Are you thankful for a pro-life hero? Tell us about it!

Do you want to publicly thank a pro-life person who saved your life or the life of a loved one? We want to hear from you! Throughout the Thanksgiving week, we will be running articles about your stories. We’re looking for titles like these (in no particular order):

  • I give thanks to my mom
  • I give thanks to my birthmom
  • I give thanks to my child’s birthmom
  • I give thanks to my sidewalk counselor
  • I give thanks to my pregnancy resource center
  • I give thanks to my supportive partner and/or family
  • I give thanks to my pro-life student organization
  • I give thanks to my pro-life obstetrician
  • I give thanks to my maternity home
The possibilities are endless, and we’d like to publish at least five pieces. If you are interested in writing, email info@secularprolife.org with the subject line “Thanksgiving” and include your name and a short version of your story. Please send this initial email no later than Wednesday, November 19. If we like it, we’ll work with you to prepare a longer version for publication.
We look forward to hearing from you and amplifying your voice of thanks!

330 thoughts on “Are you thankful for a pro-life hero? Tell us about it!”

  1. I give thanks for the British National Health Service, the most pro life organisation I know.

    My parents were born before it came into being, but I and my brother and sister (and nieces and nephews) are all NHS babies, and both my parents are still alive and well today thanks to the NHS's unstinting care. I am thankful for that, and also for the care I have received all through my life – through car accidents and broken bones, minor operations and allergies – from the creaky, huge, focused, economical, idealistic, practical, helpful, under-funded, fantastic NHS.

    Thank you, Aneurin Bevan for creating it and for evveryone who's supported it since.

    The NHS also performs about 185,000 abortions a year, safely, legally, at any stage up to 24 weeks if the woman considers it necessary and two doctors support her, and occasionally post-24 weeks if necessary to save the pregnant woman's life or preserve her health. This is also something to be thankful for : the care and help that girls and women receive when they need to terminate an unwanted or a damaging pregnancy. Thank you, NHS.

    Reply
  2. I give thanks to the trolls that frequent here and RH Reality Check. They've convinced more people to become anti-abortion than any pro-lifer I've ever known.

    Reply
  3. I am ashamed that I was pro life for over 30 years. In those thirty years each time I tried to convince someone to be pro life, I was actually trying to convince them to murder innocent babies. Like most pro lifers I thought I was "saving babies" and unborn children. It was not until I researched scientifically and mathematically and disproved the pro life claims that I found that abortion dies not kill babies and in fact leads to an increase in life. Knowing what I know today, I could never be pro life again and I cannot understand why any thinking person would ever be pro life.

    Reply
  4. Doubtful…. if anything these sites expose the truth of the anti-choice side. It exposes how you people view women as weak and inferior.

    Reply
  5. ok, myintx, time to show us all the wonderful rights you think 'human beings' have.
    A woman is pregnant with fraternal twins. The doctor says that due to complications, she can only carry 1 twin to term, and he recommends that she have one of them aborted. There is no handwaving out of this, she can't carry them to 6 months and put them in a preemie unit. She either has to have one aborted, or they both will die.
    After doing an ultrasound, the doctor tells her that her two babies will look like the following, when born:

    Reply
  6. And before you get started with your usual tactics, I don't want any answers composed of handwaving, evasions, complaints that it is a 'sick' question, that the question is 'bs' or comments about my being sick or evil. I want a direct answer. If you had to choose one infant to abort as an embryo, to allow the other to survive, which one?

    Reply
  7. Guest, you have a choice, you can save an innocent born baby or you can let that baby die and attempt to save a fetus instead. What is your choice. If you save the fetus, then you are choosing not to save the baby. So which is important enough to you to save?

    Reply
  8. This is horrible for a number of reasons. First of all, it absolutely lacks compassion. If the mother wants her babies, it is a devastating, horrible, heartbreaking situation. If she feels (personally or publicly) prolife, it is that much more devastating and difficult. How "cute" the fetus is has nothing to do with it. Secondly, as in many hypothetical situations, it is next to impossible to know what one would do. Often in tremendously challenging and emotional situations, ideals are forgotten. Thirdly, it has nothing at all to do with the post at hand. So there is truly no point in myntx or anyone giving you any kind of answer.

    Reply
  9. It is entirely relevant, since myintx thinks that it is morally acceptable to kill INNOCENT people for their kidneys, or who are violating her body (mind controlled rapist, ie, he is utterly innocent), yet she gives a free pass to embryos and fetuses why? Probably because they are CUTE and a grown man isn't

    Reply
  10. I am thankful that my parents conceived me on purpose and that they love me and my twin and would never put their careers, social status or education in front of mine. I am thankful that my parents oppose abortion.
    I am thankful for rebecca keesling whose story turned me pro life. I was firmly pro choice until I heard her story. I though "could I tell her that if I had it my way the year she was conceived that she wouldn't be here?". She was conceived from rape and her mom tried to abort her twice but backed out because it was against the law.

