Fidel Castro dead at 90

Abajo Fidel! This cry has been on the hearts, minds and mouths of many Cubans, especially those in America.  The day has finally come when the phrase has taken on reality. Today, Fidel Castro passed away at the age of 90.  Born Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz in 1926 and educated by the Jesuits, Castro would take on a big role as an adult. He adopted leftist (Marxist)ideas while studying at the University of Havana and was the son of a wealthy farmer. Fidel Castro would use these ideas to rule over Cuba after overthrowing the government. At first, he failed to overthrow President Fulgencio Batista in 1953 and was imprisioned. Afterwards, while in Mexico, he formed the "26th of July Movement" with his brother Raul and Che Guevara.  With this movement, he overthrew President Batista in 1959 and took over Cuba becoming its prime minister from 1959 to 1976 and then its president from 1976 to 2008.  The government of the United States did not like Castro and wanted to assasinate him. There were about 634 attempts to assasinate Castro with each failing.  Because of this, Castro became allies with the Soviet Union and allowed them to place nuclear arsenal on the island which began the Cuban Missile Crisis building up to the Cold War era.

The United States would respond with an embargo as a way of forcing economic harm to small island-nation. The embargo had no real success, but the nation did fall into ruin. While its people are well educated and hospitals have well-trained doctors, the island is pretty much frozen in time with citizens using old vehicles from the 1940s and living in run-down edifices. Castro controlled every aspect of the Cuban people. He transormed the nation into one ruled by Communism, taking control of every facet of government and private life. All free speech and expression was suppressed. Those who spoke out against Castro were either killed or imprisioned. In 1999, Saint John Paul II met with him and spoke out against the abuses against human rights and religious freedom.  Shortly after, changes came. The Catholic Church was given more freedom to celebrate Christmas and other holy days. Even more changes came after Pope emeritus Benedict XVI visited in 2012 and told Castro that his political experiment no longer corresponded with the reality of the times.  Castro was the third longest serving head of state and holds the world record of the longest speech at the United Nations. His death was announced on state television by his brother Raul who announced a nine day mourning period. His remainds were cremated.  Many Cubans in exile took to the streets in Miami to celebrate the death of the dictator. World leaders commented on his death, some causing controversy such as Obama who failed to condemen his poor human rights record and the prime minister of Canada who praised him as a great leader.  President-elect Donald Trump and his vice president choice, Mike Pence both condemened Castro and hope for democracy to take hold in Cuba.

My thoughts
The response to Castro's death has been interesting with some praising him and others not so. As a Catholic Christian, I can only pray for his soul. His acts and words judge him by themselves, so I need not make a judgement. Based on what I know, Castro oppressed his own people. He restricted basic freedoms and while preaching Socialism and Communism, lived a lavish life full of riches while his people had to line up for rations. I understand why some are celebrating his death, however, I find that distasteful. We should never celebrate the death of another, even is that person was bad. All have sinned before God, excluding Mary the mother of Christ and Christ of course while on earth as a human male. We should pray for his soul. Fidel Castro was an atheist. Atheism has a long history of oppressing people and free thought.  He was a prime example.

Some atheists claim to be "good without God," however, we can see what happens to a person when he or she removes God from his or her life. The person becomes void of morals and conscience. Atheism has a bad human rights record in light of this. Fidel Castro was a product of indoctrination on campus. This is a big problem. Today, we see so many young people protesting and requesting "safe spaces" due to some leftist professors pontificating to them views that are irrational, yet chick. Universities can be great places to learn, but also dangerous places where some promote ideologies that threaten the moral and social fabric of humanity. It is sad that Cuba has suffered under dictator after dictator. We must hope and pray that Cuba will change and become a more viable democratic society that respects the basic human rights of its citizens. While Castro did improve education on the island, what good is it if the people cannot freely speak and express themselves?  When Jesus said "forgive them for they know not what they do," he had people like Fidel Castro in mind. Pray for his soul. Only God can judge Castro. May He have mercy on His soul.

"Abajo Fidel" has come true. #Cuba has lost its former leader Fidel Castro. May God have mercy on him and may he rest in peace.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) November 26, 2016

Fidel Castro was an #atheist. #atheism has a long history of oppressing people and free thought. He was a prime example.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) November 26, 2016

People cheering in Miami over Fidel Castro is distasteful. He was not perfect, no one is. We should never celebrate the death of another.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) November 26, 2016

When Jesus said "forgive them for they know not what they do," he had people like Fidel Castro in mind. Pray for his soul.

— Sacerdotنs (@Sacerdotus) November 26, 2016

Arch Thomas Wenski : "Fidel Castro has died. Now he awaits the judgment of God who is merciful but also just." https://t.co/wazyawMrZW

— Raymond Arroyo (@RaymondArroyo) November 26, 2016

The tyrant #Castro is dead. New hope dawns. We will stand with the oppressed Cuban people for a free and democratic Cuba. Viva Cuba Libre!

