from both sides of the issue. I used to be Pro Choice. To my eternal sadness, at the age of 18 I exercised that “choice”.

I live with it daily. Some days the pain is searing, on others it’s lurking in my conscience.

I sought and received forgiveness.

When I was 32, I found myself single and pregnant, in spite of precautions. There was no debating that I was going to have this baby.

She was born at 32 weeks, and weighed 2 pounds. I was told that her chances weren’t good, as she had a Ventricular Septal defect and an Atrial Septal Defect. I brought her home at 4 pounds and for the next 9 years faced the possibility of her having to undergo open heart surgery. For 9 years, I had to watch her health like a hawk, to make sure the common illnesses that children get didn’t develop into life threatening illnesses.

Never once have I considered this a burden, and not once have I complained about the debt I incurred
in keeping her alive (over 200k AFTER insurance). I will be paying for her for the rest of my life, and she is worth every penny. I am thankful to God, everyday, that He has blessed His creation with the ability to develop the technology that can save the lives of people, premies and micro premies.

Through the grace of God, the holes in my little girl’s heart closed, the VSD is still there, but it is a tiny thing. Her cardiologist restricted her from being an astronaut, deep sea mariner and fighter pilot…this is fine with my girl, who is now 12 and wants to design video games for Nintendo. She is teaching herself Japanese.

I believe that sex education should be taught, and that abstinence taught with it.

Abortion is murder. There is nothing healthy about it, either for the mother or the life that is being destroyed.

Gettycorn on January 23, 2012 at 2:12 PM

But maybe I’m not understanding your claim.
I can’t wait to read it!
Thanks.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Random pointed out we will soon create intelligence superior to current human intelligence. You challenged him to prove it. I pointed out that if we can prove it by calculation from base assumptions, then we will have already created it. It is something we understand by looking at the evidence and seeing the obvious pattern of our building continually smarter machines (more and more with the help of machines), with no end in sight.

So you asked me if I believed in highly advanced space alien civilizations. I do not. It was an absurd leap on your part.

You appear to think using pattern recognition to understand complex things is no different than using emotion. That leads to sloppy pattern recognition that will bend to what you want to see rather than what you ought to see, given your intelligence otherwise.

If you do not understand the fangs and the horse, then never mind. It was an attempt to help you understand. It wasn’t meant to make it harder to understand.

fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Well, yeah, pretty little blob of protoplasm or something in the pic.

But, our mysterious visitor from the East, Baracknac the Magnificent, said today in his Roe v. Wade Day message the women have a “fundamental right to commit murder” under this decision.

Baracknac the Magnificent also said having this right to murder makes women equal to men.

So, quit putting pics like that on threads. You could incites some Bible-thumping, bitter-clinging gun nut to commit murder.

On the other hand, Baracknac the Magnificient there is a “fundamental constitutional right” to commit murder.

Oh! I’m sooooooooooooo confused!

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM

You claimed that evolutionary life occurs elsewhere.

I did not claim that. I said it seems likely, and of course it’s possible that it does not.

Your claiming that it only occurs in one place in incredibly large, unexplored universe is not a “fact”, it’s a claim.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I sought and received forgiveness.

From whom? Not from the affected party, I assume. And probably not from a party that exists at all.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM

It also should be self evident we are going to do it.

However, it does not surprise me that people who cannot recognize the reality of evolution also fail to recognize the trend toward ever smarter machines has no practical limit until so far beyond human intelligence that it really doesn’t matter.
fadetogray on January 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

So there’s no getting away from the argument over the existence of an ‘intelligent creator’ within the context of this AI debate, is there?

( S i g h )

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I’m glad your daughter has an enjoyable life, hawkdriver.

One of my serious concerns is that as we use advanced technology in dysgenic ways, we will be allowing more and more people to live with in many cases, a lower quality of life compared to what te healthy around them have.

At a minimum, if a person finds their life not worth living as a result of these dysgenic behaviors generally and high-tech medical interventions specifically, I believe we as a society should support them having the right and access to comfortable, humane methods of suicide, without moral condemnation, but with love or at least acceptance.

We will be able to create whole generations of people with various defects, such far I personally would not want to live. I don’t find this as “loving” as some life-in-all-case ideologues do. I find it the opposite. I find it selfishness on our parts that we can’t let the elderly die when try wish, the mentally or otherwise I’ll end their suffering, or understand why kids with massive disabilities would not want to live with them.

