http://www.herfreedom.org

God bless you and your family,

Tiffany

So it’s not acceptable, but it’s going to happen, so we might as well accept it when it does?

“Well, we’re still killing plants. So, we’re “of necessity” the “killing variety””

Again, not necessarily, most plants design their fruit to be eaten in order to provide a fertile environment (feces) for the seedling to begin to grow in. I’m not advocating such a lifestyle, but I am pointing out that it is possible. So far from killing the plant (in this case) we are helping it to reproduce.

“Regarding complexity, it is hard for us to imagine the time concept involved in evolution. An explanation that takes 6000 years from the beginning of the earth and the concept of billions of years is beyond our imagination. It takes hard work to focus on the elements of evolution working through these billions of years.”

It’s not the time that is the problem. Believe it or not, I accept that evolution is compatible with the teachings of the bible, if read in the original Hebrew. I personally believe that the evidence for evolution is very poor and therefore don’t believe it from a scientific perspective, but it is in no way an affront to my religion. Let me repeat that to emphasize it; I do not reject evolution as a theory because of my religion, but simply because the science is weak. (By the way, many modern biologists have stated that there seems to be something “guiding” evolution. I remember one paper in which a biologist proposed that the force guiding evolution was “probably electromagnetic” (utterly preposterous, but if you’re trying to avoid the conclusion of an intelligent design, then it’s about the only way out at this point. Additionally, a great number of biologists have given up on the idea that life began on earth de novo because it seems impossible for that to have occurred in any conditions we can think of or generate here, so they have reasoned that life must have started somewhere else (in conditions we cannot imagine or conditions we cannot replicate) and been “seeded” here by a meteor, or some such as that (google search exogenesis (panspermia works, though this idea is slightly different, it is a more common term, and therefore, easier to find information on (there is even a wiki entry on it)))) Anyways, the point is that I have no trouble with “imagining” the vast stretches of time, I even subscribe to the theory that the universe is about 15 billion years old (this theory has some plausible science behind it). It does not matter. Even with this huge amount of time, the evidence for evolution is weaker than the evidence against it. The only reason it still holds credence is that there is no SCIENTIFIC theory that seems more probable. Keep in mind that all scientific theories, by nature, exclude the possibility of the supernatural.

Aside: Origin of the Species is a very old document that was well written at the time, however, discoveries in biology in the past 100 years have shown it to be incorrect in several areas. There are no Darwinists among scientists today. All of the modern scientists who believe in evolutionary theory are accurately described as “neo-Darwinists,” which is a modification of Darwin’s ideas such that they fit much of our modern understanding. However, while Darwin addressed the issue of seemingly irreducible complexity in macroscopic systems found in life very well, no theory has been proposed that accounts for the apparent irreducible complexity of life at the molecular level (which was not understood at Darwin’s time, so Darwin was right not to address it, as it was not well understood at his time, but we cannot ignore the knowledge we now have at this level and his theories must be judged in light of this knowledge).

“To conclude, I am aware that abortion is a compromise, but I don’t find those who abort to be murderers necessarily more than a president who commands war on other people.”

So since you are pro-choice, I would, by logical extension of your argument, assume that you support going to war with random peoples across the globe?

“Until the child is born, it is part of my body and it is this part I am exchanging for both the good of my and my family’s only life and the good of the unborn child – so that he doesn’t live the difficulties he will encounter in this life, should I give him birth.”

You may choose to believe that your unborn child is a part of your body. This is not borne out by the apparent facts of the matter. It is not your place to decide for your child weather or not the difficulty of life will make life not worth living. If a person decides that that is the case, they usually commit suicide shortly thereafter, so why don’t you give the fetus a choice in that matter and allow it to decide if it will commit suicide or not.

Of course, it is not acceptable to kill other people; yet, we do kill so many people in wars. No pesident has stood up until today and declared: We shall not make war and will not kill people NO MATTER WHAT! You see it depends. Life is always a matter of making choices. There is no absolute right or wrong. It always depends!

“if abortion is part of “natural selection” does that not indicate that eventually people who are willing to abort their children will be selected out?”

You are right, we may be selected out; but so what? It is this life – that concerns me. I want to make the best out of it with my family and those around me. And this includes love and respect for each other as well as a proper home and education. I have only one child and I doubt if I could provide the same facilities and give equal love to say, ten children as a tired mother and working woman. I prefer a decent home, a decent life with smaller number of children, but all qualified to the best a family can afford.

“We’re not carnivores, we’re omnivores, so no, we’re not of necessity the “killing variety.”