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) November 26, 2016

World leaders and public figures react to former Cuban leader Fidel Castro's death at age 90: https://t.co/1LUhtbo2rF pic.twitter.com/eLkLfZPpBP

— ABC News (@ABC) November 26, 2016

Cubans march down Calle Ocho in Little Havana in Miami celebrating Fidel Castro's death (raining & almost 2am but that won't stop the party) pic.twitter.com/LxvWAuxGsO

— Vera Bergengruen (@VeraMBergen) November 26, 2016

This was the scene on the streets of Miami after Fidel Castro's death was announced https://t.co/iEmf4bCiMC pic.twitter.com/H1iivfbkDF

— CNN (@CNN) November 26, 2016

Today's cover: Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro dead at 90 https://t.co/ecKcwOPD9Q pic.twitter.com/K8g070qy5w

— New York Post (@nypost) November 26, 2016

 





Source:

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=6631562

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-life-of-fidel-castro-1926-2016/2016/11/26/9dfecc96-b3f0-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_gallery.html

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/fidel-castro-dead-cubas-former-president-dies-at-90-w452402

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117186483.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503416852/cuban-reaction-to-fidels-death

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fidel-castros-death/fidel-castro-life-cuban-leader-n290311

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38118739

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2016/11/cuba-leader-fidel-castro-dead-90-161126053354637.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/fidel-castro-dies.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/27/justin-trudeau-ridiculed-over-praise-of-remarkable-fidel-castro

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2016/11/26/statement-prime-minister-canada-death-former-cuban-president-fidel-castro

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/world/americas/justin-trudeau-fidel-castro.html?_r=0

http://wreg.com/2016/11/26/cubas-fidel-castro-dead-at-90/

https://apnews.com/ca4bf8c1d23b451698ae7e979e1455d8?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Blogger Flogging

January 2015 has begun with the theme of freedom of speech. First the office of Charlie Hebdo was attacked killing 12 cartoonists and now a young Saudi is being flogged for blogging.

Yes you read that right.  Raif Badawi, 31 years of age was sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes, 50 every Friday for the next several months until the 1,000 lashes are completed.  His crime: blogging and using the forum to criticize the Saudi government and Islam. Here are some of his statements:

"As soon as a thinker starts to reveal his ideas, you will find hundreds of fatwas that accused him of being an infidel just because he had the courage to discuss some sacred topics. I’m really worried that Arab thinkers will migrate in search of fresh air and to escape the sword of the religious authorities."
-http://www.m.ahewar.org/s.asp?aid=225581&r=0&cid=0&u=&i=3381&q=

Secularism respects everyone and does not offend anyone ... Secularism ... is the practical solution to lift countries (including ours) out of the third world and into the first world. -http://www.m.ahewar.org/s.asp?aid=230393&r=0&cid=0&u=&i=3381&q=

"I’m not in support of the Israeli occupation of any Arab country, but at the same time I do not want to replace Israel by a religious state ... whose main concern would be spreading the culture of death and ignorance among its people when we need modernisation and hope. States based on religious ideology ... have nothing except the fear of God and an inability to face up to life. Look at what had happened after the European peoples succeeded in removing the clergy from public life and restricting them to their churches. They built up human beings and (promoted) enlightenment, creativity and rebellion. States which are based on religion confine their people in the circle of faith and fear."
-http://www.m.ahewar.org/s.asp?aid=235260&r=0&cid=0&u=&i=3381&q= 

"Actually, this venerable preacher has drawn my attention to a truth that had been hidden from me and my dear readers – namely, the existence of the so-called “Sharia astronomer”. What a wonderful appellation! In my humble experience and in the course of my not inconsiderable research into the universe, its origins and the stars, I have never once come across this term. I advise NASA to abandon its telescopes and, instead, turn to our Sharia astronomers, whose keen vision and insight surpass the agency’s obsolete telescopes. Indeed, I advise all other scholars the world over, of whatever discipline, to abandon their studies, laboratories, research centres, places of experimentation, universities, institutes etc. and head at once to the study groups of our magnificent preachers to learn from them all about modern medicine, engineering, chemistry, microbiology, geology, nuclear physics, the science of the atom, marine sciences, the science of explosives, pharmacology, anthropology etc. – alongside astronomy, of course. God bless them! They have shown themselves to be the final authority with the decisive word in everything, which all mankind must accept, submit to and obey without hesitation or discussion." -http://www.sauress.com/albilad/1010439

It is just absurd that this young guy is sentenced to get an @$$ beating just for voicing his opinion and using the gift of language and expression.  While I do not agree with some things he states such as exaggerated praise of secularism; to sentence him to get lashings is just cruel and inhumane. What is also troubling is that in the march in France where different heads of states participated, among them were Saudi officials!  How can they dare march in support of free speech when they do not permit it in their own land?

This young man did not draw vulgar cartoons or write anything vulgar. He merely gave his opinion on things around him.  Anyone who would get offended at this is just insecure and really moronic, in my opinion.  I am also saddened that the west has pretty much remained silent on this abuse.  Perhaps this is because Saudi Arabia is too intertwined with their economies that they do not want to risk ruining any business deals.

