NARAL's 2009 Hall of Fame and Shame nominees

NARAL has posted a list of prospective 2009 inductees into its Hall of Fame and Shame.

This being opposite world, whoever NARAL lists as good is bad and vice versa, making its nominees particularly interesting to pro-lifers. Click to enlarge...

NARAL Hall of Fame, abortion 2.png

Translating the Baltimore City Council kudos, in November it became the 1st in the nation to pass an ordinance requiring pregnancy care centers to post signage indicating they do not commit abortions, refer for abortions, or provide contraception....

At the same time the council defeated a measure to force abortion mills to post signage indicating they do not provide FREE pregnancy tests, FREE ultrasounds, FREE STD testing or treatment, FREE abstinence education, FREE prenatal care, FREE baby clothes, FREE childbirth and childcare classes, or FREE etc., etc., etc., like pregnancy care centers do.

On to NARAL's Hall of Shame nominees...

NARAL, HAll of Shame, abortion 3.png

The only person both pro-lifers and pro-aborts would agree should be in a Hall of Shame would be Sen. Ben Nelson, the sad sap. He may have started out supporting a Stupak-like amendment to socialized healthcare in the Senate but turned coat.

jan brewer, abortion.jpgI note NARAL didn't describe the 4 "anti-choice measures" signed into law by AZ's Gov. Brewer (pictured right, and who incidentally was appointed governor after pro-abort Janet Napolitano accepted the higher task of targeting pro-lifers en total as potential domestic terrorists as head of the Dept. of Homeland Security), so I will: 1) partial birth abortion ban; 2) ban against nonphysicians committing abortions; 3) conscience protection of pro-life healthcare workers not to participate in abortion; 4) informed consent that includes a 24-hour waiting period and explanation of risks of abortion.

About the OK law, you would think pro-aborts would want to understand why mothers abort. OK's new reporting law, if and when enacted, will require abortionists to ask aborting mothers 37 questions such as age, marital status, and financial status - all anonymously - to be posted online. All this to increase understanding of why women do it. I thought pro-aborts wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and RARE." How can we make it rare if we don't understand why?

And hey, congrats to Personhood USA! We just started running an ad today by SupportPersonhood.com, sponsored by GA Right to Life, big personhood movement supporters.


Comments:

I am very, very proud of Jan Brewer as my Governor and will work very hard for her re-election.

Go Jan Brewer for reversing the acts of the worst governor in Arizona history, Janet Napolitano, who abandoned this state of Arizona to a fiscal mess she created, and is now the wolf guarding the hen house.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 5:58 PM


Brewer signs a law requiring that the people performing a "medical procedure" actually be trained in, you know, medicine and that's "anti-choice?" I thought pro-aborts wanted abortion to be safe?!?

Posted by: Keli Hu at December 28, 2009 6:00 PM


Pro-aborts don't have sense enough to know WHAT they want. All they want is dead babies and wounded women...and they lie about THAT.

Posted by: Pamela at December 28, 2009 6:24 PM


What pro-aborts want is no accountability to a Holy God.

They lie to themselves for there is no such thing.

We will all give an account.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 28, 2009 6:50 PM


RaiseHELL Madcow is a pefect fit for a cable network like PMSNBC.

Easy on the eyes, defys the female homosexual stereotype, of crew cuts, flannel shirts and steel toed work boots.

She is articulate, but she lacks depth, balance, logic and accounatability.

Like I already said, A perfect fit for PMSNBC.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at December 28, 2009 6:51 PM


NARAL's supporters are MIA. There's only ONE comment at NARAL's "blog for choice" in the five days since the Hall of Fame and Shame was posted on their site.

Wasn't it NARAL who originated the claim that CPC's are scary intimidators? That's the pot calling the kettle black. The whole Baltimore City Council should be voted out after passing such a useless/biased ordinance.

Posted by: Janet at December 28, 2009 7:58 PM


Oh that I could move back to AZ from Chicago. How sad for Illinois to be so shamefully represented by the likes of Dick Durbin.