In short, I think death has advantages, and if not letting people die, then at least respecting — yes, respecting — their right to a comfortable, effective suicide.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I was in a thread that touched selective abortion them. it was a painful them for some people but i at least learned more how prolifers take this issue serious. In the back of my mind i was aware of infanticide as it was practiced by sparta and other cultures. noways there is a comparison to eugenics and associations with Nazism promptly appears.
upon reflexion I came to the conclusion that this pro-life movement that denies infanticide\selective abortion is only possible in our abundant civilization. If we lived in a tribal society, where a single problematic member, very dependent of the tribe resources were allowed to live, it could significantly decrease the odds of survival of the whole group. in this perspective, prolifism is a moralistic luxury that our today’s abundant society allows, but would be considered a societal self destructive philosophy in ancient times.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Oh! I’m sooooooooooooo confused!

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Me too.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Yo everybody check out the award winning “180″ Movie by my boy Ray Comfort

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM

God is the ultimate affected party in all sins. Sin is turning away from God. Therefore, God can forgive all sins.

Christ said to the woman taken in adultery, “Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.” But, obviously, Christ was not her husband, yet, as God Incarnate, He demonstrated His power to forgive her sins.

And, yeah, according to the Darwinloons, life began on Earth when lightning struck a mud puddle, so if there is another planet somewhere with lightning and mud puddles, Bingo! Life begins!

“Getta, I say, getta clue, boy!” – Foghorn Leghorne

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Yo everybody check out the award winning “180″ Movie by my boy Ray Comfort

apocalypse

Ray Comfort? Seriously? The guy is an abject moron.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

TXRedhead on January 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM

So sorry for your loss..but you still have them :) and your hands sound full with life! You are blessed.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I have an idea, maybe we should all be snuffed out and start over?/

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I was in a thread that touched selective abortion them. it was a painful them for some people but i at least learned more how prolifers take this issue serious. In the back of my mind i was aware of infanticide as it was practiced by sparta and other cultures. noways there is a comparison to eugenics and associations with Nazism promptly appears.
upon reflexion I came to the conclusion that this pro-life movement that denies infanticide\selective abortion is only possible in our abundant civilization. If we lived in a tribal society, where a single problematic member, very dependent of the tribe resources were allowed to live, it could significantly decrease the odds of survival of the whole group. in this perspective, prolifism is a moralistic luxury that our today’s abundant society allows, but would be considered a societal self destructive philosophy in ancient times.

Quite.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Random Thought

The tiny baby in the pic on this thread was born at 9.5 ounces.

How many ounces less would it have had to begin before what Obama calls a “fundamental right to” commit murder?

8.5 ounces, 8 ounces, 7 ounces? At what point could the delivering doctor just squash it like someone wringing out a dishcloth? 6 ounces, 5 ounces, 4 ounces…..what number?

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Ahhh, just when I was going to leave this thread….popcorn anyone?

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:31 PM

“Getta, I say, getta clue, boy!” – Foghorn Leghorne

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Man, it’s been WAY too long since the last time I heard that “southern drawl.”

Thanks for the reminiscing. : )

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Your claiming that it only occurs in one place in incredibly large, unexplored universe is not a “fact”, it’s a claim.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Then you misunderstood the fact that I was pointing out to you.
Here it is again:
Life.. let alone intelligent life.has only occurred on Earth.
There is no evidence to support any other conclusion.
Any hopes that it can..or has, is the product of a belief system and has no support in fact or scientific method.

Do you agree with this?
..and do you think that, for the betterment of the human gene pool, vaccinations should be eliminated?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Bmore

We can’t ALL be snuffed out or there would be no way to start over.

I think it should be everybody but ME and those on a list of really hot, healthy, young females who will be excellent for breeding.

I could submit the list to the proper authorities for rounding-up shortly before the Final Day for all of the rest of you.

Down with it?

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Horace
Okay, as long as I get a blonde.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:39 PM

mimzey

I gotta disagree with you there. Sorry.

Your statement that “only intelligent life” occurs on Earth and the existence of evolutioniacs like Random contradict each other.

Oh, wait. You said, “intelligent life HAS ONLY occurred” on earth.

Never mind.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM

There is too much medical intervention in our society, both at the beginning and end of life. We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive as reproduce, and striving to put death off unnecessarily generally. This is weakening our genome across the board. We ought to give natural selection a chance.