    Reply
  11. I am also thankful for Bernard nathonson. He was an abortion doctor and founder or NARAL. He became pro life after years of aborting babies as a job. His documentary silent scream shows an abortion through an ultra sound. The 3 month old fetus squirms frantically trying to get away from the suction tool before finally dying. If I hadn't seen that i wouldn't feel so strongly about abortion.
    Also everyone who helped make the film maafa 21. It is the best film I've ever seen. It gives detail about the history of planned parenthood as a eugenic group and the real reasons behind the pro choice movement.
    I would also like to thank secular pro life for giving pro lifers of all religious backgrounds a time to come together.
    Happy thanksgiving!

    Reply
  12. You've got a rather creepy insinuation, there, Lara, that prochoice mothers don't love their children and don't conceive them on purpose.

    If you're glad your parents would sacrifice their careers, education, and social status to your own career, education, and social status, what does that say about your ego? Do you really think that your parents' lives are worth less, put together, than your own? Aren't they human beings of value and worth to you?

    By the way, Lara, if your mother's never had an abortion, that just says she never needed to.

    It's also rather creepy for a woman whose mother told her she was (a) conceived in rape and (b) would have been aborted if the woman could have accessed a safe abortion back then, to want to force other women through what her own mother went through to have her.

    Reply
  13. If you or your parents have ever consented to sex, then there was consent to abortion. It is a scientific fact that 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally, so any consent to sex is consent to create those "babies" and to have them abort. If abortion is as evil as you say and causes so much distress, then for your own mental health you must stop your sexual activity. Otherwise you murder babies.

    Reply
  14. The only way you could have been conceived is if someone consented to abortion. Most conceptions abort, so consent to abortion is required in order to procreate.

    Reply
  15. anotheranonymous:
    First of all, I was addressing my question to myintx, and not to you.
    Secondly, your unasked for response to me was composed of exactly the same sort of handwaving that I specifically said I did not want, namely that rather than answering the question as to which infant should be saved and which aborted, you started whining about irrelevencies such as my post being horrible and lacking compassion.
    Thirdly, 'cute' does have a great deal to do with myintx, since she demands that an embryo be spared on the basis of 'can't help it' yet labels a man who has a computer chp in his head and is raping someone as 'evil' and demands he be killed, despite the fact that he 'can't help it' and the only difference between them is that the man is less cute.
    Fourthly, I suspect you are some pro-life person who has realized how embarrassing it is to your side to have myintx blantantly showng the real motivations of your side, and are trying to run damage control by keeping her from revealing any more of the real motivations of your side.
    Tough shit. I want myintx to answer my question. Failing that, YOU answer my question. Which 'baby' would you choose to save? And why?

    Reply
  16. Lara: The movie 'The Silent Scream' is a deliberate visual deception. Firstly, because the image of the fetus is very greatly enlarged – which the makers deliberately do not tell you. Secondly, the fetus at that age does not have any brain function. It is incapable of realizing the suction tool is there, or reacting to it. Thirdly, the video has been slowed down at some parts, and sped up at the parts where the fetus is supposedly 'frantically squirming' – again, deliberately without telling you. If you were to watch the raw footage, without certain parts being sped up, you would see there is no 'frantic squirming'. The 'frantic squirming' is the same random motions as before, just played in fast forward.
    I suggest you consider the morality of a movement that engages in such deliberate deception, in order to get you to join them on a false premise. Muslims do much the same thing; it is acceptable to Muslims to lie about what is in the Koran in order present their religion as being far better than it is for the purpose of getting people to join Islam. You have to wonder about the mindset of people who know that their beliefs are bad, but insist on retaining bad beliefs, and then lie about them to get others to accept them as well, rather than rejecting the beliefs they know are bad.

    Reply
  17. I am thankful for Secularprolife and her courage in hosting this site. I just wish she'd give the boot to the pro-abortion trolls who come here and hijack almost every thread.

    Reply
  18. And the forced gestationers continue to engage in ad hominem insults in order to avoid answering the hard questions. Tell me – human law should be determined by people who are too immature and evasive to answer questions about the reasons for and application of that law, because why? Sad feelies?

    Reply
  19. Please don't say such things. In attempting to insult pro-lifers (with a sweeping and completely false generalization) you offend those who have been raped. It does not help your cause, either – I think you have made a great many intriguing and convincing points that have certainly challenged me, but when this gets thrown out there it makes me cringe and want to run screaming from people who are pro-choice, thinking that they are a hateful, spiteful, angry bunch. Which I know is not (generally) true, although there are certainly several people on here who fit the bill. If you want to be convincing, stay away from emotional, sarcastic generalizations and statements (they certainly don't make pro-lifers sound smart, so why would they make you?).