Posted by: MamaMT at December 28, 2009 8:02 PM


Bursting with pride here....derailing the thread to say that my newest niece, Harper was born today weighing 8 lbs. 1 oz. and was 20 inches long!! Thank you, Lord!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 28, 2009 8:53 PM


Congratulations Carla, great news.

Posted by: hal at December 28, 2009 9:36 PM


Congratulations Aunt Carla! God bless little Harper and her family.

Posted by: Janet at December 28, 2009 9:39 PM


Congrats. Carla!

Ken, you are hilarious!

Posted by: Ed at December 28, 2009 9:48 PM


Aw, congrats, Carla!

No need to ask how your Christmas is going then. :)

Posted by: Vannah at December 28, 2009 9:53 PM


"Easy on the eyes, defys the female homosexual stereotype, of crew cuts, flannel shirts and steel toed work boots."

Do you wake up loathsome or do you have to take some kind of pill?


Posted by: hal at December 28, 2009 10:18 PM


Wonderful news Carla! That's what these threads are all about!!

Thanks for all of your help, I'm all the more grateful knowing now that it was in the midst of the labor.

God Bless

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 28, 2009 10:32 PM


awww..congrats, Carla on the new little niece! 8 pounds 1 ounce is exactly what my Great-Niece weighed when she was born (she's 4 now). I was in Canada at the time, and didn't get back to meet her until she was 6 months old, though.

Posted by: Pamela at December 29, 2009 12:26 AM


What an honor it must be to make it onto NARAL's Hall of Shame. Would that we were all so honored for our life's work.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 29, 2009 5:07 AM


Carla, congrats! And I love the name!

Gerard, yes... this would be as cool to me as winning Worst Person in the World... :)

Posted by: Jill Stanek at December 29, 2009 5:20 AM


Thanks you guys!! I don't get to see my girly bug until she gets out of the hospital. It seems other children are not allowed into the hospital because of some PANDEMIC called H1N1. But I have seen the pictures of my sweet little Harper! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 7:00 AM


Congrats, Carla!

Posted by: army_wife at December 29, 2009 7:19 AM


Go Personhood! It really is a movement now that NARAL has given it's "endorsement."

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 8:35 AM


Congrats Carla! yesterday was my dad's birthday!

Posted by: Sydney M at December 29, 2009 9:42 AM


On a side note Harper's mother was battling cancer a year ago and found out she was pregnant. Offered a "termination of her pregnancy" and was adamant about giving her daughter Harper the best chance at life. My SIL is as brave and courageous as they come(so so so proud of her!)and Harper is here for us to love! Please pray for my sister and her continued treatment for cancer and recovery from a C-section. Right now she is cancer free but must keep up the fight in treatment.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 29, 2009 10:18 AM


Posted by: hal at December 28, 2009 10:18 PM

[Ken] "Do you wake up loathsome or do you have to take some kind of pill?"

---------------------------------------------------

HAL

Actually I work at finding colorful comments that will annoy politically correct artificial flowers who believe it is entirely possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.

I would think that you would be annoyed about my pointed criticism of Madcoww's illogical perspective.

I could go photo shopping for images from any of a number of gay pride parades to provide ample evidence of female homosexuals preference for masculine apparel.

ms Maddcoww is a pleasant exception to the rule.

Ellen D. is a an attractive woman as well but her fashion choices lean to the masculine side of the clothing store.

HAL, I suggest you place an ad in the lost and found section of the classifieds.

Perhaps some one has found your sense of humor and is seeking to return it to it's rightful owner.

With a little tender loving care I am sure you can get it working again.

yor bro kens


Posted by: kbhvac at December 29, 2009 10:38 AM


congrats Carla. Yesterday would have been my paternal grandmother's 95th birthday (the last birthday we celebrated with her was her 90th). New babies are so much fun! I hope you get to meet her soon. :)

on a side note, to those who pray: pray for a healthy pregnancy for my cousin Mandy, who is expecting her first child in July 2010.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 29, 2009 11:11 AM


HAL, I suggest you place an ad in the lost and found section of the classifieds.

