D Our forced-motherhood
friends use deceptive language
and lies of omission. As you
must know, lies of omission are quite acceptable in your society even though
lies of commission are considered extremely bad.
What’s the difference?
lie of commission is when you intentionally say something untrue with the
intention of deceiving someone. A
lie of omission is when you intentionally withhold vital information with the
intention of deceiving someone.
So in both cases, the intention is to deceive?
lie is not in the words, or lack of words; it's in the intention of the
Are you saying
that when the forced-motherhood promoters intentionally avoid telling us about
Genesis 2: 7
' that that’s an example of a lie of omission?
Yes. Once again, I
have conned them into screwing up the truth.
The leaders preach vehemently about telling the truth, while, at the same
time, they withhold vital information that could significantly affect someone
didn’t exactly withhold it. I
could have found Genesis 2:7 all by myself.
we not just talk about justifying one’s position?**
Have you heard the story about George Washington and the cherry tree?
Ref: Topic # 32, Everything Is Justifiable
learned that in first or second grade.
Please tell me the essence of the story as you remember it.
Sure. George, when he
was a young boy, got a new hatchet, and shortly thereafter his dad found the
cherry tree cut down and came to George and asked if he did it, and, George
said, “Father, I cannot tell a lie.
I cut down the cherry tree.”
your teachers used that story to teach you to tell the truth?
What’s wrong with that? It’s a good parable about telling the truth.
tiny little detail. It’s a
lie. The story is a
fabrication, a fake, a farce, a fraud, a sham.
The story is completely untrue.
Contrary to popular mythology, George Washington did not cut down a
cherry tree. Do you see
anything even a little bit screwy about using a lie to promote telling the
course. It’s hypocrisy in
do you see anything even a little bit screwy about a man who follows the
teachings of Jesus using lies to promote his cause?
Christian is, by definition, a man or woman who follows the teachings of
Christianity, the teaching of Christ, the teaching of Jesus.
Jesus use lies to promote the word of God?
I’ve ever heard about. He
said, “Know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
of the Ten Commandments is an admonition against lying.
commandment, “Thou shall not bear false witness.”
the use intentional deception to promote their fairytale is perfectly acceptable
to them. They’ve set
themselves up as the“ pillars
of the community” ' —the ones children are
supposed to look up to as role models—“The moral majority,” to use their
And yet, they
have the nerve to claim Bill Clinton was immoral.
what President Clinton did involved sex, and as you well know, nothing in their
minds is as immoral as sex outside their religiously-prescribed way.
The political partners of the Fundamentalist
Christians, the right wing extremist who have taken over the Republican
Party, spent eighteen million dollars investigating Bill Clintons sex life
in an attempt to destroy his presidency. The forced motherhood
peddlers stood shoulder to shoulder in that attack on President
know. They belittled Clinton at every opportunity and yet, they’ve said hardly
a word about their anti-sex, anti-abortionist buddy, Charles Keating.
Before his criminal conspiracy surfaced, Keating was one of the movement’s
most outspoken anti-abortionists.
of course their not going to speak about him. Their silence is
simply another example where avoiding the truth with the intention of
giving a false impression.
Keating only engaged in securities fraud, bank fraud, embezzlement,
conspiracy, misappropriation of funds, and racketeering.
There was nothing sexual there.
And besides, Keating’s shenanigans only cost the taxpayers 2.6 billion
President Clinton’s actions with Monica Lewinsky cost the taxpayers a lot of
his actions cost nothing. The
Republican witch hunters generated those costs in their effort to disgrace the
Democrats and have ammunition for the 2000 election.
What about Newt
Gingrich and Jimmy Swaggart? °
and the host of other morality peddlers who
have proven themselves to be sexual hypocrites?
be hard pressed to find a greater hypocrite than Gingrich.° Gingrich
was having an adulterous affair the same time he was spearheading the
moral values attach on President Clinton.
Are you telling me that
while preaching moral superiority, Gingrich was doing the same thing that Clinton was being harassed for?
not exactly. We know that President Clinton had oral sex in the
White House at least once. He later reconciled his marriage and is
still married to his wife, Hillary Clinton. We don't know the
details of the Gingrich adulterous affair except that after his hypocrisy was
made public, Gingrich abandoned his wife for that other woman.
peddlers simply don’t talk about these people.
They’ve become “non-persons” in the anti-abortion camp.
position of Senator McCain and that of Mr. Bush were almost identical, so in the
2000 Republican primary, why did the anti-abortionists go to such great lengths
and spend so much money badmouthing Senator McCain and glorifying Mr. Bush?
another act of deception—another act of “forgetting” to tell the whole
truth. The issue in the
Republican primary was not abortion as the Christian right would have you
believe. Campaign finance
reform was the real issue. McCain’s
main message was campaign reform. Bush
vehemently opposed it.
The anti-abortionists are adamantly opposed to campaign finance reform
because it would interfere with their ability to spend millions of dollars of
Christian-contribution money influencing political elections.
This would be a serious blow to their plan to create a Christian-controlled
Another thing to
consider is that Mr. Bush owes the Christian right wing some big favors and Senator McCain does not.
If Bush gets elected they will get a significant push
toward their agenda to create a Christian theocracy in America.
So if you wanted
to stretch your imagination far enough, this whole anti-abortion controversy
could be seen as a money-generating scam° designed to create power and control
the fundamental Christians.
power, money and political control? How
could you even consider such a possibility? In all of recorded history,
Christians have never every done anything like that.
sorry. I didn’t mean to
imply that that’s actually the case.