Badawi is currently hospitalized and probably would not be able to handle anymore lashings. Nevertheless, the Saudi state insists that he has to face his punishment.


Here are some petitions asking this abuse to stop:
https://www.amnistie.ca/outils/petitions/index.php?PetitionID=69
https://www.change.org/p/free-and-safeguard-the-liberal-saudi-raif-badawy-no-600-lashes
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/468/812/764/
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/free-raif-badawi-saudi-blogger-sentenced-to-seven-years-600-lashes.html






Source:


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/17/saudi-blogger-raif-badawi_n_6492030.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/-sp-saudi-blogger-extracts-raif-badawi

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/21/-sp-saudi-blogger-wife-raid-badawi-lashes

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21319

http://www.sciencecodex.com/raif_badawi_gets_a_thousand_lashes_and_the_west_stays_silent_on_arabian_human_rights-149049

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/opinion/saudi-arabia-blogger-rizvi/

aMaleFeminist response

A tweeter @aMaleFeminist left mentions for me attempting to "refute" my Prochoice debunk post.

@sacerdotvs Refuted: Silly Religious Pro-Lifers and their Blog Posts - Today I came across a post via Twitter … tmblr.co/ZPWd7uV90rGV
— The Male Feminist (@aMaleFeminist) October 12, 2012

@sacerdotvs Refuted, Part II: Silly Religious Pro-Lifers and their Blog Posts tmblr.co/ZPWd7uVCpLjf
— The Male Feminist (@aMaleFeminist) October 13, 2012               

He attempts to do so by using Feminist rhetorical sophistry.  His comments are in blue and my response is in black:



http://male-feminist.tumblr.com/post/33437209631/sacerdotvs-refuted-part-i-silly-religious-pro-lifers

Today I came across a post via Twitter on the religious site Sacerdotvs that made me chuckle like Joe Biden sitting across from an unqualified VP candidate at a debate.  The post itself is eloquently titled “Prochoice Debunked” as if the writer had found the magic pill that would finally silence anyone who believes that a woman has a right to have an abortion.  While the person does make a complete and total a** out of themselves within the first paragraph of their explanation, it’s important that we, as people advocating for women’s right to an abortion, respond to it in a calm, peaceful, and intelligent way…
Nah, who am I kidding.  This is me we’re talking about.
Those first two are out the window.

Sacerdotus replies:

First, you should ask for permission before using my writings as my blog states.   Second, the blog post cannot be debunked because it deals with science that is universally accepted.

From reading your replies, you merely recirculated Prochoice rhetoric.    

Here’s my systematic dismantling of Sacerdotvs’s “Prochoice Debunked.”
http://sacerdotvs.blogspot.com/2011/10/prochoice-debunked.htmlPerhaps I should title it “Prochoice Debunked Debunked.” Nah, sounds stupid. I like my title. Anyway, I’ll take it section by section, giving you highlights of Sacerdotvs’s post, and my responses.

Did I not tell you they make an a** out of themselves right in the very first paragraph? Firstly, starting an argument with a debate of semantics is never a strong way to start an argument. Personally, I already started losing interest, but forced myself to keep reading.

Point of the matter is, the author uses the definition of right as an adjective, not a noun, to support their objective. In other words, they used the definition that describes when something is “correct.” Somebody doesn’t know how to scroll down on Merriam Webster’s online Dictionary. The real definition, in pertinence to this particular argument, is:

“The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” Enough said. Now, let’s fight semantics with semantics, and allow me to pontificate my opinion as is MYright under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Firstly, this document that the author believes they support their argument so eloquently with was ratified on December 10, 1948. Funny how these folk who base arguments like this keep having to refer to documents that are decades old (or, in some cases, milennia.)

Secondly, the author leaves out the careers of those who authored the Declaration following the Declaration, which is the most poignant way for us to glean exactly what was going through their minds when they wrote the phrase, which so eloquently begins the Declaration:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

John Peters Humphrey, a Canadian author of the Declaration, spent his next 20 years at the U.N. Campaigning for freedom of the press, status of women, and against racial discrimination. Charles Malik, another author, is credited with the quote “The fastest way to change society is to mobilize the women of the world.” Yet another author was the United States’ own Eleanor Roosevelt.

With the years following this Declaration has become increased worldly consciousness from which has arisen the pro-choice stance. For all persons to be truly equal, there has to be equal security of person for every human being, not just men and fetuses.

Oh wait, that whole security of person thing is in the U.N. Declaration, too. Hmmm…

Sacerdotus replies:

Whether noun or adjective, the definition is pretty much synonymous.  Notice that both definitions mention the word "just" and imply that this is a possessive trait.

"The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.” “being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>”

This is where you failed to understand my point.  If a right is "just" and entitled as your definition provided, then how can the killing of human offspring articulate this?   In other words: is it just to kill human offspring?  

