Pro-life video of the day: Two Marys
by Hans Johnson
This month we ponder on a girl named Mary from some 2,000 years ago. In contrast, a woman anonymously called Mary Doe, who was the plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton (which, along with Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion in virtually all cases), had quite a journey herself. She claimed she was used and has become ardently pro-life. Now Sandra Cano speaks out. From GodTube:
Norma McCorvey was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade. She has also become pro-life. You can read an article comparing her life to that of Mary’s here.
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
[HT: LauraLoo]
Dec.20, 2012 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I received a beautiful card today quoting Ephesians 5:1-2 saying
Be imitators of God, therefore,
as dearly loved children,
and live a life of love ..
I’m really sick of the ignorance spewed out on this site by some agnostics/atheists who rant and rant about belief in God makes us Neantherthol-thinkers (like Thomas Aquinas … ie. ipso facto: WRONG) and (2) use ‘modern scientific theory’ … to prove that God does not exist. If God does not exist: ANYTHING including abortion is OK! {At least X proves many times over, that such a way of thinking is wrong.]
I think that their theorizing about the omnipotence of ‘science’ keeps proving (to me) that truthseeker and Reality and a slew of others, actually are poor at science. Too often they invoke the thought processes of modern cosmological theorists as their personal ‘science’ perspective. The confusion of any kind of consensus is used as a PROOF. Total hogwash/stupid and disingenuine is this stance.
I am a trained chemist and chemistry tells us all kinds of things about our universe (and our approach to it), that makes these ‘theories’ seem like SAFE places. For instance, we have the notion that ALL physical ‘things’ are made-up of atoms and molecules. If I could remove all the space between electrons and their atomic nuclei(centers) + the space between atoms; then 1 teaspoon of this ‘matter’ would weigh 16 tons. One physicist puts it this way; ‘If an atom were the size of St. Peter’s Dome, the electrons would be the dust swirling in the air and the nucleus was the small clump-of crystals on the floor.’ CONCLUSION :::: we are 0.07% STUFF/MATERIAL and 99.03% SPACE ….we (mathematically) DO NOT EXIST … your sweating, posturing, breathing, writing, swearing etc… means zip/nothing-at-all in a purely ‘science-chemical’ sense. And I know enough about science’ that pet cosmological theories are ‘poof’/are no-place if we DO NOT EXIST. The acceptance of EXISTENCE and LIVING to boot is awesome and pure-faith!
So Tyler (and others) be at Peace. Your ‘faith’ is much, much more than some think.
“CONCLUSION :::: we are 0.07% STUFF/MATERIAL and 99.03% SPACE ….we (mathematically) DO NOT EXIST …” – so am I right in assuming that you think that 0.07% of something = zero?
Hi Reality,
nope – not even close! First off, the moniker ‘reality’ is very interesting … reality is an amalgam of ‘actuality'(the universe that God creates) + ‘ virtuality'(the ‘human’ component). This is also called: positive reality + such things like ‘zero’ and ‘nothingness’; ‘void’,’chaos’ etc which have nothing to do with positive reality. Sin, suffering too, and the phenomenon of death …. is where?
Second, one of the tenants of actuality is uniqueness. There is no ‘genus’/type, so there is no ‘='(a system of comparison).
Thirdly, ALL mathematics is our own humanness (and the project of our left-brain’s speech center. http://www.jilltaylor.com )
Existence is an experience, and is not reduced to a set of mathematical interventions.
Got some references to support your hypothesis re ‘reality’ there John?
“the universe that God creates” – well there’s an opinion statement which fails to constitute any proof for at least part of your hypothesis.
“Sin, suffering too, and the phenomenon of death …. is where?” – this stuff is more philosophical, it’s certainly not mathematical.
PodcastPeople? What’s that about?
“Existence is an experience, and is not reduced to a set of mathematical interventions.” – I didn’t say it was. I just wanted to know how 0.07% of something = zero!
No references…. why do you think it needs some? Who would I ask? God??