I just mentioned it because you taught me that I should look at every
possibility and every consideration, and what I just said, although remote, is
still a possibility.
up, Stoney, I was kidding you. You
don't have to stretch your imagination even one iota. You simply
have to look at the Christian track record. Historically,
the Christians are notorious for engaging in activities designed to gain money,
power and political control, and, over the centuries, what they've done
for money and power includes the vilest and foulest and most despicable
activities that humans could possible imagine.
You mean things
but that's trivia. I'm referring to much more sinister activities
such as arson and murder. Remind me to tell you about the the
ancient library at Alexandria.°
Remember the words of Jesus, "By their fruits,
you shall know them."
Yes, of course I
Then let your readers look at the evidence and make up their own
minds. Advise them to “seek
the truth above all else” and also to “let the chips fall where they may.”
evidence indicates that regarding intentional pregnancy termination
(inpreterm/abortion) and regarding public prayers, the forced-motherhood advocates are
not following the Bible and they are not following the teaching of Jesus.
So who are they following?
D looked at me with that triumphant look on her face.
I didn't need you to answer that question. Tell me about the
deceptive language, please.
anti-abortionists have been extremely clever in designing the language and
spinning the truth to make their side sound like the good guys.
Pro-life sounds great until you carefully examine the costs and
consequences of the actions and the prohibitions promoted under that name.
The “Pro Life” label implies that its position is in favor of and
supports life, while the opposite side is against life.
The term, pre-born baby, another of their recent rhetorical creations,
gives the impression there is no difference between a fertilized egg so small
that it’s hardly visible and a real flesh and blood, seven-pound baby.'
As long as we are making differences, here's another vital distinction
that the forced-motherhood promoter simply ignore. We've already shown you the evidence
' proving the you as an adult human being are not your physical
Tell me that again,
have proven that there there is no such thing as physical matter; that
everything we think of as matter is actually energy -- energy that is always in
OK, I'm energy, not
matter. So what?
Here's the "So What?" The evidence regarding the nature of
what a human being is knocks the foundation out from under the forced-motherhood
argument that aborting an embryo/fetus is murdering a human
First, the forced-motherhood promoters deny that humans are energy beings.
Second, they claim that a human being is his/her body. Third, they
make no distinction between the being (the spirit, the soul, the entity,
the consciousness) that enters the a human body and the body
itself. Fourth, they ignore the five-hundred and two references
in their own Bible, many of which, such as Genesis
2:7 and Ecclesiastes
11:5, RSV, ' make clear distinctions
between the spirit that inhabits the body and the physical body
take this into your own personal life and examine the significance first
hand. How about on the day you were born, were you your physical
D How about before you were
born. Were you the mass of growing tissue in your mother's womb that
we call an embryo/fetus
D How about at
conception. Were you that single fertilizes egg? (Technically called
No, but the
no-choice people claim that God steps in and creates a brand new being
every time a sperm and egg unite.
D Yes, We've already talked
about God's instantaneous, supernatural,
transcendental magic act and, as you will
recall, nobody, not even the investigators for the United States Supreme
Court could found any evidence to support such a
So, let me ask this again, at
conception, were you that single fertilizes egg?
D If you weren't a fertilized
egg, you weren't an embryo, you weren't a fetus, you weren't your newly-born
body, and you are not your adult physical body now, what were you and what
I am an eternal,
non-physical being temporarily living in a physical body.
The same is true of every
other being. The same is true for every other zygote, embryo,
fetus, and newly born physical body. We need to clearly define what
a baby is.
Ok, what is a
D A baby is a newly arrived
entity who happens to be in a newly born human physical body. A
zygote is not a baby. An embryo is not a baby. A fetus
is not a baby. A newly born human body is not a
baby. A baby is an eternal being functioning in a newly-born
So is a
baby is a combination of matter and spirit?
D That's what the evidence
tells us. And so are you.
That's what the evidence tells us. Please
answer these questions: What and where is the life? What and where
is the spirit that the Christian bible so frequently refers to? How do you
relate to your physical body? You say it's my body. Who/what
is the "me/my" that controls your physical human body?
And neither does anybody else. That is why intentional pregnancy termination
(inpreterm/abortion) is a religious freedom issue.
Unfortunately, the fantasy belief about when life begins is spread around as if it were
an actual, provable fact. You’ve
probably heard Adolph Hitler’s classic line, “Tell a lie often enough, loud
enough, and long enough and people will believe it.”
the same principle applies to fairytales.
“Tell a fairytale often enough, loud enough, and long enough and people
will believe it."
just common sense. Doesn’t
everyone know that?
not. When you look at the
conflicting beliefs among the various major religions,°
it becomes obvious that
some of them must contain myths and misperceptions.
are not told with the intention of anyone believing them to be earthly reality.
you sure of that? Perhaps with nursery rhymes, you’re right, but what about
the organizations that intentionally indoctrinate children with specific
beliefs? A child under the age of
reason (about age seven) can’t tell the difference between an fairytale and a true
As children grow up, when and how do they learn to distinguish fact from
fiction? Parents tell their kids that Santa Claus is a real physical person.
They speak of tooth fairies and Easter bunnies as if they were real.
They tell their kids horrendously false stories about sex, marihuana, and dozens of
You mean, like
the stork brings babies—if you masturbate you go blind—liberty and justice
for all—what will “they” think—your country and the people who run it
are the same thing?
Those are examples. A
child brought up on the fairytale about God’s instantaneous, transcendental
magic° at conception is very likely to believe it as an adult because there are
millions of other adults who also still believe it.
Believing something doesn’t make it real; even millions of people
believing something doesn’t make it real.
When most people believed the Earth to be flat, was it flat?
Where’s the reality check on
fairytales? There isn’t any. If
you’d like, I’ll tell you a little story that illustrates that concept.
(See the next