I then link this to the UN's idea of Human rights and how reproductive rights are not mentioned nor is the killing of human offspring.  Despite the document being decades old, it is still a valid document accepted by the UN and its members.  Until a new one is written, this one is the one that has weight to it.  

I do not understand your foolish attempt to dismiss a valid document that is used today in 2012.  The United State's Constitution is over 200 years old and is still valid.  The careers of those who authored the document are irrelevant.  Again, the document still stands today and is used to define what a Universal Human Right is.    

Your inferences are not part of the document so it is unfair for you to imply that Prochoice rhetoric has arisen from it.  Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the term legalese.  What the words explicitly state in a legal document is what goes, not what is inferred by its readers.

http://male-feminist.tumblr.com/post/33500781417/sacerdotvs-refuted-part-ii-silly-religious-pro-lifers

Here’s a continuation of my blog post in which I systematically dismantle Sacerdotvs’s blog post in which they believe they “debunk” the pro-choice stance.
This is the reason we can’t let all the religious folk in the abortion sandbox play with the science toys. They end up spewing out a whole bunch of factual bull*** that they strongly believe supports their cause but in fact just leaves pro-choice folk giggling because they completely and utterly missed the point of their argument and just made themselves look like an a** to everyone but those who share the same ridiculous belief system they do. Allow me to explain:
The phrase “this is my body” is said by feminists with no scientific intent. It’s purely a matter of human rights. The same human rights which they believe they so eloquently dispelled in section one. The phrase is said because a woman believes that, as a human being, that she is allowed the security of not having an authoritative figure, especially one who will NEVER go through what she is going through as far as a pregnancy, to make a decision about what takes place inside the confines of her own body.
What if you had cancer, and the government could decide that it would be illegal for the doctors to remove a tumor that was implanted against your brain? Hell, it’s a bunch of living cells, right? The most fundamental block of human life, right? What about a tapeworm living inside your stomach/intestines? What if the government told you that you couldn’t remove that because, well, it’s a thing that’s ENTIRELY alive living inside your body, and that would be murdering something for no reason? Isn’t that wrong? Your viewpoints would allow the government to invade the human body to a point where they can decide who lives and who dies. They’d be playing god.
Personally, I’d rather give one single individual the power to play god over one single life, than give the United States power to play god over the life of every. single. United. States. citizen.

Sacerdotus replies:

To date you have not debunked anything.  You have not even touched the scientific facts that support the Pro Life cause.   Prochoice rhetoric as you have demonstrated, relies on sophistry.  Those ideas only work with the ignorant.  

The term "this is my body" is irrational.  Biologically speaking, during pregnancy there are TWO bodies.  Moreover, as I have shown, the destruction of human offspring is not listed as a 'human right.'  Whether you like it or not, governmental bodies have control of all of us.  

• Do you grow your own food?  
• Do you teach yourself? 
• Can you do whatever you want with your body?   

The answer to these is no.  You rely on the government and private businesses to take care of most of your needs.  This indirectly controls your body because the processing of food can alter your body in ways you may not have intended.  Hence, the obesity epidemic in the United States of America.  

If you urinate on the street, or use your body to attack another person, you will be arrested.  What then of "bodily autonomy?"   It seems to not apply here does it?  

Bodily autonomy has its limits in society.  Every government in order for it to be valid must protect human life.  Women, being the ones who carry human offspring are not above the government in this regard.  Just because they are biologically determined to carry human offspring does not give them the right to kill them at will.  

If you saw a pregnant lady punching her stomach, would you stop her or let her do it?   Most likely, your conscience will compel you to run and stop her.  Furthermore, if your mother wanted to jump off a roof, would you stop her?  She has bodily autonomy correct?  Who are you to put your love and feelings for her above her right to take her body and throw it over a roof?  

Your analogy of cancer is the typical attempt to correlate a tumor with an unborn child.  An unborn child is not a tumor.  Your analogy fails.  The removal of a tumor, or tapeworm is not related to pregnancy which is a biologically determined aspect of being a female.  Women have sex organs specifically designed to ovulate and conceive offspring.  You cannot compare this natural occurrence to that of an illness or invasion from a foreign organism.   

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is?   

You are implying that pregnancy is the same as cancer or an invasion from another foreign organism!   Cancer is a mutation that only serves to destroy human life.  Pregnancy is a natural course of evolution that allows a species to continue.   It is NOT a disease.  

The removal of a tape worm is not the same as a child living within the womb.  Remember, this child comes from an ovulated egg of the mother that was fertilized.  It has her genes and that of the father.  This conception is a new human being with its own DNA - geno/phenotype.  This is the normal function of having ovaries, a cervix, Fallopian tubes, and wider pelvis.  Having a tapeworm is not a function of the human being so therefore it is not murder.  See the rest of my blog:

3) Fetus is an aggressor

This is one of the strangest arguments to date. Some claim the fetus somehow attacks the woman. However, biology teaches otherwise. A woman's body is designed to reproduce. She has ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, and vagina. The ovaries regulate hormones and also produce eggs with the genes of the women. These eggs are released at different intervals and wait for fertilization in the Fallopian tube. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/gettingpregnant/understandingovulation.html) (http://www.thefertilityrealm.com/what-is-ovulation.html)

Once fertilized, the egg travels to the uterus as a zygote. It implants and starts to gestate. -(http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-conception)
This fertilization, or conception is the beginning of a new human person - “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.” - (Moore K. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.)