Perhaps some one has found your sense of humor and is seeking to return it to it's rightful owner.

With a little tender loving care I am sure you can get it working again.

yor bro kens


Posted by: kbhvac at December 29, 2009 10:38 AM

I do get a kick out of laughing at your biases, prejudices, and blind rejection of all progressive ideas. Ms. Maddow is fantastic at her job, and although you don't have to agree with her politics, I find it sad you find it necessary to comment on her sexual orientation. Do you also say "Hannity is heterosexual?" How is that relevant? It is amusing how shallow your observations are. cya...

Posted by: Hal at December 29, 2009 12:21 PM


Hey Hal:

Hope you had a non-Christmas holiday.

Oh, just for the record, for those of us who do believe, while we are to love all people, we are not to condone actions that God considers SINFUL. That is...full of sin.

Gee, homosexuality just happens to one of those SINFUL things that people practice and do that yes, are absolutely disgusting to the Creator. You know, the guy who holds the universe in his hands, can make hydrogen turn into molten metal at Jupiter's surface, cause a star to burn seemingly forever, and yes, even make people who care not to believe in him, ad infinitum.

Yes, and we all can foolishly, arrogantly and pridefully deny that He even exists when the creation cries out loudly about Him, "I'm here, I made this, I made you, I want to be your friend....but...on my terms; you see, I'm God".

So counselor, as you go about your merry, I, I ,I mean happy, I mean, whatever way of denouncing, blaspheming, denying, denigrating, spitting on, and lavishly flirting away your personal mercy and grace account like a drunken sailor yes, even crucifying our magnificent Lord, I wish you a New Year.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 29, 2009 1:16 PM


and a very happy New Year to you as well HisMan.

Let me just add this, if there is a God, I'm sure he/she doesn't care if someone is gay.

Posted by: Hal at December 29, 2009 2:54 PM


HAL,

Ms. Maddcowwes 'success' argues against showing preferencial treatment to some because of who and how and what they choose to have sex with.

Raisehell seems to be perfectly comfortable with her 'orientation'. It is you who seem to be having difficulty accepting her for who and what she is.

I am flaming heterosexual, but I seldom see the need to come out of the closet.

Breeders Unite!

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at December 29, 2009 2:58 PM


"and a very happy New Year to you as well HisMan.

Let me just add this, if there is a God, I'm sure he/she doesn't care if someone is gay.

Posted by: Hal at December 29, 2009 2:54 PM"

You are incorrigible Hal.

When Paul asked the Lord three times to remove the thorn in his flesh, I am sure it was a guy named Hal, probably one of your distant relatives.

And as the Lord answered Paul's prayer, "my strength is sufficient for thee", so too must I accept God's will here.

Happy New Year Mr. Contrarian. I hope God blesses you real good.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 29, 2009 3:05 PM


"...blind rejection of all progressive ideas"...
----------------------------

"Progressive" basically suggests a movement towards a goal not a description.

Whenever somebody mentions the word "progressive ideas", I am always tempted to ask
what the end goal the speaker is progressing/ referring to...but since the term mostly, always comes from the mouths of pro-aborts, I already have a very good idea where they are "progressing" to...



Posted by: RSD at December 29, 2009 3:21 PM


RSD:

When I hear the term "progressive ideas" I have to laugh for God's Word says in Ecclesiastes 1:9,
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

A Liberal's idea of progrssivism is the legalized murder of ohildren (nothing new, barbarians did well before we Americans did it), the normalizing of homosexuality (study Greek and Roman history), the tyrranical taxation of citizentry (ho-hum).

Get the drift?

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 29, 2009 4:01 PM


Yeah, Hisman...we're on the same page on that.