I hope this baby goes on to have a good life, but if it doesn’t, it will be largely our fault.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

All life is good d*ckhead!!
Any day above ground is good!!
We are simply naturally selecting natural selection with the brains God gave us!
We have reached a stage in human evolution where we are now worried about, and researching cures for, diseases and illnesses that crop up in the elderly. We only care about them, as a society, because life span has, and will continue to, increase. This is a good problem to have!!!

God Bless the child and her parents!!

Bubba Redneck on January 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM

No, Mimzey. Other than falsely characterizing what I said:

You claimed that evolutionary life occurs elsewhere.

When I never made this claim.

You make nonsensical statements:

life let alone intelligent life has only occurred on Earth

That is not a provably true statement. THIS, on the other hand, is:

life let alone intelligent life has only occurred on Earth

That’s all you can say with certainty.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM

If we lived in a tribal society, where a single problematic member, very dependent of the tribe resources were allowed to live, it could significantly decrease the odds of survival of the whole group. in this perspective, prolifism is a moralistic luxury that our today’s abundant society allows, but would be considered a societal self destructive philosophy in ancient times.

Quite.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM

But that is not reality.
We don’t live under those conditions.

One scenario has nothing to do with another.
Its actually a bit of a ridiculous offering to support a position. Its along the lines of this:

Ya know, I was thinking, and believe I’ve stumbled onto something…If people we not so tall, there would be a great savings on resources and labor in the production of clothing, so people should be shorter in order to save the planet and increase the quality of life of everyone. And I’m sure that with our level of scientific advancement, we could genetically work to that end!
But thats just common sense.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

All life is good d*ckhead!!

No it isn’t.

Any day above ground is good!!

Nonsense.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

This seems like as good a place as any to pull up a chair sit back, watch and enjoy. I’ll just be here watching. Man I love these mixers.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM

My fault.
Me write pretty some day.
/

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:45 PM

There is too much medical intervention in our society, both at the beginning and end of life. We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive as reproduce, and striving to put death off unnecessarily generally. This is weakening our genome across the board. We ought to give natural selection a chance.

I hope this baby goes on to have a good life, but if it doesn’t, it will be largely our fault.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I don’t agree with that sentence. we are a technological species and we should not deny ourselfs use of technology. its part of what we are. resisting it is probably a darwinian dead end.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Fine, nathor, I could accept that.

What I can’t accept is allowing people to live, some of whom may have a lowered quality of life for whatever reason, and not allowing them a reliable and comfortable way to end their life, openly and legally, if they so choose.

The thought of putting lots of effort (even force) into keeping people alive who don’t wish to be alive bothers me.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:52 PM

“we are a technological species and we should not deny ourselfs use of technology”

OK, but I take ‘us’ to mean individuals, not just a collective valuation of life. Individual valuations may differ, and should be respected where their own lives and deaths are concerned.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Some of you may wonder why I consider myself “pro-choice”. Well, that is where the libertarian comes out in me on the side of freedom. Even though I do think it should be legal it should have serious restrictions on it. I wrestle with this like I do the death penalty. I know a lot of moderate conservatives/libertarians get lambasted because we may be pro-choice. But I promise you, most of us are most likely my kind of pro-choice, fighting the good fight for the choice of life.

closetgop on January 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

This is me as well. I think it is dangerous to outlaw completely, I think there are rare situations where there is no viable alternative. There are bad things that people have done, and people have died, in search of illegal/unsafe abortions. I also wrestle back and forth with this.

But, I think the thing that bothers me the most is when abortion advocates keep saying that abortion is about a woman’s choice, and being pro-life means you want to tell women what to do with their body. For the VAST majority of pregnancies, a decision to have unprotected sex was made. That is the true choice. Using abortion as a feminist badge of honor disgusts me — shouldn’t he feminine badge of honor be that women are smart, strong, and capable enough to not engage in activity that can lead to pregnancy before they are ready to handle being pregnant?

Violina23 on January 23, 2012 at 2:56 PM

You claimed that evolutionary life occurs elsewhere.

When I never made this claim.

Well actually you did imply that was your position and are now walking it back. Why do I say that? Because you could have point it out in your first reply.by stating “You misunderstood what I said. I agree with your observation”..but you didn’t. You’re getting your relativistic ass handed to you by numerous posters and are now trying to be vague about it.