Moreover, a female's pelvis is different than that of a male. It is wider and symmetrically set up to hold and deliver a baby. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9034 ) The vagina/cervix itself dilates during birth in order to allow a baby's head/body to pass through. - (http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/signsoflabor.html) That being said, a woman's body is biologically and naturally designed to house and help develop a zygote, embryo, and fetus. To say the fetus is an aggressor is not science. It is hateful feminist rhetoric based on fallacies.



4) Fetus is a parasite.

This is another strange argument presented by some prochoice advocates. They claim at fetus is a parasite or parasitic because it is "living off" the mother. Once again, this attack on human life is based on fallacious feminist rhetoric. All life comes from a beginning point. No one or thing appears "fully developed."

A cat does not fall out of the sky fully developed, neither does a dog, fish or human being. All organisms; plant or animal begin at one point. From that point they go through a series of developmental stages that do not end at birth. -(http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Humanities/Images-Multimedia/green/plant-life.jpg) (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051762/xhtml/images/img00022.jpg) (http://www.milleprime.com.sg/htm/elearning/lifecycleanimals/human.gif) ()http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/fertilization.htm)
This is how it has been for however long life has existed on this planet called Earth.

Now, is a fetus a parasite or parasitic? The answer is no. A parasite has to be of another species. It invades a different species and survives off of it. "A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host)"-(Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology.) The relationship between a zygote, embryo, fetus and the mother is solely dependent, not parasitic if we are to believe the biological classification of a parasite. Now, there are changes in the woman that are caused by the pregnancy; however they are related to hormonal changes, not disease as would be the case in a parasite invading a host.

A fetus does not cannibalize his or her own mother. This relationship is called "motherhood." If a fetus were a parasite, it would not have come from within the woman's own genetic material. The woman's immune system would attack it as if it were a foreign body. The antibodies of the woman actually help with the growth and development of the fetus and placenta. -(http://www.rialab.com/book_ch5.php) The idea that a fetus is a parasite or parasitic is flawed and not compatible with science. The fetus lacks the qualities for being classified as a parasite. Claiming that a fetus is a parasite because he/she is dependent on the mother is absurd and a misuse of definitions. It is a misrepresentation of the natural function of reproduction and pregnancy. If a fetus were a parasite, then the mother is one as well; however, that is not the case, because for a parasite to be classified as such, it would have to be of a different species invading another species. A parasite is a parasite, and a human fetus is a human fetus. Prochoice cannot twist taxonomy to suit feminist rhetoric. They are both incompatible to one another.

     

A fetus is a "blob of cells" "tissue."


Prochoice advocates disregard the destruction of a fetus by claiming it is merely "cells" or a "tissue." It is a "cancer," or a "tumor' as I have seen some post on twitter. According to the medical dictionary and fetus is: "The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo" - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424 )

Now notice that the definition says, "when the major structures have formed." What are these major structures? They are organ systems. Biology teaches that life takes different forms. The most basic form is a "cell." A cell is a structural biological unit of an organism - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Cell) Some definitions add the word basic to this. - (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2661) In layman's terms, a cell is a building block of life. They contain a nucleus with DNA, cytoplasm, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, etc.

When these cells are together, they form cellular tissue. - (http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/biobookanimalts.html) This cell tissue can come in many different forms; i.e, connective, smooth, epithelial and so on. When these tissues come together they form what is called an organ.

An organ is defined as "A group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions." - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organ) This definition seems to match the prochoice's one of a fetus. However, notice the error in classification. A fetus is "unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week -when major structures have formed.." so a fetus cannot be an organ or a "group of tissues that perform a specific function.." as prochoice suggests. A fetus is an organism, or "am individual living thing that can grow, respond to stimuli and so on." - (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism) Once again prochoice rejects biology in favor of feminist rhetoric which contradicts truth.

The government has a duty to protect all human life.  Allowing pregnancy is not dictating who lives or who dies.  On the contrary, abortion is what is really an act of playing God.  Abortion decides who lives and who dies.  It is heavily promoted in poor neighborhoods with minorities.    

It is no wonder why Planned Parenthood founder and abortion/contraception supporter Margaret Sanger fought hard to eliminated blacks, latinos and the disabled who she saw as unfit to exist because of "imperfection."  

You write "I’d rather give one single individual the power to play god over one single life" I am glad you call the unborn "life" and acknowledge that the unborn are indeed alive.  Since they are alive, then what does terminating them do?  You are showing the cognitive dissonance that is found in so called "prochoice" supporters.  

Canadian Coldness

Stephen Woodworth’s pro-life motion was struck down in Canada 91 - 103.  Woodworth attempted to have Canada revise its criminal code section 223 which states that a human being becomes human only when born.