Well, we’re still killing plants. So, we’re “of necessity” the “killing variety”

Regarding complexity, it is hard for us to imagine the time concept involved in evolution. An explanation that takes 6000 years from the beginning of the earth and the concept of billions of years is beyond our imagination. It takes hard work to focus on the elements of evolution working through these billions of years. Origin of Species has convinced me that this is possible. Of course, the reason that gave start to me to look for better explanations was the conflicts the religious texts included.

I think we are going off-topic. To conclude, I am aware that abortion is a compromise, butI don’t find those who abort to be murderers necessarily more than a president who commands war on other people. Until the child is born, it is part of my body and it is this part I am exchanging for both the good of my and my family’s only life and the good of the unborn child – so that he doesn’t live the difficulties he will encounter in this life, should I give him birth.

“That’s why I say, regarding killing, everything is far more complicated than being pro-life or pro-choice advocates. And we need to think more deeply into the subject.”

Many things are highly complicated. This is not. Is it or is it not acceptable to kill other people for one’s own convenience? If you think it is acceptable, just say so. If not, how in the world can abortion be justified with ANY CHANCE AT ALL that a fetus is a person?
Secondarily, if abortion is part of “natural selection” does that not indicate that eventually people who are willing to abort their children will be selected out? Or our species will be selected out to make room for other species with either more care for their young or less capability for technology?

“We have to kill to survive; yet we don’t want to kill each other. We love animals, yet we eat them. Animals eat each other. If we believe in evolution, then we are animals anyhow, so we are killing our variety. If as the theists say, there is a God, then what kind of an unintelligent design is this? Don’t you see this dilemma?”

We’re not carnivores, we’re omnivores, so no, we’re not of necessity the “killing variety.” I like my dog, she’s a great dog. If I had to choose between my (currently unborn) child and my dog, I would pick my child. Every time. There is no comparison here. There is no dilemma. The only way anyone can construe a dilemma in this set of facts is if they were to attach equal value to the life of a human and the life of an animal. As regards unintelligent design, do you realize how much of a miracle it is that all your blood neither runs out of your body like a sieve or clots in your veins? The clotting cascade is a complete wonder. It is perfectly balanced and intricately complex. And guess what? As far as biological systems go, it is relatively simple. You have no idea the complexity of your design. I have spent YEARS of my life studying the human body and have still only scratched the surface in terms of my understanding of the biochemical processes that keep people alive. It’s like saying the space shuttle only looks designed, it actually all fell together in a scrapyard. Only this comparison falls far short. The simplest single cell is much more complicated than the shuttle, not to mention multi-cellular organisms. Trillions of cells all working together for a single unified purpose. Every one of them must know its place and function. Every single one, as complex as the shuttle, must interact in an appropriate manner with all the other cells in the body. Don’t tell me that the body only “looks” designed. I’ve devoted my life to understanding it. It’s a feat of complexity so extraordinary, there is nothing else against which it can be compared.

I said this was a projection from Origin of Species and here I am quoting the book:

“……Although some species may be now increasing, more or less rapidly, in numbers, all cannot do so, for the world would not hold them……There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thoussnd years, there would literally not be standing room for his progeny. Linnaeus has calculated that if an annual plant produced only two seeds – and there is no plant so unproductive as this – and their seedlings next year produced two, and so on, then in twenty years there would be a million plants. The elephant is reckoned to be the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase: it will be under the mark to assume that it breeds when thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing forth three pairs of young in this interval; if this be so, at the end of the fifth century there would be alive fifteen million elephants, descended from the first pair.”

It all goes under struggle for life, adaptation and natural/sexual or other kinds of selection. If the factors involved in evolution were not so many and diversified, we would not conceive nature as one great design.

Do you see? You think God gave the design whereas I think that the totality of all the factors I mentioned above – elements of evolution – made nature look like designed.

To come back to our subject, some of the progeny of a species are always destroyed this way or that way.

That’s why I say, regarding killing, everything is far more complicated than being pro-life or pro-choice advocates. And we need to think more deeply into the subject.

Kelly Clark,
God bless you, girl!!! I read your story on your blog. SO glad that we found each other. Let’s fight together!!

As I posted on your 4×4 blog (a great one, by the way!) I discovered the truth about my abortion in a similar way that you did.

Thanks for all that you do!

(I’m the “other Kelly” — not the “Jean” but the “Carla.”

The idea that we need abortion to keep the planet from being overburdened with humans, leading to mass starvation is preposterous. Just preposterous. Frankly, since we need young people far more than we need old ones, why don’t we spare the young and kill everyone over 50? That would certainly reduce the human population to manageable proportions, while making sure that there are enough stong, young people to do whatever useful human beings do.