Posted by: RSD at December 29, 2009 4:29 PM


Posted by: Hal at December 29, 2009 12:21 PM

"I do get a kick out of laughing at your

biases, [we all have biases.]

prejudices, [we all have prejudices.]

and blind rejection of all progressive ideas."
-----------------------------------------------------

HAL,

I have to take issue with 'blind rejection'. It assumes that I do not know what it is you are offerring up.

How many times does a puppy have to bite his own tail before he will blindly reject the temptation to do it again to see if was as painful as he remembered?

[You do remember my little parable about the puppy, don't you? It is too bad evolution has deprived YOU of your tail. You could try smashing your thumb in the car door. That might still have some value as a 'teachable moment'.]

At the risk of being repetitive, redunant, even boring, I will re-iterate.

When ever I hear the someone use the term

'progressive'

I always relate it to 'progressive income tax', which is NOT progressive, but

'regressive'

in that it not only punishes success, but uses the power of the state to steal wealth from those who HAVE actually produced it and re-distribute it to those who have NOT.

"From each according to our [progressives] estimation of who has the ability to contribute, to those who have a need, but who, instead of learning the habits that produce success, look to the state to steal resources from someone else and give it to them simply because by statute and definiton they have been become entitled to it."

Lets, be honest, shall we, and acknowledge that in todays america to be identified as a 'liberal' is not a good thing. The social stigma attached to that term is hard to shake.

So you folks who have no code, no core, no principles, went word shopping with 'focus' groups til you identified a term that has not yet accrued the negative connotations of the term 'liberal'.

If being a socialist and humanist is such a noble thing then why do you have to keep finding new terms to obscure and hide who you really are and what you really want to do to us.

If Raisehell Maddcoww is comfortable with being open about her female homsexuality, then why can't you and your comrades be comfortable and open about who you really are.

She has some degree of intellectual and moral integrity, you seem to be suffering from an acute and chronic lack.

Manup and own who and what you are.

On an only tangentially related note:

If B.O. is on vacation, does TOTUS get some much deserved down time as well?

Did TOTUS recently receive an infusion of TOTUSterone or did one of B.O.'s surrogates arrange for gender re-assignment surgery for the electronic marvel?

If it was gender reassignment, then who was the organ donor?

Janet Napolitano?! Hillary Clilnton? Nancy Pelosi?

B.O. has no gonads that would be considered 'functioning'.

It certainly wasn't Harry Reid. If Harry ever had a 'set' they ceased to produce any male hormones a long time ago.

Does the democRAT Senate majority leader squat to throw his water or does he belly up to the bar with the 'boys'?

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at December 29, 2009 5:53 PM


Posted by: Hal at December 29, 2009 2:54 PM

"Let me just add this, if there is a God, I'm sure he/she doesn't care if someone is gay."

----------------------------------------------------

HAL,

But GOD might have an interest, one way or the other if someone is 'homosexual'.

And we all might be surprised just exactly what that interest is.

I would love to set my biases and prejudices aside and see if there is any basis for your certainty that 'IF there is a 'god' ['IF' implies uncertainty] If you have uncertainty about 'god', how can you be 'certain' about what 'god' does or does not care about anything?

Really what you are offerring up is what you believe 'god' to be like based on your own biases and prejudices.

You have fashioned a 'god' in your own likeness.

[Humans are stupid.]

I am reminded of Stone Hinge and Easter Island and the Sphynx, even that blonde haired, blue eyed fair skinned Jesus with the radiant 'corona'.

[Humans are stupid!]

If there is a 'god', then it would be the beginning of wisdom to consider that 'god' may not be at all like you have imagined 'god' to be.

I am not sure how far or how well your intellect will serve in trying to figure out 'god'.

It might be safer for you to remain in 'unbelief' and just enjoy life and wait for 'god' to reveal who 'god' is when 'god' is pleased to do so.

The wisest thing a man can say when he does not konw is, "I don't know."

"The man who says he knows, does not yet know as he ought to know."

