RSS Feed

Cry For the Children…

Posted on

…unless they happen to be inside a womb.

Democrats and others crying about so-called “child abuse and ripping children from their parents” who purposely bring them across the US southern border in defiance of the law are of course the same people who have no problem in denying children in the womb the right to cross a border that should be open for them to enter life outside the womb.  Even worse is that they will not only deny them the right to cross the border of the womb, they will actually promote destroying them on the other side of the border within the womb.

That’s ultimate child abuse that they self-righteously and arrogantly deny takes place under their immoral “pro choice” nonsense that they spout as a moral position despite the reality that one of the choices they support is murder.

And when it comes to ripping children, abortionists know very well how to do this to the children themselves while also permanently taking them away from their all-too-willing parents who are also among the real perpetrators of child abuse.


The Early Universe and the Human Embryo

Posted on

How often have we heard numerous pro-abortion advocates declare that something as small as an embryo couldn’t possibly be a human being?  “It doesn’t look even remotely human,” we are told, so it’s silly to consider such an entity to be anything more but “pre-life” at best, and “it must simply be a part of the mother’s body, right?” Wrong!  And demonstrably wrong as human biology clearly demonstrates to anyone who has the intellectual integrity to accept the scientific conclusion that from the first moment of conception a new human being is present, and it is also a separate being from his or her mother.

Unfortunately, those who are committed to the irrational and immoral pro-abortion position (which includes those who ignorantly but proudly declare themselves to be “pro-choice” as if murdering on occasion or in certain circumstances and not all of the time somehow makes one opposed to murdering the innocent unborn child), do not possess the intellectual integrity or moral courage to accept the verdict of biology, and so they continue to insist on wrongly claiming that such a tiny entity cannot be considered a human being with its own right to life.

But then again, these same people who insist that an entity the size of an embryo cannot possibly be a human being have absolutely no quibbles with accepting what modern science tells us about the size of the earliest known state of the material universe.  Indeed, this earliest known state is described as a singularity when all of space-time was compacted into an infinitely dense point of virtually zero size.  Cosmologists also tell us that our vast universe today grew from that infinitely dense point, and that everything we see today came from that singularity which was the embryonic universe.  But how can this be?  How can something even smaller than microscopically tiny be the universe we observe today prior to its growing (known more technically as expanding)?  Wouldn’t it really be a “pre-universe” in much the same way as abortion advocates describe a human embryo as “pre-human life” according to their claim that the tiny embryo cannot be a human being prior to its growing or “expanding”?  Of course this is nonsense, and so scientists and others do not deny reality like pro-abortion advocates do.  They do not stupidly refer to the embryonic universe as a “pre-universe.”

Take this comparison a bit further.

All of material life as we know it is comprised of material (“cosmic stuff”) that came from that earliest singularity, and cosmologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, and other scientists insist upon and can demonstrate that this is the reality.  The entity we know as the material universe had an embryonic stage of existence when it is was not a pre-universe or only part of some other being that only became the universe much later in its existence.  It was and is the universe.

And so if every material thing we observe in the material universe is derived from its embryonic singularity, and that singularity was and is the universe accepted as a fact by science, then the notion that embryonic human life is too tiny to be a human being should also be discarded by everyone as sheer nonsense.  Just as everything that makes up the material universe we observe today was present in its embryonic state, so, too, was/is everything that makes up a fellow human being present in its embryonic state.

Accordingly, to directly destroy an embryo based on the false, non-scientific claim that it is too small to be a human being is unquestionably the murder of an expanding human being.

But that’s just some science which adds unequivocal support to a moral position that too many people don’t like, and so they become science deniers in their moral blindness.


Attack on the Historical Catholic Church and Other Kinds of Ignorance in the Calls for a Reformation of Islam

Posted on

So-called moderate Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser have repeatedly claimed in radio and television interviews that all Islam needs in order to get away from its violent elements and also modernize it…

Source: Attack on the Historical Catholic Church and Other Kinds of Ignorance in the Calls for a Reformation of Islam

The Ongoing Surrender of Terminology to the Secular-Progressive Agenda

Posted on

This past June 1, I posted an article imploring people of good will, common sense, and a respect for natural law (in short, ‘right thinking people’) to cease adopting and using terminol…

Source: The Ongoing Surrender of Terminology to the Secular-Progressive Agenda

Logic, Science, the Existence of God, and Chickens and Eggs

Posted on

One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God is St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological argument that deals with the reality of causation.  Skeptics of the argument insist that it is circula…