You make nonsensical statements:

life let alone intelligent life has only occurred on Earth

That is not a provably true statement. THIS, on the other hand, is:

life let alone intelligent life has only occurred on Earth

That’s all you can say with certainty.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM

You’re doing it again.
You make a cliam..i.e. “you’re making nonsensical statements”..
And than offer nothing to counter them, and conveniently end with a baseless conclusion that..”thats all you can say with certainty”

What the hell does that even mean?

life let alone intelligent life has only occurred on Earth

That is not a provably true statement.

Again..you don’t get it.
You’re claiming that it “not provable” to state that. YOU have to provide the evidence.

I don’t know if you realize it or not, but you’re arguing the position of creationists…i.e. “prove something doesn’t exost.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM

But that is not reality.
We don’t live under those conditions.

no, the point i was trying to make is that prolifism that denies selective abortion is not a moral absolute. in ancient societies, the same position could be considered self destructive, thus immoral.

One scenario has nothing to do with another.
Its actually a bit of a ridiculous offering to support a position. Its along the lines of this:

Ya know, I was thinking, and believe I’ve stumbled onto something…If people we not so tall, there would be a great savings on resources and labor in the production of clothing, so people should be shorter in order to save the planet and increase the quality of life of everyone. And I’m sure that with our level of scientific advancement, we could genetically work to that end!
But thats just common sense.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

in todays society this kind or arguments are quite contentious. it very hard to draw a line, i dont imagine the line myself.
however, shift back to some ancient survivalist society and the line would be easier to draw. if a baby with some problem would be allowed to consume the tribe resources, without giving something back that would increase the chances of tribe survival, that baby was a danger to the group.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Well actually you did imply that was your position and are now walking it back.

You are a liar. Screw you.

What I said is that I think it’s likely to be true, but may not be true, of course. Saying something is likely to be true is not the same as claiming definitively that it is true.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Yo everybody check out the award winning “180″ Movie by my boy Ray Comfort

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Ray Comfort? Seriously? The guy is an abject moron.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

You are evil.. you will be in hell if you don’t abandon your wicked activities

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Pro choice folk need the aborted product to not be a person

That was Obama’s argument against a state bill requiring care for babies born alive in an abortion. If the state demanded emergency medical care, and life support for such born alive infants, they would be given status as ‘persons’ and therefore full civil rights. The incubator could be overruled by the incubated

IMHO that is why these threads always slide into angry arguments about the origins of life, the value of life forms, and the ownership of the human body

Personal needs and fears transcend sacrifice. Guilt is unavoidable and guilt is resolved by denial

My Unitarian friend argued we should be allowed to clone ourselves for body parts. I asked how she could take a body part from another human being? Her answer: remove the brain at birth and then they would not be people.

That answer was not unlike partial birth abortion, where the brain is sucked out, so a non alive infant can be legally delivered for disposal

entagor on January 23, 2012 at 3:14 PM

You are evil.. you will be in hell if you don’t abandon your wicked activities

apocalypse on January 23, 2012

lol @ superstitious nut: My death will be identical to your death (and the death of everyone you love or hate) — complete nonexistence.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

What I can’t accept is allowing people to live, some of whom may have a lowered quality of life for whatever reason, and not allowing them a reliable and comfortable way to end their life, openly and legally, if they so choose.

for people that are in the capacity and power of committing suicide, this argument largely irrelevant.

The thought of putting lots of effort (even force) into keeping people alive who don’t wish to be alive bothers me.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:52 PM

indeed the argument is quite different for people without power to commit suicide(tetraplegics comes to mind). i agree with you it also bothers me that some people try to force other people to live in dire, many times painful circumstances.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

however, shift back to some ancient survivalist society and the line would be easier to draw. if a baby with some problem would be allowed to consume the tribe resources, without giving something back that would increase the chances of tribe survival, that baby was a danger to the group.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I understand what you mean, but other that it being a position that could be justified in a specialized situation, I can’t see it as relative to much of anything in out society and culture…..unlike Random who feels that some people should “not be allowed to live”.
Thats the thought product of a sociopath imo… hmmmm…I wonder if during his doctors appointment he had his meds adjusted??
Hope so..cuz….daaaamn!

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

OMG, I just clicked on your link, apocalypse.

Kent Hovind?

Creationist-lunatic ignoramus Kent Hovind?

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

You are a liar. Screw you.

What I said is that I think it’s likely to be true, but may not be true, of course. Saying something is likely to be true is not the same as claiming definitively that it is true.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Meh…then don’t respond to my posts. It’s your choice. You do believe in choice don’t you?