    Reply
  20. Actually, no the fetus does NOT "squirm frantically" trying to get away from the suction tool. In fact, the fetus isn't cognizant of the suction catheter AT ALL and is incapable of making purposeful movements AT ALL. And cannot scream. You have been taken in by a hoax, and a very OLD hoax at that. "The Silent Scream" has been repeatedly debunked, and I suggest you look into that.

    Reply
  21. I could post various sources debunking "The Silent Scream" or you can just look it up yourself. What YOU can't do is post any peer-reviewed material proving "The Silent Scream" if factual.

    Reply
  22. Secondly, as in many hypothetical situations, it is next to impossible to know what one would do

    Then perhaps people like you and Mathilde (myintx) should refrain from telling total strangers what they "ought to" do in a situation about which you know nothing other than that the woman is pregnant?

    Reply
  23. I am thankful that my parents conceived me on purpose and that they love
    me and my twin and would never put their careers, social status or
    education in front of mine.

    You do know that pro-choice women have children, right? And that many pro-choice women have never had an abortion?

    Well, now you do.

    Reply
  24. THOROUGHLY debunked? Just curious because the site you linked just says it was debunked by Planned Parenthood (who hired – paid?- experts)

    Reply
  25. How about YOU prove that something without a functioning brain, contrary to absolutely everything we know about how the brain functions, is still capable of reacting to ANYTHING.

    Reply
  26. I am thankful for Abby Johnson-(before she became an anti-choice woman hater who sold out for money)

    She was the person who was my counselor before I had my abortion and I could tell that back then she actually cared about women and what happened to them. I knew my abortion was the right choice, but she helped to calm any fears about the actual procedure itself. She explained what RU-486 did and was so caring.

    I just wish she had not sold out for money because I can tell that she really did care about women at one point in her life.

    Reply
  27. Anotheranonymous: Prolifers work hard to ensure that rape vics who want to prevent pregnancy can't get emergency contraception, and also work hard to ensure that rape vics who want to have an abortion can't get one.

    That work by prolifers is hateful, angry, and spiteful, and while I occasionally see a prolifer conceding regretfully that maybe rape vics should be allowed to abort, I never see any prolifers condemning the hate, anger, and spite of prolife efforts to deny girls and women who have been raped access to safe, legal abortion.

    Reply
  28. Yes, experts do expect to be paid for their work. That being said, most people know that at 12 weeks, a fetus moves only in reflexive motions, isn't self-aware or aware of it's environment, cannot engage in purposeful movement (and that is true even in newborns), and cannot scream. Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization to debunk "The Silent Scream." This film is what is commonly referred to as propaganda. Sort of like when film of people waiting to get into a soccer game is misrepresented as people waiting in line for food.

    Reply
  29. I would like to thank my daughter who has been very active in the pro-life movement for a very long time in a non-religious way and has taught me so much about inclusiveness, compassion, how to see things from a different perspective without fearing it, and on a practical level, how to spot trolls!

    Reply
  30. I love how you have to come up with very specific fictional scenarios that fit into a teeny-tiny box to try to make the point that… what? What's your point? That abortion's a great thing?

    Reply
  31. My point is that force gestationers claim to be acting on these great moral principles of 'human rights', yet the 'human rights' are then handwaved away in EVERY possible scenario, with EVERY other sort of human being, except the precious zef.

    And, btw, organ transplants are NOT a fictional scenario. They are medical fact, yet the great claimed human right of 'right to other's organs for your very life' somehow applies only to the precious zef, and not to dialysis patients.

    Nor is ownership of the uterus a 'fictional scenario'. Someone must own it, yet myintx and other forced gestationers refuse to answer that question as well.

    Nor is the question of what constitutes being a 'person' or why human beings are considered to have more value than cattle or bacteria a 'fictional scenario'.

    Your whine of 'fictional scenario' is simply the latest forced gestationer ad-hominem fallacy to avoid answering the hard questions. Not impressed.

    Reply
  32. Oh, and neither are the pictures I posted 'fictional scenarios'. They are actual pictures of children that someone, somewhere, gave birth to. The possibility of having to have one of them aborted, to save the other one, is also a factual scenario in some cases. Yet, thus far, your holy little myintx, and everyone else, for that matter, has refused to answer the question as to which child they would choose to abort, and which they would choose to save. So spare me your whining about 'fictional scenario'. It's just the latest excuse not to answer questions, along with 'science can explain it better than I can'. I'm sure next week, there will be a new whine to avoid answering questions.

    Reply
  33. I would like to thank all the biomedical researchers and scientists, a huge majority of whom are pro-choice, for their long and thankless hours working in labs developing basic techniques and applying them to medical science that has had a huge impact in improving the overall human quality of life AND also for allowing ever younger, premature WANTED infants to survive premature births.