Source: Logic, Science, the Existence of God, and Chickens and Eggs

Some Much Needed Clarification on Creation and the Big Bang Theory

Posted on

Recently Pope Francis made a statement about the Big Bang theory (part of which is inaccurate as will be explained below) that has sent many people into a tizzy over what the Church teaches or does…

Source: Some Much Needed Clarification on Creation and the Big Bang Theory

The Ongoing Surrender of Terminology to the Secular-Progressive Agenda

Posted on

This past June 1, I posted an article imploring people of good will, common sense, and a respect for natural law (in short, ‘right thinking people’) to cease adopting and using terminology created and/or employed by Progressives in pursuit of their assault on objective morality.


Reviewing both verbal and print media over the past few months, it has become more painfully obvious that the unthinking and/or unwise use of progressive/leftist terminology by otherwise right thinking people opposed to the assault on objective morality continues with remarkable frequency to the point that almost nobody challenges the use of such terms, and, alas, the meaning behind them.

And sometimes even usually clear-headed scholars and medical people who should know better inadvertently make matters worse.  Case in point is the otherwise fine work of the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) who have declared and published the following on their website:  

 No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender(an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept;not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward.People who identify as ‘feeling like the opposite sex’ or ‘somewhere in between’ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.  (See

This referring to gender as merely an awareness of oneself as male or female and not an objective stand-alone category not only plays into the hands of subjectivists and others who wish to promote the irrational claims of “transgenderism,” it’s also etymologically inaccurate and misleading.  The roots of the term gender come from the Latin genus, which means kind, or kind of thing. As such, one objective and legitimate application of the term ‘gender’ is the classification (kind of thing) of organisms based on their biological sex. This being so, everyone is a particular and non-changeable gender or kind of thing, which is either the biological male gender or the biological female gender, and it does not matter what they are aware of at birth. For crying out loud, who is aware of much of anything when they are born?  Very sloppy work here on the part of the ACP that plays right into the hands of those who wish to make gender a subjective/fluid thing that can be determined by each individual instead of objective biology.

Similarly, the prefix trans comes from the Latin trans, which means to go beyond or cross over.  So anything that is trans X means something that crosses over or goes beyond X to something else.  Accordingly, to be “transgender” is to go beyond a particular gender, and those who claim that such is possible mean that a person has crossed over from one gender to another gender or to some hybrid or made-up fantasy gender merely by declaring him or herself to have done so.  But in the real world, nobody can cross over from one gender to another just like no human can cross over from the human species into another species and declare him or herself to actually be a “transbird” or “transwhatever,” and so once again it remains imperative for people of good will and right reason to stop misusing terminology and/or redefining terminology that denies objective reality in any way.

Bottom line: nobody is “transgender” or “transgendered,” because such is not possible by virtue of the way God designed the world and human beings (male and female He created them), and gender is not merely an awareness of one’s biological sex.  It is an objective category pertaining to either the female or male sex and nothing else.

What Approach Should We Take?

Repeating what I set forth in the June 1 article,… “right thinking individuals who oppose the attacks on morality and objective reality must cease using the misleading and/or false terminology of the progressives in support of their claims.  Secondly, the use of such terminology by progressives and others must be challenged at all times. The use and/or acceptance of the bogus terminology cannot be justified even as a matter of politeness or academic discourse protocol, and so on. As has been illustrated time and time again, abusing and manipulating terminology is a major weapon employed by progressives in the culture war, and whenever objectively false terminology is directly or indirectly treated as being even marginally legitimate in describing reality, those who use such terminology to aid their opposition to objective morality make progress in their ongoing destructive efforts, especially when the same terminology is also accepted and used by those who otherwise oppose the immoral nonsense.

The term transgender or its equivalent substitutes must never be used without employing quotation marks and/or otherwise indicating the objective falsehood of the term when writing about people who suffer from gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder.  In conversation with a person who employs the transgender’ term or its substitute labels, this must be countered immediately with politeness, but it must be clearly and forcefully explained that such a term is flat out false for the reasons set forth above.  In addition, it should also be pointed out that anyone who uses such terminology and/or accepts the false claims underlying such terminology are actually helping to perpetuate a psychological illness in the name of that other abused term tolerance – the high god of relativism.

Reclaiming a culture based on natural law, reason, and objective science starts with a relentless insistence upon and use of objective terminology that correctly reflects objective reality.

Let us always bear in mind the importance of words in service to the Word of God.”