It is hard to believe that law makers do not know what a human being is.  Science tells us that a human being begins to exist at conception.  The only way to create a human being is via conception.  What will it take these people to realize the truth of human biology?  

From Conception to even post-death, the human body possesses the same DNA.  One does not become human being at birth.  One is already a human since conception.  It is there that the genes take form creating the genotype and phenotype that will guide our development throughout life.

If science does not convince politicians the truth and reality of when a human being begins to exist, then we are all in trouble.  It is scary to think that Pro-Abortion rhetoric can trump the voice of science.  

 

Source:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woodworths-motion-312-defeated-91-to-203

Gay Rights Activist Arrested for Child Porn

June is the LGBT's self-proclaimed "Pride Month."  


However, the arrest of a prominent gay activist for child porn is not something to have pride about.  Larry Brinkin, 66 who has worked in the human rights movement particularly focusing on the LGBT's agenda was arrested for possessing child pornography.  


"Twinks" (gay slang describing guys who look boyish) were apparently not enough for Brinkin who had disgusting and terrifying images of 1-3 year olds being sodomized and performing oral sexual acts on older men.  


To add to the disgust, Brinkins wrote in an email saying: "I loved especially the n---er 2 year old getting nailed."   He also wrote pro- White Supremacy things.  

I hope the LGBT community will work more to end child porn and pedophilia among its people.   Hopefully they will bring change to the culture among gays that see "boyish" guys as the major symbol for attractiveness and the desired partner to have sex with.  

From what I have read and learned from discussions with homosexuals, fetishes such as Gerontophilia or "dad and son" are often practiced in the gay community.  In these role play gay scripts, an older "bear" male who is larger and hairy is the alpha male while the "twink" or boyish smaller smooth bodied young "son" is the beta male in the sexual fantasy.  

In "Pride" parades, very young looking hairless guys are often a norm and are seen parading around in underwear that look like the kind children wear.  If this is what is acceptable in the LGBT community as a normal sex life, then this sets up a breeding ground for pedophilial desires.  

Source:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/larry-brinkin-arrested_n_1625640.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003


http://www.businessinsider.com/gay-rights-activist-allegedly-caught-using-child-porn-and-ranting-against-blacks-2012-6

The Devil's Law

Today, 39 years ago one of the most evil laws ever to exist took a hold of the country that is "Under God."

• This law made it legal to kill unborn children at any moment of time during gestation.  
• This law attempts to play God by labeling when a human becomes a human; when a person becomes a person.  
• It is a disgusting law written as a guise to protect "privacy" and women, but at the expense of a child's life and the mother.  
• It is a law that in a sense brings back the Pagan child sacrifices done to please serpentine gods that demanded human blood from the innocent.   
• It is a law that puts mother against child.  Wife against husband, girlfriend against boyfriend.  
• It is a law that inflates the feminine ego to a point that she becomes selfish, so selfish that her child is worth dying in order for her to do as she pleases.  
• It is a law that the United Nations uses to force other nations to decide whether to adopt it to receive aid or reject it and suffer.  
• It is a law that ignores the most fundamental knowledge of Modern Biology, Psychology and Embryology that we all are required to learn.   

This law came from the horrendous decision in the case Roe v. Wade.  Roe or Norma McCorvey brought charges to the Supreme Court claiming that women have the right to end their pregnancies in the name of privacy and so called bodily autonomy.

Here is McCorvey on the left with her attorney Gloria Allred

Ironically, here she is holding a disgusting sign with an evil and hateful message.  However, things changed for the better because now she is Pro-Life!  She was Baptized into the Catholic Church in 1995 and now fights hard to overturn the decision she was the root cause of.  Check out here site  http://roenomore.org/

Abortion is destroying America and the world.  We have lost generations of children.  These children would have been working now and adding funds to Social Security and the Tax systems of the world.  Any of these aborted babies could have grown to discover a cure for HIV/AIDS, Cancer or even the Common Cold.  Perhaps one of them could have been the next Einstein and have developed a way to travel faster than the speed of light.  We will never know now because Abortion keeps society from advancing.  

Abortion is a power trip.  It gives a sense of grandiose.  When one can easily kill a human life for whatever reason and not be penalized, that is the ultimate psychopathic rush.  When one becomes so desensitized that an unborn child is no longer a child but a "blob of cells," then this becomes a delusion.  

It is a false sense of empowerment for women.  It puts her against her own child.  It is the epitome of selfishness and egoism.  It is no wonder why supporters of Abortion come from the "ME" generation as some Sociologists and Psychologists have labeled it.  

Organizations such as Planned Parenthood which was founded by racist and white supremacist Margaret Sanger makes huge profits off of killing the unborn.  Sanger described minorities and disabled people as "unfit" to exist.  Sound familiar?  Isn't that what Pro-Abortion advocates say today but in a sublime way?