    Reply
  34. "You have formed so very big lies about what I have said. If other people are confused, it is because of you. Your intent is to confuse and lie."

    These people would love you were it not for my lies.

    Reply
  35. You became pro-choice not because you researched it. You became pro-choice because of painful personal tragedy of some sort. Abuse, neglect, addiction……..Stop lying.

    Reply
  36. You are right, it is an ad hominem to say you are a liar without explaining why. I have explained why on a number of occasions, but lets just do it again.

    You lied numerous times and your worst lie is when you say that I claim that one must murder one person to save another. You have been told numerous time that that is a lie, yet you continue to make that claim. What I say is that there are two dying forms, a born person and an unborn person. Both are dying. I say that you have a choice of which to save because of the "Law of Charity" that states there are more people dying than can be saved. Your choice is to save the fetus and let the born person die. I say that is "Murder by Omission" and that you are a murderer.

    Reply
  37. I became pro-choice when it became clear that the whole pro life movement was based upon lies. Once you understand that there are scientific laws that control the impact of abortion you will understand why you are a pro life murderer.

    Reply
  38. Until they understand what is being said, there opinions don't matter, do they? So until you stop lying about what is being said, others cannot make a value judgment. You are wasting your own time with the lies. I have already researched the issue of acceptance of new laws. The normal time frame to overcome low IQ misunderstandings and intentional lies is 10 years. So I am in this for the long term. The proof I have can only lead to one conclusion. People have a choice of which life to save, the born life or the unborn life. Most people will choose to save born babies over fetuses. The longer you intentionally lie about what is being said, the more deaths you will be responsible for.

    Reply
  39. I became pro-choice because I grew up and researched it. I realized that life was not as black and white as I had thought it was when I was a pro-life teen.

    Reply
  40. I became pro choice because I 'chose life' at 18 when I became pregnant out of marriage in 1961.

    My Mother offered me an illegal abortion. I was shocked at the suggestion and had my baby.

    Stupidest decision I made in my lifetime. The child did fine. I am still suffering from that decision at 71.

    Reply
  41. I became pro-choice because I got out of high school and realized that life was not the tidy little black-and-white set of boxes that I thought it was. None of this was caused by abuse, neglect or addiction; it was caused by growing the hell up. Something that I suggest anti-choicers try for a change.

    Reply
  42. You actually have a point. You're 71 and "the child"(as you so affectionately referred to him/her) has ruined your life. Maybe killing the child would've been easier for you. Because it's all about what's best for you.

    Reply
  43. I didn't say your life should be about ME. However, most mothers I know put their child's lives above their own. On the other end of the spectrum, there is you, who wishes "the child" had been aborted.

    Reply
  44. I am thankful for my Mother.
    Although she offered me an illegal abortion, once I made the decision to give birth she helped me take care of my child and keep her.

    Other girls were being sent to places like the Florence Crittenton home in secret and their babies were stolen from them.

    Reply
  45. Why do you lie? If your cause is just, there will be no need to lie on people.
    I support each woman's right to govern her own fertility, family and sexual life as she sees fit without coercion.

    Lying is a terrible sin often committed by angry lost people. Why are you so angry?

    Reply
  46. Great. Thank you.
    Poles are mad dancers. Polish women dance together. My Mother, the Polka Queen, used to win all the dance contests. My Aunt Penny said she was her favorite partner.

    Reply
  47. Toxoplasmosis

    [tok-soh-plaz-moh-sis]
    noun, Pathology
    1.
    infection with the parasite Toxoplasma gondii, transmitted to humans by consumption of insufficiently cooked meat containing the parasite or by contact with contaminated cats or their feces:

    Reply
  48. I am thankful for my Mother's illegal abortion. She was 38 and the sole support of our family. My Dad was completely crippled and unable to work at all. We were three kids, two adults and two elders. And no social safety net.

    Mom was heavy into union organizing and management and just starting to have her own life of service. With nothing more than a 9th grade education, she was a delegate to the Labor Board in Washington DC in later years.

    One of the reasons I advocate for reproductive rights is that illegal abortion. Mom could have died. My friend's Mother did die of illegal abortion when she was 9. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

    Reply
  49. You are an obsessed nutcase.

    The film was debunked by scientists and physicians who may or may not have been paid for their work.

    You are suggesting that

    Sally Faith Dorfman, MD
    Assistant Professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Assistant Clinical Professor, Mount Sinai

    and

    Hart Peterson, MD
    Chief of Pediatric Neurology, New York Hospital,Clinical Professor of Neurology in Pediatrics, CornellUniversity Medical Center

    and other wellknowns would lie in a white paper and damage their reputation and life's work for a few bucks? Fooking madness.

    Reply
  50. Nathonson is the one that is making big bucks. 1.5 billion pro lifers suckered. The guy is a genius. He takes your money and you love it.