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Oh, and when I wrote the above, I forgot Kent Hovind is in prison for tax fraud, and has been since 2007.

apocolypse, thanks for the comic relief. Ray Comfort. Kent Hovind. Man, I needed that.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Creationist-lunatic ignoramus Kent Hovind?

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Can you prove that it doesn’t exist?…it might.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM

You are evil.. you will be in hell if you don’t abandon your wicked activities

apocalypse on January 23, 2012

lol @ superstitious nut: My death will be identical to your death (and the death of everyone you love or hate) — complete nonexistence.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

You’re gonna get the shock of your death!

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Oh, and when I wrote the above, I forgot Kent Hovind is in prison for tax fraud, and has been since 2007.

apocolypse, thanks for the comic relief. Ray Comfort. Kent Hovind. Man, I needed that.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Again..you seem confused. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other.

As far as your confusion goes:

The question is..was there a “Big Bang” moment that led to its existence and expansion, or is it the product of some “creation”?
Discuss.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 3:26 PM

in todays society this kind or arguments are quite contentious. it very hard to draw a line, i dont imagine the line myself.
nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM

For atheists, it is an impossible boundary to define.

Without a recognition of God being part of one’s thinking, what boundaries can possibly exist?

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Random aka a 666′ing piece of garbage is OFFICIALLY heading for HELL… sad state of affairs today

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Well, that sounds great. I’ll get on loving this god of yours right away. I wouldn’t want to keep on being evil and wicked when I have a caring example like that to aim towards.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM

I understand what you mean, but other that it being a position that could be justified in a specialized situation, I can’t see it as relative to much of anything in out society and culture…..unlike Random who feels that some people should “not be allowed to live”.
Thats the thought product of a sociopath imo… hmmmm…I wonder if during his doctors appointment he had his meds adjusted??
Hope so..cuz….daaaamn!

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM

it is very relative in todays society but i argue again that prolifism in the context we are discussing, its a moralistic luxury that derives from our abundance. if some generations from now, it is proven that the burden of this position is causing society severe problems, then more people will be repeating random’s arguments and rightly so.

to note that if we understand certain technologies like genetic therapy, we can foresee that humans will be able to generate technology that solves these issues in a morally compatible way with prolifism and this argument can become irrelevant. i thing this scenario is the more probable.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM

“There will be Hell to pay” isn’t just another expression.

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Random aka a 666′ing piece of garbage is OFFICIALLY heading for HELL… sad state of affairs today

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM

will you prey for random? or will you hate him for is position?

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM

For atheists, it is an impossible boundary to define.

Without a recognition of God being part of one’s thinking, what boundaries can possibly exist?

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

is there situations where biblical morality does not help in deciding the path to follow? how you do in such situations?

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Random aka a 666′ing piece of garbage is OFFICIALLY heading for HELL… sad state of affairs today

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM

will you prey for random? or will you hate him for is position?

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Will you find a dictionary? Or will you remain a 666′ing moron?

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM

All life is good d*ckhead!!
No it isn’t.

Any day above ground is good!!
Nonsense.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

As this thread progresses, your mask seems to be slipping more and more. It’s my opinion that you’re a miserable, unhappy person. Something in this life makes you dislike it. Maybe it’s that Tonka truck you never got, or the Fancy car you don’t drive. Maybe it’s Mommy’s hug you never received, or the Father’s love you reject. You’re a broken empty shell.

Because YOU abhor your life, you take upon yourself the power to dictate quality of life for oters. If you, so normal, can’t be happy with your “quality of life” then surely those broken little children must hate theirs, right? Because you cannot see the light of His love in your life, then surely there’s no wonder in the reflection of His love in those you deem worthless to your “perfect” society.
Seriously, who the fU@% do you think you are to determine that the blessed little children who fill our lives don’t have a sufficient quality of life to meet your standards and therefore should die with a pair of scissors through their little skulls – all to meet your vision of utopia?

You keep going back to your example of those who want to die but are kept alive against their will. What the Hell does that have to do with tiny newborns? Who, in your little world, has the authority to determine this in newborns?

I pity you that you do not know the love of any of these children you so casually murder for genetic purity.
I pray for you that someday you’ll listen to Him, accept his love, and quit viewing the world the way you do. God Bless you and open your heart.