[But humans are stupid.]

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at December 29, 2009 6:37 PM


I cannot believe that someone as evil as "Dr." Carhart exists, he is the head of my hall of shame.

Posted by: Abortion Support at December 29, 2009 11:00 PM


"If there is a 'god', then it would be the beginning of wisdom to consider that 'god' may not be at all like you have imagined 'god' to be."

Wise words for everyone who visits here. thank you for that.

Posted by: Hal at December 30, 2009 10:53 AM


Hal wrote:

Let me just add this, if there is a God, I'm sure he/she doesn't care if someone is gay.

(??) You're entitled to your raw opinion on the matter, I'm sure... but don't you realize that you haven't a scrap of sane reasoning to support it? Your statement is as bizarre as one which says, "If there is a God, I'm sure He doesn't care if someone has cancer."

Part of the problem (which crops up, again, and again, in atheist/agnostic mindsets) is that you don't let yourself *think* about Who and What God really Is! "God", even when you play devil's advocate and suppose His existence, is an ill-defined, vague "blob, out there somewhere" with some indeterminate amount of power to do impressive things. With all due respect: it's small wonder you'd get muddled when dealing with specifics. I think I'd get muddled, too, if I were content to live with such vagaries.

Try again. If God, Who knows all and created all, created Rachel Maddow just as she is--with a sexual attraction to women--then whyever would you think God wouldn't care? Wouldn't He be pleased? Wouldn't He take as much pleasure in that accomplishment as He does in making someone's beautiful brown eyes? It sounds very much as if some of us humans project our own carelessness (which can thinly disguise flights from uncomfortable truths--"just don't think about them, and maybe they'll go away") onto God Himself.

No... if you're going to talk about God rationally, you really need to be rational, and get Him a bit clearer in your mind.

Posted by: Paladin at December 30, 2009 12:13 PM


No... if you're going to talk about God rationally, you really need to be rational, and get Him a bit clearer in your mind.
Posted by: Paladin at December 30, 2009 12:13 PM


Hard to think "rationally" about a supernatural world run by gods.

Posted by: Hal at December 30, 2009 1:22 PM


Hard to think "rationally" about a supernatural world run by gods.

Oh, come, now... Socrates did it, and did it wonderfully. :) But two quick points:

1) It's possible to think rationally about most anything--especially about a Supremely Perfect Being--even if you don't yet believe in Him. I can think and speak rationally about Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Krishna, etc.; can't you?

2) I'm not asking you to think rationally about a supernatural world run by gods, anyway. I'm asking you to think rationally about God, Himself. That *may* require some research on your part (or at least patience and acceptance on your part, as we describe Him for you--though I suspect you'd like to confirm what we say), but there's a great deal (not counting troll-ish mockery, scorn, etc.) to be said about Him.

*After* a clear idea of God is settled in your mind, *then* you'll be in a solid position to say what He would or would not think, do, etc. (even hypothetically).

Posted by: Paladin at December 30, 2009 2:15 PM


sorry, Paladin, not interested. Would you seriously like to debate the existence and power of Zeus with me (*after* you educated yourself, of course)?

What a gigantic waste of time and effort. I have dismissed the possibility of a universe run by Zeus without much patience, thought, or investigation. Perhaps you have also. Yet, at one time, he was almost universally accepted as a powerful deity.

Posted by: Hal at December 30, 2009 3:32 PM


sorry, Paladin, not interested. Would you seriously like to debate the existence and power of Zeus with me (*after* you educated yourself, of course)?

:) Cute... though you needn't parrot me in order to make a point; you seem to have a style of your own that could hold up.

You seem to have missed my point, though: it's possible to discuss something rationally, even if you don't believe in it. Since you saw fit to speculate about what you were "sure" God would or wouldn't think, I thought you'd be willing to expend a modicum of thought to defend the idea. If not, then so be it. Your idea, not mine.

What a gigantic waste of time and effort. I have dismissed the possibility of a universe run by Zeus without much patience, thought, or investigation.