    Reply
  51. I won't discuss the ethics of abortion in this thread, instead focusing
    on the misinformation BOTH sides perpetrate to advance their agenda. Full disclosure I happen to be pro-life. An ethical decision I made using the best credible evidence available. The
    ability to make a sound ethical decision rests on having the most
    credible information available. People will present skewed or cherry
    picked data, misleading statistics etc. That is to be expected. Rational
    people can spot that sort of nonsense. Intentionally providing false
    information goes beyond that, it is irresponsible and ethically corrupt.
    On this forum a commenter (Russell Crawford) has been advancing six "newly revealed
    scientific laws". He has cited these "laws" as evidence of his argument
    repeatedly. If you do any research you will find the commenter is the
    ONLY person to EVER cite these "laws", and is in fact the author of the
    "laws". The "laws" have NEVER been validated in any way, by any
    scientific entity. He refuses to submit them for peer review, or even to
    debate them openly. I offered to donate $100 to a charity of his choice
    if he was able to successfully defend them, he declined, instead
    claiming I changed an insignicant word in one law, and calling me liar.
    Quite simply, he realized he couldn't win with logic so he resorted to
    slander. I don't see this as a matter of pro-choice or pro-life, I see
    this as a matter of integrity. If we allow one side to present
    completely fictional "laws" as settled science, what is to stop the
    other side from doing the same thing? Check these laws out for yourself
    and make your own decision. Keep in mind, he presents them on his
    website as established scientific laws. Darwin's Theory of Evolution,
    which is well established and considered factual, is not even presented
    as a scientific law. These "laws" have NEVER been accepted in any form
    by ANY scientific entity, but judge for yourself. Is this acceptable
    behavior? If you share his stance on the issue I would be doubly
    outraged, he discredits the entire argument with his fraud.
    naturalabortionlaws.com…

    Reply
  52. You have ZERO credibility. Your website promoting "newly revealed scientific laws" is FRAUD. Since you couldn't or wouldn't answer my earlier questions. Here's
    some easier ones. What scientific entities have acknowledged your
    "laws"? What repeatable experimental observations did you conduct to
    form these conclusions, and where is an outline detailing how they can
    be repeated and verified? Has anyone (other than yourself) ever cited
    your "laws" as evidence in any other studies, theories, hypothesis etc?

    Anyone reading this, check out his site, and decide for yourself. Is presenting specious arguments based on a specific agenda as settled scientific laws acceptable?
    naturalabortionlaws.com…

    Reply
  53. You are arguing with a fraud, I wouldn't waste your breath. Look at his website and decide for yourself.
    naturalabortionlaws.com/
    Not one recognized law in the bunch. All presented as settled science, despite NEVER being validated in any way by ANY scientific entity.

    Reply
  54. You mean the scientific "laws" YOU wrote, that NO scientist or scientific entity has EVER acknowledged in any form? As long as you present these as settled science, I will be adding my warning to every comment you make on the matter. The Natural Abortion Laws are FRAUD. They have never been validated by ANY scientific entity. Never been cited as evidence by anyone other than the author. They do not even meet the criteria for a theory. Where is your detailed outline explaining the experimental observations you made, so we can repeat and verify them?

    naturalabortionlaws.com/

    Reply
  55. Yeah this guy's a piece of work. It's pointless talking to him. He made up a set of scientific "laws" to back up his claims. He's a regular Isaac Newton.

    Reply
  56. I applaud anyone who makes a reasonable ethical decision based on the best credible evidence available to them. Science gives us the tools we need to make those decisions. However, some would use science fraudulently, Like Russell Crawford who wrote the 6 laws of Natural Abortion. He presents these as settled scientific fact, despite NO scientist or scientific entity EVER reviewing, confirming, or even acknowledging these "scientific laws". The laws did not meet the criteria, or follow established protocol to be considered law. There is no demonstrated experimental observations that can be repeated to confirm his statements, and no scientist alive has offered any support for them. Credible science is a powerful tool, fraudulent science is an equally powerful weapon. In today's hyper connected environment, ideas (even bad ones) spread exponentially. We should all be vigilante, regardless of our own ethical stances on issues, to ensure the information being offered as scientific evidence is sound. It's impossible to make an honest decision with dishonest information. Anyone who shares this belief should do everything they can to stop the spread of fraudulent science. Check out this site and decide for yourself.
    naturalabortionlaws.com/

    Reply
  57. Ask him what he thinks of Mother Teresa. He'll start by telling you that's not her real name. Then, he'll proceed to inform you of how her pro-life statements have been responsible for the "murder by omission" of millions of men women and children.

    Reply
  58. I offered to give $100 to planned parenthood if he could defend his "laws" in a debate with me on his OWN website and let his supporters vote. He declined. I'm not letting him off the hook though.