WhaleBellied on January 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM

On the other hand, Baracknac the Magnificient there is a “fundamental constitutional right” to commit murder.

Oh! I’m sooooooooooooo confused!

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Lots of confused people.

Political power creates rights. Unborn and newborn can’t vote and we don’t have to hunt them down and take them into custody to get rid of them. Their mom does it.

Women want the ability to dump kids from their wombs or haven’t you heard about that? They tend to be left with the “problem” by numbers of irresponsible men so don’t blame just them.

Lastly, I don’t think that this administration started this fire. (With apologies to Billy Joel.)

IlikedAUH2O on January 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM

poc technician link is broken, did anyone capture it?

mathewsjw on January 23, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Random aka SATAN SHILL

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Don’t be a smug little atheist clown if you cant debate… I will shatter your argument

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Given what we do about illegal immigration and dope, do you believe a change in laws would end abortion?

Makes a great political issue, though.

IlikedAUH2O on January 23, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I was born at 4 lbs, 13 ounces in 1948.

My chances of survival at that weight in those times was slim.

It was even slimmer because I was born in a small rural hospital in NoWhere, Nebraska run by an order of nuns. All they had to keep me alive was an incubator and Rosaries around the clock in their small chapel.

Fifteen days later my parents took me home. Of course, that was before my mother had, according to Barcko, the “absolute constitutional right” to kill me. Kinda lucked out, I guess.

But, according to Random, in a few years my children will put me out on the ice to die. I will no longer be a “worthy” citizen of HopeandChange Land. O’ tempore!

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM

You are a liar. Screw you.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM

The mask slips. Frustration. Easily occurs when holding an untenable position.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM

it is very relative in todays society but i argue again that prolifism in the context we are discussing, its a moralistic luxury that derives from our abundance. if some generations from now, it is proven that the burden of this position is causing society severe problems, then more people will be repeating random’s arguments and rightly so.

to note that if we understand certain technologies like genetic therapy, we can foresee that humans will be able to generate technology that solves these issues in a morally compatible way with prolifism and this argument can become irrelevant. i thing this scenario is the more probable.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM

But there is no evidence to support either the Malthusian idea that more people are a negative to society and the planets ability to flourish or that this will be a condition in the future.
Its a valid though exercise, but imo, has little value in the world of observable reality, and certainly nothing to base present social decisions on.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM

“There will be Hell to pay” isn’t just another expression.

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

No, I think it was the title of a book about what happens if you cross Hillary.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Setting aside the moral repugnance of abortion. It would seem, if a baby in the early second trimester is viable – it is time to rethink the scientific constraints and assertions of Roe v. Wade.

ArthurMachado on January 23, 2012 at 4:08 PM

God Bless you and open your heart.

WhaleBellied on January 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM

The best advise.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Lastly, I don’t think that this administration started this fire. (With apologies to Billy Joel.)

IlikedAUH2O on January 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You’re right. The fire started with Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Billy Joel? Really? Billy Joel?

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM

But there is no evidence to support either the Malthusian idea that more people are a negative to society and the planets ability to flourish or that this will be a condition in the future.
Its a valid though exercise, but imo, has little value in the world of observable reality, and certainly nothing to base present social decisions on.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM

i can argue that a Malthusian disaster is probable in a world without technological improvements. fortunately, we live in world where technology is still changing the rules and calculations. this article is a proof of that.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM

mimzey

Malthus didn’t believe that an abundance of people was the problem, just the abundance of the lower classes of people, those who were not of the superior quality.

Much like that monster and butcher, Margaret Sanger, who referred to all people of color, Slav, southern Europeans and Jews as “weeds in the garden of life.”

“Unwanted baby” is just code for “inconvenient” or “unworthy to live at this time.”

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:14 PM

is there situations where biblical morality does not help in deciding the path to follow? how you do in such situations?

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Might depend on ones understanding and interpretation of “biblical morality”.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I was born at 4 lbs, 13 ounces in 1948. My chances of survival at that weight in those times was slim.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Thank God you made it and are here with us today

But, according to Random, in a few years my children will put me out on the ice to die.

It’s easy for people to be pro-choice, they’ve already been born

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Will you find a dictionary? Or will you remain a 666′ing moron?

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 3:46 PM

why are you so invested in making christians look bad? keep up the good work!

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM

apocalypse

“Thank God you made it and are here with us today”

I can give you a list of Hot Gassers who would disagree with that statement.

