Abortion Discussion at You Tube

 Sometimes I think I'm going to take a break from my blog for a while, and sometimes that does happen, but most of the time I just run into something else right away that I want to write about.  I write way too much I guess, and now it's hard to find so many of the blogs I've written in the past because I can no uslonger use some of the functions I used to depend on to track my posts.   And since Google rearranged their algorithms or whatever it is they did so that nobody can find my blogs any more I'm just writting into the wind as it were anyway.

Enought of that.  The point is that I did just run into another topic to write about.  It just showed up at the top of the You Tube page and without knowing what it was I clicked on it to find out and oh wow, a panel discussion on abortion with three doctors who formerly performed aboritions and three women who had had abortions.  They had all become Christians and that is probably the main reason they all had had a change of heart about what they had done.  

It made me cry of course just as I cried he first time I realized that the abortion I had had at the age of twenty was the killing of my own child and not just a medical procedure to eliminate unwanted tissue from my body.   Even as I say that I realize I didn't beleive that even at the time, or I did but I didn't.  I knew it was a child if only because I had a dream that made it clear it was a child, a little girl waving at me from the back of a hearse as it drove away.  I marveled at such imagery in my dream but I didn't cry then.  I cried thirty or so years later when I was with a group of women in church after having becoome a Christian watching a film about abortion.  They showed the tiny human being being aborted by a prove chasing it around the womb trying to get away from it.  And then I cried, and I criy now just thinking about it again.

How they le to us.  And some enormous number of women today still believe those lies and are angry that Roe v Wade got thrown out by the Superme Court even though they can still get their precious murder done it's just a little less convenient in some cases.   

I shouldn't mock them, they are deceived just as I had been, they don't know what they are doing.  

this video I've just been watching is starkly realistic about the mental state of each memeber before  and after the point where they realized they could no longer do or have an abortion and regretted doing it in the past.  

I don't know if I succeeded in capturing the URL or not, but I've posted it below.  The title of the discussion is 

Abortion  p[roviders Meet Women Who Regret Their Abotitons

so it can be found without the URL on You Tube.

Abos://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGnUG61f_2A

Evolution is a Fraud

 Of course they think they have evidence for evolution.  They've coopted it from ordinary variation within the genome of a species, simply included that as a phase in evolurtion from species to species to species although there is no evidence for that, only for the variation we all know existds within a given speciea.  

Word mai, just difine things according to your prejudcice, which begs the question and eliminated your competition which defines them differently, and voila, a whole scientific field treated as establsished dogma.  Yep, evolution.

They defne evolution as change in a population over time.  Golly gosh, but creationists know there is change in populations over time, we know it to be variation within a species and only within a species and it's not evolution.  

the one thing the purveyors of this intellectual fraud don't do is provide evidence that it is possible to turns turn a enome into another genome, that is, turn one species into another.  They don't need to pbother, there's so much they can csay about the variations that we know occur all the time within a species and as along as they are calling that evolution they never have to bother proving that there are actual changes that lead to new species.

Of the sily fine species in a way that cooptes the point.  Speciation is the simply inability to interbreed with a former population that can ovccur when two populations of the same species get isolated from each other for some great noumber of generations.  The genome can undergo enough change to make repruduction impossible between the, and this they define as speciaition which they regard as a step to evolution, a step on that very path.  

This is intellectual fraud.  Perhaps in a way more or less innocent since they really believe this stuff, but it's false and they never do anything to deal with the fact that they haven't shown and can't show any change on the order of magnitude that they claim to be the case in say the fossil record.  they get only as far as two species of bird simply because although those two birds look almost identical they can't interbreed so they call it evolution.  or two species of frog or anything else that has been separatied longenough from others of that species to have lost the bability to interbreed.  

This is not evolution and it's a fraud to claim that it is.

You need to show that it's possible for a change to occur...EVER...that could change traits in a genome to such an extent that it is no longer the genome of the species it started out to be.

This is impossible but they will deny it and just go on in their delusion while at the same time vilifying us creationists for daring to point it out.

Dawkins, Clyne, all of them, are guilty of committing this fraud.

Gene flow is called a mechanism of evolution.  This is ridiculous.  You've got a dooo  dog breed and a bunch of them get loose and migle with the dog populationin general.  that's gene flow and it doesn't produce evolution, it causes the breed to revert to something more like the original dog population whatever that was.    Gene flow doesn't add anything, it merely ireintroduces what was orignally there.

And so on and so forth.  I could write a book if I were thirty years younger and not legally blind.

The Left Doesn't Understand Economics

 Don't remember who burt someone I heard recently quoted Milton Friedman, popular economist a few decades agao, on the subject of inflation saying that it is caused by only one thing and nothing else, which is government spending and the printing of money to cover it.  Period.  of course Democrats don't like friedman and prefer their own economic opinions which of course are going to bury the country 

in their inflationary excesses.

and then Kamala blames big corporations like the big food chains for price goucghing and promises to bring that to an end.  But they aren't price gouging, they are barely keeping afloat on this tidal wave of inflation that her own administration has let loose on the country.   If they have to bring their prices down any more they could go out of business and many no doubt will.

Friendman also criticized the minimum age as hurting young black people just entering the work force because businesses can't afford to pay high wages and cut back on their employees when forced to pay them, and are not going to hire anyone for the menial staring positions at such high wages that they would otherwise offer young people just starting out.    Liberals are just irrational about economics but very aggressive oabout it at the same time.

Tjeu a;sp tjoml tje wea;tjoest [ep[;e are mpt [auonmg tjeor faor   they also think that the welathiest people ar enot paying their fair share as they say ofver and over and over again, but the highest income bracket pays forty percent, which sounds pretty outrageous as a percentage of income to pay in taes to eme.  They earned their wealth so why aren't they allowed to do with it as they please?   Decomracts don't like tletting them have such control over their own money.  

but when ty do have control over it, such as wehn their tazxes are reduced they contribute a ctgreat deal to the welath of the nation as a whole, explanding business, hiring more employees, raising wages among other things and this increases the tax revenue overall , sometimes even doubling it as I understand was the case under Reagan.  

But liberals have no clue.

I keep forgetting the numbers but the upper incoeme brackets contribute more than half of the taxes already, and the lowest income bracket pays no taxes at all but even gets money backfrom the government.  I'd say the rich are paying their fair share at leas, and anyway if you tax them more they are just going to leave the country and we'll get no tax money from them at all.

Rapture and Other End Times Questions I have

 This will be pretty cryptic I'm afraid, because I don't feel I understande these things well enough despite years of trying, to make any kind of flat statement about it.  I know I don't agree with teh pre trib people about the erevelation of the Antichrist and the timing of the great falling away since I believe the Protestant Reofrmers definitively identified both and they are both in the past.  But as for the Rapture and other elements of the end times scenario I just don't have any truly clear idea bout any of it.  But the pre trib people do have a very very definite idea which they will lay out quite glibly whenever asked.  

Among other things  I just want to say that they are extremely definite about two things I don't think warrant such certainty:  The Blessed Hope and the Wrath to Come.  I think both of these concepts are open to other interpretations than their.  

And that's all I'm going to say.

Well, just the one thing that I'm not a preterist overall, nor a n amillennialist at all, and I do fvor the pre trib view  generlally I just have alot of qustions about it that never seem to get answered.