    Reply
  59. I would argue that making public statements of any kind might be the stupidest decision you've made in your lifetime, and it seems to be a mistake you make over and over.

    Reply
  60. Greg Kells continues to request to be allowed to debate with me. Central to my refusal to debate him is the fact that he changed the words of the Scientific Abortion Laws and posted the changed laws on the web. He then tried to blame the ch…ange on me.
    Here is a screenshot from his profile page that on the top states that he has now copy and pasted the correct wording. On the bottom of the screenshot can be seen his denial that he changed anything.
    On his own page is the proof that he knew he was posting a lie.

    That is the reason that he is not allowed to post on this page and why I do not answer his questions. No person is required to respond to a crook. His statements have all been debunked and he is upset. Until he calms down enough to follow rules that will not allow him to lie, I will not correspond with him.

    Reply
  61. Greg Kells continues to request to be allowed to debate with me. Central to my refusal to debate him is the fact that he changed the words of the Scientific Abortion Laws and posted the changed laws on the web. He then tried to blame the ch…ange on me.
    Here is a screenshot from his profile page that on the top states that he has now copy and pasted the correct wording. On the bottom of the screenshot can be seen his denial that he changed anything.
    On his own page is the proof that he knew he was posting a lie.

    That is the reason that he is not allowed to post on this page and why I do not answer his questions. No person is required to respond to a crook. His statements have all been debunked and he is upset. Until he calms down enough to follow rules that will not allow him to lie, I will not correspond with him.
    2

    Reply
  62. Russel's ideas are a bit out there. He never claimed to be a scientist, just an entrepreneur with several patents to his name, and he has stated his ideas and laws are all his own, and he is aware that established science doesn't necessarily agree with him. I also do not agree with him on the science or his website.

    There is a thread a while back where I point out his use of the term genotype and phenotype appear at odds with the way science understands them, and some other stuff which I no longer remember. I don't remember where the thread is, but its within the 6 weeks in one of the posts that got like 1000 comments.

    >> reasonable ethical decision using best available science

    I agree with you there. In the case of abortion laws, I also think their decisions should also be based on what social science has found with regards to the role of abortion in society, and how actual people behave when safe, legal abortions are available.

    A case in point is Japan, where 90% of the populace is in favor of legal abortion. Compared to the early 50s when abortion was first "practically" legalized, the abortion rate today is < 20% of what it used to be back then. This despite the fact that there is NO pro-life movement of any sort in Japan. When societal and economic conditions improve, abortion just naturally declines.

    People should also consider what the effect might be to make it illegal. My hunch is that the poor will have no choice and will turn to abandoning infants or turn to illegal abortions, but there will be little medical safety net if something goes wrong. Also, they may not seek medical attention as they may fear legal consequences of having been found to have an illegal abortion. The rich will just fly off to a country like Japan or the EU. Early pregnancy is not recorded anywhere, so they could have one elsewhere and come back to the US with no one the wiser.

    Reply
  63. My hunch is that the poor will have no choice and will turn to abandoning infants or turn to illegal abortions,

    Of course, pro-lifers make the argument that abortion fosters a 'culture of death' and that the young and the destitute throw babies into dumpsters because of this.

    But, I ask, what makes them think that the banning of abortion will suddenly make people intrinsically respect the sanctity of life? Ban abortion and boom, tomorrow, all of those destitute girls will suddenly want to be pregnant?

    Reply
  64. Unfortunately, there are people on both sides who are misinformed. Even though this is "secular pro-life", one of the blog writers has said that fetuses are placed in the womb by God himself, and that's why its wrong to have an abortion.

    Reply
  65. Banning abortion is like banning alcohol. Policies that are too far removed from natural human inclinations are bound to fail.

    The only way one can stop rich pregnant women from going abroad is to have mandatory pregnancy tests at the airport for all women and girls over the age of 12.

    Reply
  66. The screen shot shows a tiny fragment of our conversation, and doesn't support Russells claim. Regardless, the word he claims I omitted actually hurt his argument. I didn't even catch it until he pointed it out, but he never did a repeatable experimental observation to establish intent. I find it hilarious that he refuses to debate me citing that I lied (which I clearly didn't as even his own evidence shows) considering his entire premise is a lie. No scientist alive has EVER acknowledged his findings. Claiming they are settled and valid scientific laws, is a lie.

    Reply
  67. I've mentioned variations on that theme, and they always reject it as an unreasonable violation of privacy.

    But if life is so precious to abrogate the bodily autonomy of women, then why would monitoring them and investigating miscarriages be unreasonable?

    Why, why could that be.