(*wry look*) Apparently so. Zeus seems to be far from the only recipient of such treatment.

Perhaps you have also.

I've reached the same conclusion, I think, but it wasn't due to such a slap-dish technique as you describe.

Yet, at one time, he was almost universally accepted as a powerful deity.

By some (which would call into question your "almost universally" idea). But do you make all of your major life-decisions like that? By sheer impulse, prejudice and personal taste? I realize that it's far easier to dismiss offhandedly than it is to examine critically (which need not take a huge amount of time), but it's hardly reliable.

Posted by: Paladin at December 30, 2009 4:04 PM


I'm pro-life and straight. ...not that the latter should matter. Let's get off arguments concerning sexual orientation. Orientation is not "sinful." Behaviors can be -- for homosexuals and for heterosexuals.

Posted by: Rita E. Ott-Pinheiro at December 31, 2009 4:40 AM


"But do you make all of your major life-decisions like that? By sheer impulse, prejudice and personal taste?"

No, but I don't consider rejection of Zeus, (or any other "god") to be a major life decision.

Posted by: Hal at December 31, 2009 1:27 PM


[Paladin]
"But do you make all of your major life-decisions like that? By sheer impulse, prejudice and personal taste?"

[Hal]
No, but I don't consider rejection of Zeus, (or any other "god") to be a major life decision.

Okay, humour me for a moment: why, exactly, did you reject Zeus as the "all-powerful creator of all"? Personally, I rejected him ultimately because even his most devoted worshippers never CLAIMED that he was all-powerful creator of anything; his life was ruled by the fates, just as were the other gods and goddesses of the pantheon. But you seem to have taken one look, said, "Oh, that's ridiculous!", and given it no deeper thought than that shallow dismissal.

Yes, I know that Zeus-worship isn't in vogue, and you were doubtlessly carried along with that vogue-stream; but have you serioulsy given no thought to how anything exists (the universe of finite objects can't possibly contain its own cause), why anything is alive (life cannot come from the nonliving--cf. Law of Biogenesis), and what will happen to you when you die (are you hoping for annihilation?)? The point is directly germane to the pro-life topic at hand; if you're right, then the murder of the unborn or of the born is just so much cosmic rubbish rearranging itself (do you really want to think of yourself as cosmic rubbish?). If we're right, then the wrongful slaughter of millions of children of the Father is taking place on our watch... which, by any sane standard, is BAD.

I really think you need to get off your mental "duff" and do some hard thinking (instead of chevalier dismissals) about all this, friend. You're not going to live forever, and blood is being spilled as we speak.

Posted by: Paladin at January 1, 2010 4:54 PM


" but have you serioulsy given no thought to how anything exists (the universe of finite objects can't possibly contain its own cause)..."

Why not? Some chemical reactions are very, very violent, and I don't think it's beyond reason to think that the origin of matter which everything in the universe is created of could've been composed in such a way that two parts evetually met in a catastrophic way leading to a giant explosion which gave us everything we have now in this way. Also, I don't think it's impossible that all of this matter probably expands away from itself and then comes back together to explode again in a never-ending cycle which has probably been going on since infinity. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we haven't given these things any thought.

"...why anything is alive (life cannot come from the nonliving--cf. Law of Biogenesis)"

Well, it was probably a slow process, and I'm sure we see traces of this in entities like viral bodies (at the precipice of being "alive", but not quite). The exceptions prove the rules.

"...and what will happen to you when you die (are you hoping for annihilation?)"

Yes. What's so bad about that? I had a good run. I find the idea of carrying on forever somewhere tedious. Those I love will carry on my memory for awhile, and eventually they too will fade away. As long as you live a good life while you have a life to live, I'm not bothered by the idea of just...stopping.

