Abortion Propaganda

I have been following recent developments in the Kermit Gosnell trial as much as possible, considering the complete lack of coverage by the so-called mainstream media, and thought it would be a good time to address this issue myself.

Before I continue, I should explain my use of non-standard sociological and scientific language. I am aware of terms like 'pro-choice', 'blastocyst' and 'fetus'. I choose not to use this language because it is an attempt at making things seem more socially and morally acceptable. The term 'pro-choice' is simply an attempt at making abortion politically correct and putting a positive spin on what is in truth killing of helpless babies. Scientific terminology for unborn babies in early development is used similarly. It's easier to kill a blastocyst or foetus than it is to kill a baby. I refuse to play these lingual games and will use whatever language best describes the truth.

I'd like to address the silence in the media. Some excuse themselves, claiming the right to cover, or not to cover any particular story. Granted, the right not to speak is as integral to freedom of speech as is the right to speak. However, true journalism has no place for censorship. The sole concern of any journalist or news agency should be to accurately provide all the facts of the world around them, without editing and without agenda. Most media sources refuse to cover the Gosnell trial, and in this have told a lie of omission, showing their pro-abortion agenda, and proving themselves unreliable and untrustworthy as news sources.

I believe what is essentially a media blackout of the Gosnell trial is because the details do not agree with pro-abortion propaganda. The news website wnd.com reported on witness testimony, which exposes the idea of humane abortion clinics as a massive lie. Babies were killed after birth using barbaric methods, including beheading, severing the spinal column, and breaking necks. The 'clinic' was also strewn with blood and baby body parts. Perhaps most chilling are the sentiments of the abortionist who joked about the babies being big enough to walk to the bus stop or home. If we lived in a society that really respected life, this story would be a huge conversation starter. It would be seen as the tragedy it is, and become a catalyst for change. Instead, it is being swept under the carpet in an attempt to keep the lie of humane abortion intact.

Many people claim to have scientific backing for their pro-abortion beliefs. Most supposed scientific arguments are based on placing an arbitrary date on when life begins, allowing the creation of laws which are then seen as 'humane' because they don't push this arbitrary date. The problem here is, such arguments completely ignore basic cell theory which state the following:

1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the basic unit of structure, function, and organisation in all organisms.
3. All cells come from preexisting, living cells.

Nobody denies that we all start out as cells, but when it comes to the argument on when life begins, abortion supporters ignore basic biology. We know that during conception, a unique genetic sequence sourced from mother and father is formed, resulting in a new cell with human DNA distinct from its mother. The unborn baby grows from this initial cell, through cell division. Cell theory states that all cells come from preexisting, living cells, so if that initial cell was capable of cell division, it must be alive. If that initial cell is alive, the baby's life began at conception, not at some arbitrary stage.

If we accept that life begins at conception, in accordance with basic cellular biology, the atmosphere of moral ambiguity perpetrated by the pro-abortion movement evaporates. Remove the blindfold, and the lie of humane abortion becomes apparent. The unborn child is a human life. This baby is a person, with promise and potential, a life snuffed out in the most horrific way imaginable because it proved to be too inconvenient for somebody. They might cover it up as the right to choice or in the generality of women's rights, but if you dig down to the foundation, the only justification for abortion supporters is self. After all, how can you claim the morality of fighting for the rights of one person, all the while denying the smallest and most vulnerable people their right to life?

The Big Bang Myth

Introduction

Welcome to the first entry of my first blog, titled The Big Bang Myth. I have no plans to devote this blog to any particular subject matter, so you may expect to see blog posts on a wide range of topics including Christianity, science, mathematics, electronics, computer programming, history, politics and anything else I may feel the need to comment on. I am a Christian first and foremost, and I pray whatever I may write, that it bring glory to God.

As a matter of integrity, I deplore the very notion of political correctness so be forewarned, you will likely read here what many would consider distasteful or offensive. This doesn't mean I like to be offensive, nor does it mean I would be critical about matters of taste such as the color of someone's “goofy looking” glasses. What it means is I won't trade moral truth for popularity or the sake of unity. If I am aware of a trend in society that goes against what is written in the Bible, sooner or later I'm probably going to publish something about it, and its not going to be in line with the popular view.

Why The Big Bang Myth?

"The Big Bang Myth" isn't necessarily referring just to the supposed 'big bang', but is meant to address the more generalised problem of science as faith.

Although the theory of the big bang is written as theory in many school texts, it is often taught as unquestionable truth. In some science circles, calling things like evolution or the big bang 'theories' is likely to make you a target of hostility and ridicule. Scientists pride themselves as discoverers and guardians of truth, but the reality is, they foster an environment where political correctness is valued above truth and true critical thinking, any thought that opposes the religion of science, is discouraged.

From the perspective of science, evolution and the big bang become huge issues when seen as nothing but unproven theory because there has been a lot of research done that relies on the correctness of these theories to validate their findings. In some cases, the very premise of a research project is supported by the assumption that these base theories are correct. If God were to suddenly show Himself to the world in some completely undeniable way, and tell every person on the planet that the base theories of evolution and the big bang were fundamentally flawed, a huge portion of research would either be beyond repair or require extensive reworking to make it correct. In other words, the scientific community has a lot invested in theories that have not been proven correct.

This is a huge issue in terms of impartiality as well. Scientists are supposed to hold a neutral position where it should not matter whether a theory is proven right or wrong. Either way, something new is learned and knowledge is gained. When it came to theories like evolution and the big bang, instead of waiting for incontravertible evidence, they put all their eggs in this one atheistic basket, going on faith that the handle was going to hold. The handle now holds on through the use of a lot of duct tape in the form of theories meant to prop up evolution. The big bang is one of those theories which attempts to stay in line with evolution by showing that planets, solar systems and galaxies essentially follow the same process as biological evolution.

The problem with godless theories that attempt to explain the formation of our universe is they always see it from the point of human logic. With human intellect, it is very difficult to grasp concepts such as infinity, especially in relation to time, and the idea that there was a time when the universe just wasn't. Even an attempt at describing the problem is a failure because as a human, I have to apply universal concepts such as time, to a problem that is extra-universal in nature. There will always be the question of what was before and a scientific establishment that refuses to acknowledge God's existence will always foolishly attempt to provide answers. For example, scientists are currently developing the theory of a 'pre-big bang' universe in the field of string theory. I won't go into too much detail, but the idea behind it is some kind of 'something' called 'branes' inside a hidden dimension which, when they collide produce a big bang and a new universe. Someone will again ask the question “what came before?” Science in it's foolishness will again try to find an answer. All these 'answers', which have their root in evolution, will build to a point where the prevailing 'facts' resulting from the theory are much bigger than the theory itself. At this point, which I believe we have passed, we will have myth instead of truth.