    Reply
  68. The problem I have with Russell is that he doesn't present these as opinion, he presents them as settled scientific law, which is absolutely ludicrous. If he presented them as his own opinion, I would write him off as a harmless kook. Allowing him to present these as settled scientific laws, essentially deprives others of the ability to make a rational decision. Not everybody has the background to spot the inconsistencies and dismiss them as nonsense. They will take his "laws" at face value and assign them the same value as actual established theories and laws. To extend my earlier metaphor, he is using a tool as a weapon. As for my own ethical conclusion, I consider myself pro-life, but not legislatively. The last thing I will ever advocate is another law of any kind. I prefer education and social support. In that way my conclusions are probably closer to your own, than to most "pro-lifers". Then there is the fact that I also oppose the death penalty. Which oddly puts me in the minority among the pro-life crowd.

    Reply
  69. There is realistically no way of stopping poor women from getting abortions either (at least through legislation). You can really only stop them from getting safe abortions. Making it illegal isn't the answer. I am pro-life, but realize that. I am also sober and detest alcohol, but see the folly in prohibition as well. The solution is to improve resources and education in particularly poor communities.

    Reply
  70. Well, I also generally consider myself "personally" pro-life, in that I wouldn't want an abortion for anyone in my close circle, but ultimately I feel its a personal decision.

    As for Russell, this is the internet. He certainly is not the first or last who authoritatively states his opinion. It is the price we pay for modern technology.

    Reply
  71. Being the internet is exactly what makes his message dangerous. His website looks official enough and his facebook page for it has over 42,000 likes. Obvioulsy I don't think even 10% of them read his "laws". They probably clicked like because they are pro-choice and wanted to get the invite out of their inbox, but if even 5% believe his representation, and each of them tells a couple friends, and so on and so on. Before we know Russell may have insinuated his ideas into the collective consciousness. Once something like that takes root, it's hard to get rid of it.

    Reply
  72. Sure, but then how many pro-life websites out there have a high "like" count? The ones that also provide you with misinformation about gays, and sometimes are connected to Creationist sites and stuff?

    Again, this is the internet. The free exchange of ideas also means plenty of junk out there. Thankfully, he does not seem to get too many Up votes on this site. Sometimes he has lucid thoughts, and those are OK.

    This kind of thing is not only a problem with the internet. Even Nobel laureates use their positions of authority to sometimes push kooky ideas. Linus Pauling, one of the fathers of quantum chemistry, also led a crusade for vitamin C that ultimately proved harmful to health. Josephson, the guy who invented Josephson junctions, also believed in ESP, and sometimes got shouted down at physics conferences when he started going into it, even after he got his Nobel.

    The best we can all do is hope that there are enough sane people out there.

    Reply
  73. I guess this is where we differ. I actually go after the Creationists, and junk science pro-lifers too. Most of them use misrepresentations of established science or outright denial of all science. They don't just make up their own science, declare it law, and refuse to submit it for review, debate it or have it validated by any credible authority. There's a fine line between biased or misleading and fraud, Russell is well on the other side of it. If he changed his site to say Observations and hypothesis, I'd let it slide (it would still be wrong but not as intentionally fraudulent).

    Reply
  74. Well, I have tried to correct him, but he believes I am not understanding him, so there is not much more I can do about it. I am not the moderator of this site.

    Reply
  75. I do not debate with Greg Kells do to the fact he changed the wording of the Laws and posted the false information on the internet. Do not trust him.

    Reply
  76. I do not debate Greg Kells due to the fact he changed the words of the law and posted them on the internet. I do not read his posts but if I were you I would not believe what he says.

    Reply
  77. I know. You did what you are supposed to. I don't expect everyone else to get as p'd off as I do about it, and there really isn't a lot to do about it. However, when I see someone cross the line that far, I can't do nothing at all. I've emailed a couple of my old professors copies of his laws, and have been reaching out to some others in the bioethics and biology fields. I just went off on this little crusade yesterday, so there is no news yet, but I'll get him that peer review he has been avoiding, whether he likes it or not.

    Reply
  78. I would accept him stating prominently on his website above his "laws" that they do not align with current scientific views. It's not his mind or his ideas that I am concerned with, it's how he represents them. I offered to donate $100 to planned parenthood if he could successfully defend his laws , asking that he allow me to put a disclaimer on his site if he couldn't. He declined. Instead he accused me of lying by omitting a word from one of his laws. The funny thing is, it just drew attention to the fact that the word in question made the law even harder to defend. If I had actually omitted it, it would have been doing him a favor.

    Reply
  79. Agreed. I too detest alcohol, however, banning it won't solve anything, neither will banning any of the things that I consider to be immoral.

    Reply
  80. You might want to re-read your evidence. It proves nothing except that I re-copied and re-pasted the same thing to placate your delicate ego. My argument was not changed by the inclusion or omission of the word at all. I had no motivation to lie, and in fact, did not lie. Keep trying though, I'm sure someone will believe you. Or you could just try to refute the argument.