Courts after courts run by activist judges attempt to rewrite modern Biology and Embryology by legislating from the bench when life begins and when a human life becomes a person.  It is sad and disturbing that such power can rest on a mortal.  No judicial degrees, no position of power can ever give any mortal a say on who is human and who is not.        

Everyday roughly 5,000 babies are killed in abortion.  Their remains are discarded in the garbage along with other medical waste.  It is crazy to think that people support this as a right.  Some even describe it as "medical care."  Doctors in training are told that when caring for pregnant women they are caring for TWO patients.  Roe v. Wade distorts this fact by trying by all means to discredit the knowledge we possess about pregnancy and when human life begins.  

America wake up!  Is this the freedom we preach to the world?  Is this the land where all have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?"  

We have modern technologies that clearly show that the unborn are NOT "blobs of cells."  We have technologies that show brain wave activity in the unborn.  How can we allow this barbaric procedure to continue to exist in modern times?

Roe v Wade is often called a "landmark decision."  Well yes it is a landmark decision, but not the one the definition describes.  This landmark decision is destroying our most valuable asset as a society: the youth.   

We must remind ourselves the value of all human life regardless of stage of development, color, gender etc.   Abortion is not an issue for solely Republicans, the "Christian right,"  etc, it is an issue that affects all of us and our morality.  

If you are Pro Choice, please reconsider your position.  You know what you learned in Biology class.  You know the science out there that is on the side of human life.  Do not set aside science for rhetoric that is nonsensical and logically incoherent.

If you are young, in high school or college.  Unfortunately many of our universities are staffed with those who see Abortion as a human right.  Do not be deceived!  You have the tools to learn about Biology, use them.  A professor's views on life are his or her's.  You pay tuition to learn truth, not get brainwashed with lies from progressive professors.  When you weigh the truth of science against a pro choice professor, you will see that science will win.  

Abortion is not a medical procedure or a human right.  Abortion is the termination of a human life in the womb.  Abortion is a glorification of death. It is feticide.   

I have no doubt that Abortion will be aborted soon.  We cannot continue this evil practice.  If we do, then we as Americans are hypocrites when we put our men and women in uniform at risk to protect the human rights of others.  How can we defend human rights when we deprive them to our own unborn?   

Hundreds of Thousands will march in Washington D.C. for the March For Life.  The media will of course black out coverage of this in favor of something else.   Nevertheless, we do not need the media to spread the message that all human life is sacred and dignified.  Life is a right that no man or woman can give, only the Creator as the Declaration of Independence states.  

See my Prochoice Debunk post for more information on how ProChoice rhetoric fairs against Science, Law, Psychology and Common Sense.  

Roe v. Wade will be overturned for good!  All life will be protected from the moment of conception to natural death.  We are Americans, we always do the right thing!   

Pedophilia Rights!

After reading about the LGBT movement and seeing how they are slowly socially engineering for everyone to accept their lifestyle as normal, I asked myself something.  "What will stop pedophiles and other sexually deviant people from wanting the same?"  The answer is: nothing.

 If two men and two women are seen as normal and can marry, then of course those who have attractions to minors or even animals will request the same treatment.  Everyone wants "equality" right?!?


There was even a conference held to "normalize" pedophilia.




http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2011/aug/17/b4uact-seek-acceptance-minor-attracted-pedophiles/

B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles

Comment|TweetShare|

|Email|RSS|More|   

Photo: SQRT(UR MOTHER)

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - Middle Class Guy by Peter Bella

Ask Peter a Question

FOLLOW US ON

FACEBOOK

CHICAGO, August 17, 2011—The modern age has been hailed as post-gender and post-racial. Meaning that we've grown as a society beyond petty discrimination against people on the basis of race or gender identity, and such discrimination is met with the entire wrath our legal and social institutions can muster.

If some people have their way, this modern age will soon be post-pedophilia.   And playgrounds will be empty.

B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them "pedophiles," "fiends," "deviants," "freaks," "perverts," "degenerates," "predators" or "pedophiles," they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons.  (Daily Caller)  

The groups latest symposium "Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies" was held today, August 17, 2011, in Baltimore, Maryland

The point of this symposium is to promote "tolerance” and “normalization.”  The group hopes it will lead to eventual acceptance of their peculiar desires and behaviors. It opposes treatment to change feelings of attraction to children, arguing that, "No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood. 

Howard Kline, the science director of B4U-ACT, said of the existing definition, "It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding," adding, “The Diagnostic and Statistical of Mental Disorders (DSM) should meet a higher standard than that ... We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about.” 

We? What kind of science does he direct?

People in the child-protection field are intolerantly alarmed.

They're concerned that the deletion of pedophilia from the DSM will result in the decriminalization of pedophilia behaviors and force the repeal of criminal laws punishing pedophiles and protecting children. 

B4U-ACT is described as “a 501(c)(3) organization that promotes dialog between mental health professionals and people with a sexual attraction to children or adolescents... “  

“B4U-ACT is a unique collaborative effort between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals to promote communication and understanding between the two groups.” 