Anyway, another birthday in a couple of weeks. Thanks to an creaking old incubator, a group of ditzy nuns with beads and loving parents, and thanks to the Big Guy. (And I don’t mean Mr. Carlson)

Thanx for the well-wishing.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Malthus didn’t believe that an abundance of people was the problem, just the abundance of the lower classes of people, those who were not of the superior quality.

Much like that monster and butcher, Margaret Sanger, who referred to all people of color, Slav, southern Europeans and Jews as “weeds in the garden of life.”

“Unwanted baby” is just code for “inconvenient” or “unworthy to live at this time.”

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I agree, but implied in the position is that as population grows there would always be a lower class of people diluting the benefits of the more deserving class.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Much respect to Mimzey for keeping it real

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I agree, but implied in the position is that as population grows there would always be a lower class of people diluting the benefits of the more deserving class.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Not if you kill them in the womb fast enough or get rid of the less-worthy – blind, deaf, retarded, physically-disabled, the politically incorrect, etc. – fast enough and in sufficient quantities.

And the techniques and efficiency and productivity of mass murders have increase magnitudes since Malthus’ time.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM

i can argue that a Malthusian disaster is probable in a world without technological improvements. fortunately, we live in world where technology is still changing the rules and calculations. this article is a proof of that.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM

That might be a difficult postion to hold for long. Most all dire prediction of a growing population have been proven false. To read Paul Erlich and his panic based views on the issues or Rachel Carlsons bunk in the context of reality makes them look foolish at beat.
That said, I agree..if you could freeze all technologies while letting population expand, that would not be a good movie to watch. But that is not reality. Humans adapt. That is what we’re best at, and in the process of adapting to one condition, we stumble upon other things that benefit other problematic situations.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:28 PM

For atheists, it is an impossible boundary to define.

Without a recognition of God being part of one’s thinking, what boundaries can possibly exist?

is there situations where biblical morality does not help in deciding the path to follow? how you do in such situations?

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Might depend on ones understanding and interpretation of “biblical morality”.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM

in other words, there many times, there is no clear moral absolute in gods word. its left for the believer to discover it based in ones understanding and interpretation of “biblical morality”..
to answer the initial question, atheist will develop morality based in their understanding and interpretation of their emotions, surrounding culture and reasoning. the result is also not a moral absolute.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Thanx for the well-wishing.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Anytime. :-)

…and thanks to the Big Guy.

The genius of God’s creative hand gets all the glory. Thanks.

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Let’s not forget that the highest percentage of abortions v. live births is among blacks. And NoBama pushes for more.

If this highest percentage was among whites in a snooty area of Cape Cod, the concern would probably be greater.

But, it’s just “them,” so proceed a full steam.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Much respect to Mimzey for keeping it real

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Thank you. Yourself and others are an inspiration to better thought and ways of thinking imo. Helps me greatly..

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:31 PM

That might be a difficult postion to hold for long. Most all dire prediction of a growing population have been proven false. To read Paul Erlich and his panic based views on the issues or Rachel Carlsons bunk in the context of reality makes them look foolish at beat.
That said, I agree..if you could freeze all technologies while letting population expand, that would not be a good movie to watch. But that is not reality. Humans adapt. That is what we’re best at, and in the process of adapting to one condition, we stumble upon other things that benefit other problematic situations.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:28 PM

cool. we agree. but i cannot let you go without some atheist snark :)
you are a bad christian, you replaced god with the golden calf of technology.

:)

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:34 PM

apocalypse

Great quote from Job.

My favorite quote from Job is when God appears out of the whirlwind and says to Job:

“Who are you to questions my ways? My ways are not your ways.”

The world’s first recorded “beetch slap!”

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I think it should be everybody but ME and those on a list of really hot, healthy, young females who will be excellent for breeding….

