The meme of faith vs. science is not only silly, but lacking in evidence. In fact like most charges against the Church the charges can often be applied to the group making such claims. Father Frank Pavone has previously talked about when he uses science to show that human life begins at conception that the pro-abortion supporter will resort to philosophy. When science does not speak for the Culture of Death, they simply ignore it or use tricks like saying conception starts at implantation instead.
After being presented with the biological evidence of the unborn child’s humanity, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman proudly proclaimed to the audience, “We are not going to try to use science or evidence — the fact of the matter is, this is, this is opinion. We all have our own opinions as far as when human life begins.”
The utter stupidity inherent in such a statement is hard to digest. Is it seriously the position of Planned Parenthood that what constitutes human life and what does not is merely a matter of personal opinion? A murderer is no longer a murderer if he or she simply declares that he or she doesn’t believe in the humanity of the victim?
From Peter Heck at the American Thinker, link via The Deeps of Time which also has the video of this.
If the spokeswoman quoted really valued human life yet thought it
was simply a matter of opinion when it truly begins, then shouldn’t
she want to err on the side of caution and protect the “possibly
human” life at all stages?
Science deals with objective, verifiable truth. Unfortunately, many pro choice people have no interest in the truth, they only have interest in making themselves feel better by validating their feelings, cuz, um y’know, it’s like, um, It feels right for me to say, um well that we have a CHOICE in this! that’s MY TRUTH. (PS if you don’t see the sarcasm, please don’t pillory me).
This is a stunning admission by the Planned Parenthood representative. Essentially she is saying that we don’t know when life begins. But if we don’t know whether we are taking a human life, then the correct choice is to assume that a human life is present, not to assume that it isn’t.
For example, if you are hunting, and you hear a rustling sound behind some bushes, and you think it might be a deer but it also might be your hunting partner who walked in that direction a few minutes ago, you don’t shoot first and then find out what made the noise later (or at least I hope not). If there is a chance that you will take an innocent human life by a particular action, then the correct choice is to avoid that action.
I have tried that argument before with “pro-choice” people, and I was stunned when one very thoughtful person I happen to be related to said, with all seriousness, “We can’t know when it’s a human life, so we have to allow abortion in case it’s not.”
Yikes! That woman’s nuts!!! What else is a matter of opinion? If a tree is really a tree? If that money in your hand is mine or yours?
If we can’t trust a person to know what a human being is, we can’t trust them with little things.
THE REAL FOE OF SCIENCE IS ISLAM.
REILLY, Robert R.
The Closing Of The Muslim Mind; How Intellectual Suicide
Created the Modern Islamist Crisis
ISI Books; Wilmington, DE, USA; 2010
I must confess that I lacked that sound knowledge of philosophy/theology to fully understand the fullness of the first chapters in this notable book. However, my avocational interest in history allowed me to plow through to the “practical” chapters and content. Although I have provided you with some other reviews far below, my own comments follow here.
1. There was an Islamic “golden age” when many Muslims took the best that other cultures, in their world, to develop Islamic thought. The author noted that the influence of “Athens” (ie Logic and critical thinking) allowed some Muslims to look to “cause and effect”, one of the bases of the scientific method, and to use logic in an effort to understand anything, including the nature of God/Allah. Much of what had been lost in the West of “Athens” (And other intellectual treasures in lands conquered by Islam) was saved and sent back to the West. During this time much of what some of today’s Muslims present (Perhaps as “disinformation”) to non-Muslims as evidence of the flexibility and openness of Muslims.
2. During that era some Muslims used the above methods to develop critical-and-scientific thinking and began the development of physical science in the Muslim world.
3. To the detriment of the Islamic world, Muslims and all others in this world The persons controlling policy and teachings in Islam attacked the intellectual methods noted above and condemned all such thinking as shirk (ie Heresy) and harram (Forbidden), to the extent that the possibility of the death-penalty was a possible-probable fate for any Muslims who wished to use the noted and rational approaches to knowledge and thinking.The focus became blind obedience (Of course as guided by the legalistic “thinkers” of the newer and retrograde Islam), It was maintained that nothing could occur without the direct intervention of Allah, even to the extent that Hydrogen and Oxygen could not become water without His allowing such. This newer Islam eliminated any NATURAL LAW, in the physical or moral worlds.
4. I do note that Mr. Reilly did declare that the above came out of the Sunni branch of Islam; But, also noted that today’s use of the Internet and the influence of the extremist Islam supported by the oil-rich Saudis has been spreading this view to other Islamic communities/sects.
5, This blind obedience and lack of moral Natural Law has led to a wide-spread:Lack of consideration of any “unbelievers” or outsiders as real human beings; And, a willingness to put into active effect those Koran-based teachings which allow or encourage, and often command, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, and the other horrors presented by Mohammed as the actual and unalterable (Since Mohammed’s death) words of Allah. There is also an expressed preference for the “use of the sword” to “spread the word”.
6. Some years ago I forced myself to read Hitler’s Mein Kampf. After reading the Koran I found too many parallels (Hatred of Jews, Anti-Intellectualism, desire to destroy all other ideologies/religions, a glorification of violence, Etc.) to be willing to accept either as a guideline for human-humane behaviors and society.
My hope is that all teachers whose classes touch on Islam, all non-Muslim religious leaders, all elected and policy setting appointed officials, editors-and-publishers, TV “talking heads”, senior military and diplomatic staff and all other “thought leaders” become aware of Mr.Reilly’s work and thoughts AND integrate them into their policies, teachings, commentary, editorials, sermons, etc.. As to Christian leaders who become aware of this book, failure to read, understand and apply its lessons could well be considered a sin against that religion or treason against its daughter, Western Civilization (Or, such of it as is left to us). The same treason could be assigned to the other noted persons who do the same as well as “misconduct in office” or very unprofessional conduct.
Of course, it would be best if the like Muslim officials, teachers, etc. took this book’s lessons to heart and returned Islam to a rational and golden age