Freaks, fiends, degenerates, perverts, deviants and predators have their own 501(c)(3) that collaborates with the shrinks. The patients are helping run the asylum.  

The goal of B4U-ACT is to demand, convince, cajole, and do whatever it takes to get the APA to revise the definition of pedophilia in the DSM. They are appalled that the current definition of “minor-attracted persons” is “inaccurate” and “misleading”.  

The DSM connects pedophilia with criminality. Which is, rights of the minor be damned, insensitive. The APA is not taking B4U-ACT seriously on this point. Even psychiatrists are not that crazy.

But it is worth being informed, and afraid, of this group. 

What concerns B4U-ACT is the criminal stigma of pedophilia on law-abiding “minor attracted persons.”  The whole objective of this conference is to develop strategies and condition society “into accepting pedophiles”. 

“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize," says child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman. "You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.” (Emphasis mine)

Excuse me while I go hide the kid in the bunker.    

Dr. Richard Kramer, B4U-ACT director of operations, wrote, “What purpose does calling someone a ‘pervert’ or ‘predator’ serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred? ... How is this productive? It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender] activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts.”   

Sex Offender activists?  Class of people?  You really can’t make this stuff up.  

Jacob Breslow, a graduate student in gender research at the London School of Economics, admits to being  excited  over the potential for exploiting the removal of pedophilia from the next edition of the DSM. In his abstract Sexual Alignment: Critiquing Sexual Orientation, the Pedophile and the DSM V, Breslow writes:

“Allowing for a form of non-diagnosable minor attraction is exciting, as it creates a sexual or political identity by which activists, scholars and clinicians can better understand Minor Attracted Persons.”  (Emphasis mine on purpose) 

Where do we draw the line on hating the sin, but not the sinner? When does tolerance lapse into parody? When does self-accountability become more important than deviant urges? 

There are some acts in this world - rape, torture, murder, and yes, pedophilia - that are hateful, and the urges to commit them are contemptible.  It was once said, a long time ago, that columnists should incorporate the words fiend, pervert, degenerate, etc. as many times as they can get away with.

This is an unfortunate opportunity to obey that rule.

http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/index.htm

2011 Symposium

Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM:
Issues and ControversiesWednesday, August 17, 2011
Baltimore, MD

---

Featured Speaker: Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., founder, National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma; founder, Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic

---

Symposium Program
References
News Release 

---

This day-long symposium will facilitate the exchange of ideas among researchers, scholars, mental health practitioners, and minor-attracted persons who have an interest in critical issues surrounding the entry for pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. The symposium will address critical issues in the following areas:

• Scientific and philosophical issues related to the DSM entry on pedophilia and/or hebephilia
• Effects of the DSM entry on stigma, availability of mental health services, and research
• Ways in which minor-attracted persons can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process

It is crucial that the DSM be based on the most accurate and complete scientific information available, and on careful consideration of effects on the welfare of patients and society. This is especially true for the DSM entry on pedophilia; it has an enormous impact on the beliefs and practices of mental health professionals, the criminal justice system, the media, and the public. It also has a profound effect on adults and teenagers who are emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents, on the availability of mental health services for them, and on relevant research.

The revision of DSM currently underway provides both the opportunity and the necessity to address fundamental issues surrounding the DSM entry for pedophilia. Numerous unresolved issues have been raised by scholars, researchers, and minor-attracted people. Controversy has arisen over scientific issues (e.g., the setting of diagnostic threshholds, the representativeness of forensic samples), philosophical issues (e.g., the definition of paraphilia, the nature of disorder, and whether hebephilia should be considered a disorder), and consequences of the DSM entry (e.g., its use in civil commitment hearings, its effects on stigma).

This symposium faciliates the interaction necessary for these issues to be addressed. The APA emphasizes that DSM revisions should involve the interaction of researchers from "diverse perspectives, disciplines, and areas of expertise" and be "sensitive to the needs of clinicians and their patients." Representatives from all of these groups will play important roles at this symposium.Social workers and psychologists who attend will receive 6.0 continuting education units (CEUs).
If you have any questions, please contact science@b4uact.org or (443) 244-9920.

---

Updated August 20, 2011
Copyright © 2006–2011, B4U-ACT, Inc.

Now, they are starting to organize and start some kind of "rights" movement.  







http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517


8,241 views

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

Posted by Jack Minor • October 15, 2011 • Printer-friendly

More from Jack Minor

• Tea party leaders say “Occupy Wall Street” mirror image of group
• AG: Gun control would have stopped Fast and Furious
• Congress proposes plan to save Post Office without taxpayer dollars
• FEC allows foreigner to run for president

Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation

by Jack Minor –

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act  calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization's website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from  childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn't just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another  -- whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, "Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality."

He went on to say, "True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent."

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, "If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles' sexual interests prefer children and, "There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else."

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges."

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, "Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children."

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of "basic sexual rights" that includes "the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud." Another right is to, "be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior" and "the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire." The organization also says that no one should be "disadvantaged because of  age."

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.