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Ahhh…brilliant minds and all that…

Robert Heinlein used this idea for the first Mars mission described in “Stranger in a Strange Land.” The 25 person space ship crew had a male captain and 24 females — the only logical plan to quickly populate the new Mars colony!!! Excess males would only be dead weight.

fred5678 on January 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

is there situations where biblical morality does not help in deciding the path to follow? how you do in such situations?
nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:45 PM

No one individual knows EVERYTHING the the Bible offers in the way of moral guidance (especially me). But I am convinced that there is nothing that pertains to our everyday walk-of-life, that is NOT included somewhere within that document.
I have come across the situation you describe above more than once in my life. All I could do was to ‘follow my gut’.
I’m sure some of those decisions proved wrong later, but like I said above: “No one individual knows everything.”
I don’t believe the Heavenly Father is sternly holding us responsible for ‘knowing everything’, and keeping a tally of every time we “blow it,” or give in to temptation.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM

in other words, there many times, there is no clear moral absolute in gods word. its left for the believer to discover it based in ones understanding and interpretation of “biblical morality”..
to answer the initial question, atheist will develop morality based in their understanding and interpretation of their emotions, surrounding culture and reasoning. the result is also not a moral absolute.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Kinda..but not really, if I’m understanding you correctly.

There seems to be a similarity in the two because the decisions can seem to change based on different interpretations and different peoples depth of understanding of the value system.

But a difference might be in the basis for the teachings. There is a core value in the teaching of spiritual beliefs.

With the basis being the changing directions of culture, reasonings, and emotions, as can be found in atheistic relativism’s, a person can consciously ..or unconsciously tailor their behaviors to suit their desire.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:42 PM

The “Hovind Theory”

Hovind summarizes his version of the young Earth creation story in the self-titled “Hovind Theory” taken from a variety of creationist sources. The “Hovind Theory” was presented at Hovind lectures and in his work “Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution”.

Hovind explained the Biblical account of Noah as follows: Noah’s family and two of every “kind” of animal (including young dinosaurs) safely boarded the Ark before a −300 °F (−184 °C) ice meteor came flying toward the Earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the North and South Poles of the Earth, concentrated towards those regions by the Earth’s magnetic field.

He explains the fossils were created by billions of organisms that were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, buried, and fossilized.

The resulting “super-cold snow” fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South Poles cracked the crust of the Earth, releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. This made the Earth “wobble around” and collapsed the vapor canopy that protected it.

During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges, and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion – Hovind states that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time. After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back, retreating to their current size, and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.

OMFG, apocalypse, you are insane. And I found your theme song.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM

fred5678

Also similar to what was proposed by Dr. Strangelove in the movie of the same name.
As I recall, Gen. Buck Turgid (George C. Scott) was very, very interested in it.

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:47 PM

cool. we agree. but i cannot let you go without some atheist snark :)
you are a bad christian, you replaced god with the golden calf of technology.

:)

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Ya..guess so…too bad you’re goin’ to hell!!! :)
/

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:50 PM

why are you so invested in making christians look bad? keep up the good work!

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Stop making ignorant comments, and instead read your Bible. All through the Bible God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, etc. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers and called false converts ‘hypocrites’ and ‘vipers’ to their faces (Matthew 23:27-28). If He were here now you’d accuse and say the same thing to Him so stop being a little devil’s advocate.

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:50 PM

will you pray for random? or will you hate him for his position?
nathor on January 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I’ll pray for him/her.
BTW, I’ve seen both pronouns used in relation to random.

Can someone here confirm the gender status of random?

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM

No one individual knows EVERYTHING the the Bible offers in the way of moral guidance (especially me). But I am convinced that there is nothing that pertains to our everyday walk-of-life, that is NOT included somewhere within that document.
I have come across the situation you describe above more than once in my life. All I could do was to ‘follow my gut’.
I’m sure some of those decisions proved wrong later, but like I said above: “No one individual knows everything.”
I don’t believe the Heavenly Father is sternly holding us responsible for ‘knowing everything’, and keeping a tally of every time we “blow it,” or give in to temptation.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM

following ones gut is a simplification. what you used was your emotions, reasoning and tried to look for examples of people you admire in the same situation to perform your gut check and came up with a morally acceptable behavior. the atheist have no choice than to derive their morality from the same process all the time.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM

apocalypse

Ah, I see you have now been designated as “insane.”

Welcome to the club. I’ll bet the aliens observing me from the planet Goombah are bigger than the ones observing you.

They’re coming to take me away, Ha-Ha!

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Much respect to Mimzey for keeping it real

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Thank you. Yourself and others are an inspiration to better thought and ways of thinking imo. Helps me greatly..

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Thank you my friend… glad you enjoy my comments… means alot to me

apocalypse on January 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I’ll pray for him/her.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM

the question was for apocalypse. i wanted him to give the same answer and shut up with the vitriol.

nathor on January 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all “followed their gut.”

Hundreds of millions then died from “Gutism.”

Horace on January 23, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4