But that is what brings me to the point you attempted to make, that if this is the case, everything is meaningless. It's not. Living a GOOD life is very much important, because even if you THINK you're living a good life, bringing unwarranted harm to others is one of those things that hangs on you and drags you down. You can't live a good life like that, nor should you. I'm fine with being cosmic rubbish, but I'm also going to do what I can for you other bits of cosmic rubbish, and all little bits of cosmic rubbish should. That includes putting an end to robbing these bits of cosmic rubbish of their one and only chance at ever having anything good themselves. Abortion is unacceptable and a definite evil in our little chunk of space.

Posted by: xalisae at January 1, 2010 6:05 PM


(??)

Hi, Xalisae,

(Pardon the EXTREMELY long post, here; good questions often need long answers!)

I admit, you caught me off-guard as I was waiting for a reply from Hal! I can certainly try to answer your questions... but I'll have to change gears a bit, since your approach is quite different than his.

You wrote, in reply to my comments:

[Paladin] [...] but have you seriously given no thought to how anything exists (the universe of finite objects can't possibly contain its own cause)..."

[Xalisae]
Why not? Some chemical reactions are very, very violent, and I don't think it's beyond reason to think that the origin of matter which everything in the universe is created of could've been composed in such a way that two parts eventually met in a catastrophic way leading to a giant explosion which gave us everything we have now in this way.

A few different points, here. When I said that "the universe of finite objects cannot contain its own cause", I meant that no finite thing can cause itself (i.e. bring itself from non-existence into existence), and the same problem exists even if you have an arbitrarily large number of finite things. It's a bit like the "gag" where a string of movie-goers passes by the ticket counter, points to the person behind him, and says, "He's paying for me!" Eventually, someone has to pay! Just so: if object [a] was brought into being by objects [x] and [y] colliding/exploding/fusing/etc., then we need to find an explanation for the existence of objects [x] and [y]; otherwise, you've just pushed the same problem back one step, without solving it.

In your example: in order for a chemical reaction to happen, you need chemicals in the first place, right? What caused them? And if you find that cause, then what caused it? You can't go back forever, that way (think of the movie-goers: with an infinite string of people "passing the buck", the ticket-taker would never get paid, and no one of them would see the movie!), so things need to end with something which caused everything else, but which didn't itself have a cause (i.e. it always existed, unchanging). "And that," as St. Thomas Aquinas says, "we call God."

Also, I don't think it's impossible that all of this matter probably expands away from itself and then comes back together to explode again in a never-ending cycle which has probably been going on since infinity.

It's theoretically possible that things have been "cycling" like that for some time; but I'm afraid it's not possible for that to go on forever, in this case; moving things run down, over time; they don't sustain indefinitely (which is one reason why "perpetual motion machines" are impossible). The law of Entropy (a.k.a. "2nd Law of Thermodynamics") states that, in a closed system, the total energy available for work always decreases over time (i.e. things run down). Without an external cause/source of change, no closed system can "revitalize" itself, any more than a hot rock can cool, heat itself up again, cool, etc., forever. Another hot rock (or whatever) could come by and transfer its own heat to the original rock, but that's just "robbing Peter to pay Paul"--i.e. it's no net gain at all. (It'd be like me trying to give myself a loan; it'd be nice, but it doesn't work!)

But even if the universe were hypothetically able to "cycle" indefinitely, that wouldn't explain its original existence. Anything which changes must be finite; it can't have been around forever, "on its own power". (As a quick and rough illustration: imagine a rock, 400 degrees F, sitting on a table in a room with air temperature of 68 degrees F; the rock will cool off, more and more slowly, and its temperature will get closer and closer to 68'F without reaching it; but if the set-up had existed for an infinite number of years, it would've "reached" 68'F, and stopped changing.) There has to be something, eternal and unchanging, to "hold up" any changing object, even if the changing object is immortal.

Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we haven't given these things any thought.

Well... when you say "we", I have to reply that I was talking to Hal specifically, not to anyone else. You're absolutely welcome to join in the conversation(!), and I'm happy to have you along; but my "challenge to think things over" was aimed specifically at Hal (who explicitly said that he didn't put much thought into the matter), and not at you (who apparently *have* thought about this stuff).