‘ “Sin, suffering too, and the phenomenon of death …. is where?” – this stuff is more philosophical, it’s certainly not mathematical.’ true enough, but it does engage the mind moreso than mathematics. Is wisdom more precious than repetition?
” PodcastPeople? What’s that about? “ have no idea what this refers to.
You asked me to analyze my ‘hypothesis in mathematical terms & I refuse to do so.
So you just made it up then. You quite liked the idea that ‘reality’ is an amalgam of ‘actuality’ and ‘virtuality’. So you could include god.
“but it does engage the mind moreso than mathematics.” – I disagree. There are some beautiful mathematical codes which one can sort and practice in one’s mind.
“Is wisdom more precious than repetition?” – probably. But mathematics isn’t all about repetition.
” PodcastPeople? What’s that about? “ have no idea what this refers to” – Your ‘Jill Taylor’ link didn’t appear to show anything relevant.
“You asked me to analyze my ‘hypothesis in mathematical terms & I refuse to do so” – no I didn’t. I’d like you to analyze it in logical terms. But I only asked if you had any references to support your hypothesis. Which you apparently haven’t.
my thought processes are indeed ‘mine’. I have never, ever read anything even remotely like these. They are far-from-a-whim, though. The question is though’ even if rare: ‘Are they wrong? – because they have no verification. (Guess I’m too much of a ham, to think I’m wrong.) Don’t think so. Prove to me, they are. Should be easy for a bright person as yourself!
The site re. Jill Taylor though is confusing when first entered. I was introduced to her T.E.D. talk. Much of the rest is a unfolding of this. Without doubt her influence in the past few years has been immense.
Actual existence, typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed.
Existing conditions or facts.
1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined…..
Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional
Hm, while it could be argues that actuality could, to a limited extent, be considered synonymous with reality, virtuality doesn’t meet the same criteria. There is certainly no evidence of any amalgam. So what I said before is obviously accurate, you just made it up. Like so much else.
guess I’ll give a bit of this logic. Look around … everything and I do mean every single thing is unique … each breath, each mountain, each heartbeat … have a distinct aspect. This is the positive universe. In mathematics, there were Roman numerals but this ‘system had no zero and fractions were laborious. [It also was the mathematics of Aquinas.]
Enter the Indian (India) concept of ‘zero’. It may seem mundane to a modern-person, but that ‘leap’ was brilliant. It places things-out-there (God’s creation) and brings it within (under-mind-control). The ‘problem’ is though, we did not bring the uniqueness within but an abstraction. Things outside our minds have retained (and always will retain) their ‘uniqueness’ and separateness. [We humans do not control what is outside us.]
If one reads Genesis about human creation, God creates the universe but to man He gives the power to name His creatures. We have the power to abstract and compare.
God’s universe is one-off/unique … our contribution is ‘of-a-kind’. Hence comes ‘actuality(God’s creation) + virtuality (naming/human contribution). This is the amalgam I was referring to. And please do not say you made the air you breathe, nor the sunlight that shines upon you. To say such exquisite relationship is by-chance is foolish
“This is the positive universe.” – says who?
“The Sumerian system was handed down to the Akkadians around 2500 BC and then to the Babylonians in 2000 BC. It was the Babylonians who first concieved of a mark to signify that a number was absent from a column; just as 0 in 1025 signifies that there are no hundreds in that number.”
“It places things-out-there (God’s creation) science…..” – there, fixed.
Your third paragraph provides no tangible proof, evidence or logic. Again it is merely your personal creation, but that’s ok :-)
heh, heh so a dictionary defines what is ‘existence’ for you eh? Guess you’ve never wrestled with a brother, eh? A fist-full-of-teeth is much truer than any book definition about whether I know existence. That sort of expert’ has to make all kinds of assumptions: that I will understand his description. [Kinda wonder if a 5 year-old knows ‘existence’ first-hand, or does he wait for ‘an expert opinion.’.]
“So what I said before is obviously accurate, you just made it up. Like so much else.’
Your ‘accuracy’ is shared-ignorance. And does not speak ‘for you’ or, will you forever hide behind others’ concepts and name their ideas as your verification?