[Paladin]"...why anything is alive (life cannot come from the nonliving--cf. Law of Biogenesis)"

[Xalisae]
Well, it was probably a slow process,

I'm afraid the speed of the process has nothing to do with the issue; life is a qualitative difference from non-life, not a quantitative one. I'll defer to the great G.K. Chesterton for a better (and more amusing) account of this (cf. The Everlasting Man, par. 3-4).

and I'm sure we see traces of this in entities like viral bodies (at the precipice of being "alive", but not quite).

Well... you're welcome to feel that way, but you're in a bit of a bind: there's no way to prove or disprove that supposition (that viruses represent a transition from non-life to life), ever. As such, science really doesn't have much to say about it.

The exceptions prove the rules.

I'm afraid that statement has been horribly misunderstood, in modern times. In the old English sense ("prove" = "to test, challenge"), it was true, since exceptions clarified the limits of the rules... but exceptions do not "prove" rules in the modern sense of "confirming the rules as true"; rather, exceptions *disprove* rules, in that sense.

Yes [I hope for annihilation]. What's so bad about that? I had a good run.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I find the idea of carrying on forever somewhere tedious.

Many people do, when they're world-weary and poisoned with ennui. It wasn't always like that, you know. When you were very young, you were still capable of wonder; you were still able to be happy that you were alive, and afraid and sad at the idea of being dead. It's like someone with leprosy wondering why people make such a fuss about paper cuts on the fingers, since they never bother him. Well and good, so far as it goes, but it's still true that leprosy is a disease, and the temporary convenience of painless paper-cuts is only an accidental side-effect of that disease... much like ennui is a spiritual/emotional leprosy which stares at death with a blank shrug.

Those I love will carry on my memory for awhile, and eventually they too will fade away. As long as you live a good life while you have a life to live, I'm not bothered by the idea of just...stopping.

You started to answer this in your next paragraph, but: on what basis do you call your life "good"? By what standard do you measure it?

But that is what brings me to the point you attempted to make, that if this is the case, everything is meaningless. It's not. Living a GOOD life is very much important, because even if you THINK you're living a good life, bringing unwarranted harm to others is one of those things that hangs on you and drags you down.

First: you'd need to clarify what "living a good life" means; some people mean, "getting as much pleasure for myself before I die, no matter who else suffers". I've known many a gang kid who thought that way, and who chevalierly talked of "not expecting to live to the age of 30". They think that, if they're going to be wiped out anyway, why not steal (to get the pocket-money for the drugs which make him forget the pain, and which feel good), rape (since the sexual rush and the domination of others gives him pleasure), and shoot anyone who disses you (because vengeance feels good, and it makes you feel powerful)? Very few of them had their crimes "hanging on them and dragging them down"; if they ever did, then a few drugs and hook-ups would numb that pain in a hurry.

You can't live a good life like that, nor should you.

"Should" implies an objective moral standard. What standard do you mean? What do you say to the gang-banger who laughs or sneers, "Why shouldn't I?" They'd laugh at your suggestion that "they'll be unhappy, later in life", since they think they'd be a whole lot more unhappy by denying themselves the "good life" (and crushing anyone who stands in the way).

I'm fine with being cosmic rubbish, but I'm also going to do what I can for you other bits of cosmic rubbish, and all little bits of cosmic rubbish should. That includes putting an end to robbing these bits of cosmic rubbish of their one and only chance at ever having anything good themselves. Abortion is unacceptable and a definite evil in our little chunk of space.

I'm thrilled (and I'm heart and soul with you) that you see things that way (about abortion); but be careful: you're leaving yourself open to any atheist dismissing your view as "just another nutty opinion"... and (if we exclude the "nutty") they'd have a point, since it's nothing but your personal opinion (albeit a good one). We need something more than that.

Posted by: Paladin at January 2, 2010 1:20 PM