“heh, heh so a dictionary defines what is ‘existence’ for you eh?” – where did you get that idea?
“will you forever hide behind others’ concepts and name their ideas as your verification?” – and yet here you’ve been citing the bible at me.
John, your 6:12 comment was made of AWESOME SAUCE. Too busy to go into detail now but wow!! Reality, you’re missin’ out and it’s right in front of you.
I can only assume you are referring to the biblical text ninek. In which case, for yourself and John, it would be ‘awesome sauce from an awesome source!’ :-)
And meaningless to me.
“You know what happens when you assume..” -Felix Unger
Sorry folks, just got up and find that I need a ‘little housekeeping’. so by ‘positive reality’ – that stems in large part from the 3-D graphs I used to do as part of my calculus class. In this form-of math, there are 4 quadrants – one our universe is symbolized as (+,+) coordinates – where ‘+’ is a symbol of positive/actual reality. There are three more. There is the (-,-) coordinates where a ‘-‘ is the symbol given for a what-is-called negative universe. (Sort of like fantasy would be.) It resides opposite to (+,+). in the lower left of the for possibilities. The other two (-,+) and (+,-), complete the set of four. It is quite easy (mathematically) to enter into another quadrant. But assigning a reality to these makes shifting very (extremely) difficult.
The easiest example may be the concept of absolute-zero degrees. The temperature is easy to plot and project, but attaining that cold is ‘impossible’, because at this cold a temperature it means ‘all movement stops (electron)’ and that barriers between atoms would collapse and fuse. How can such a temperature ever be recorded by any known instrument?
Now if one thinks truth resides only in a positive actuality (as Reality defines it …my ‘take’ on what he has said), sees little merit on the truth/wisdom of poetry or cartoons (sheer fantasy), or even fiction, like novels or Shakespearian plays (too bad so sad). The humor in jokes or cartoons must drive you crazy … imagine a taking rabbit!
The bible hear I use as a reference or guide. It is a whole library of types of materials gathered over centuries from a whole array of people who lived in various cultures. It has massive amounts and wide-range-of-experience in people seeking truth. The bible has within it the development of language/ideas. I would be foolish not to use it. [You seem set on the fear that it is mind-poisoning, or that it has a mythical-charge. One ‘zap’ you’re dead meat, NEXT!]
Mathematics makes my head hurt beyond “2+2”. I thought comparing the plights of several of History’s most famous unwed mothers would be interesting. But maybe that’s just me.
I’ve got to say John, from where I’m sitting what I see is that rather than respond to what I actually say or explain why you make certain claims about me you just make more asinine claims about me and stroll off into semi-prosetic verbiage.
Your description of the bible has an element of accuracy to it. Using it as a reference beyond any field of study or endeavour other than theology doesn’t exactly pass muster though.
“You seem set on the fear that it is mind-poisoning,” – not at all. It is the uses and purposes to which people put it that are mind-poisoning.
“or that it has a mythical-charge. One ‘zap’ you’re dead meat, NEXT!” – well it is mythical I’ll grant you that. In and of iteself it is a book, a sometimes interesting read. Again, it is only when used to impact society that it is more.
I’m certainly no mathematician Hans, I can assure you. But there are some simple mind exercises one can practice and have fun with.
Count backwards from 100 in sevens. 100. 93. 86…..
Or using other numbers.
Practice recalling prime numbers. No need to go too far, just get faster.
From what I understand:
• She didn’t want an abortion-she was just a pregnant women trying to divorce her physically abusive husband.
• A group of lawyers took her case and rewrote it and put it before the Supreme Court as they needed it to be to get this other heinous legislation before the court.
• While they were trying the case they told her if she wanted an abortion they would get three doctors to tell her she was emotionally unstable enough to legally entail that end.
• And she was afraid they were going to physically assualt her to achieve that end and that is why she had to run from these predators?
Is that how it went down?
What am I missing? What happened. Why did she have to leave the state? Were they going to try to coerce her committing to the feticide of her own pre-born child.