    Reply
  81. Ok buddy. But let's all be sure to trust the guy who has a website claiming to promote "newly revealed scientific laws" that NO SCIENTIST ALIVE has ever heard of let alone validated.

    Reply
  82. You really don't understand what I am saying. If you did, you would agree with me.

    Why not state what you think I am saying and I will let you know if you are right?

    Reply
  83. When I worked there were only one or two places with doubtful poles – ancient history. I liked using them because it took the weight off my feet. I worked with a lot of really athletic women. One of them was a ballet trained contortionist. There is technique. Helpful if you have someone to teach you.
    You do what you can do. Queen Trinket was a pudgy Betty Grable type who could not dance at all but she could twirl two tassels on her bra in different directions at the same time. I tried it. Epic fail.

    Reply
  84. Dude, bro, I really wouldn't worry about it. What Mistah S says is correct, it's the internet, there is a lot of noise…and even though many of Russell's concepts are sound, the way he phrases it often has the effect that it has had on you…

    Russell is well aware of this.

    Reply
  85. Greg has been debunked. He just has not read my answers and is so set in his ways that he is unable to view the whole picture. A person should found their views on a truthful understanding of the scientific information that is available. That is what I do, I find the root source for my scientific facts and go with them. False information is of no value to anyone.
    I am actively seeking information to prepare for a peer review. I do not want BS or personal opinion.

    Reply
  86. Other girls offered to teach me, but I just couldn't get the hang of it. I am also 6ft tall and all leg – I lack the upper body strength to lift my whole body up. There was one girl who climbed all the way to the top of the pole, stuck a candle in her you know what, and slid down ass up:P

    Reply
  87. If that's waht you have to tell yourself. I'm pretty sure everyone can figure out the truth. Did I tell you about my new "scientific law"? I call it the law of Russell Crawford doesn't care if you get AIDS.

    A little about my methodology. I used the same circular logic Russell established as acceptable in the creation of his eminent work in the field of fictional science. I differed from him by actually using a repeated observation that is documented, but went back to the Russell Crawford method of drawing an absurd conclusion using a hypothetical scenario to validate my law. I offered to give $100 to Planned Parenthood if Russell could successfully defend his laws. Russell has stated repeatedly that he can. I made the offer several times and documented them. He declined. Planned Parenthood, among other things, provides contraception including condoms, which reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS. By declining my challenge Russell has shown he doesn't care if people get AIDS.

    Reply
  88. I am pushing people to find flaws in what I say. It is important to me to present a truly scientific view of abortion. At some point I will be ready for a peer review, I don't want to have missed anything.

    My preference is a rational and precise discussion, but I have met only a few people that can debate with an open mind.

    Reply
  89. I know Russell. BTW, you should take some of Mistah Spakalou's advice seriously. Work towards more precise terminology.

    Reply
  90. I was too shy. Other dancers told me that I could get by on my looks alone, but that didn't work out. You gotta be a good flirt.

    Oh, I did work with a contortionist. My first time out I had to simulate lesbo sex on stage for 50 aluminum workers. Heheh. That was interesting.

    Anyway, she wasn't very good looking, but the guys loved her because she'd sit on stage with her legs over her head. Often that was her entire act. There was another girl who would swallow a banana.

    Reply
  91. Yeah, it is pretty wrong to publish lies on the internet. Like stating that you wrote 6 new accepted, scientifically valid laws, despite the fact that NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF OR ACCEPTED THEM.

    Reply
  92. I am always open to those with helpful ideas. The wording of the "Law of Preclusion" was changed a year or two ago when a pro lifer was confused. I attempted to convince him that even if a woman could become pregnant during the same pregnancy as the initial pregnancy, if it was not intentional she would abort it as well. To avoid the confusion, I changed the wording to include the word "intentional". That is the word that Greg removed and then intentionally posted the false copy on the internet.
    When people lie about what is said and refuse to listen to what I say or if they lie, like Greg, it is difficult to respond.

    I am actively pursuing to establish a liaison with anyone that is willing to help me move these laws forward. Changing words or the like, mean nothing to me.

    Reply
  93. I do not debate with Greg Kells. He changed the words of a law and then posted it on the internet. He attributed his words as if they were my words. If you like people to lie about what you say, then Greg is your hero.

    Reply
  94. Greg wrote his own ideas down and posted them on the internet and attributed them to me. If you like people that make up lies and then say you wrote the lies, then Greg is your man.

    Reply
  95. Greg took the words of a law, changed them, then posted them on the internet. If you like people like that and if you believe them, then Greg is probably your hero.

    Reply
  96. Greg posted false information on the internet, attributed it to me, then lied and said he didn't. I posted a screen shot that proves he knew he was being dishonest. If you believe anything Greg says, then you belong on his side of this issue.

    Reply
  97. It's about presentation and honesty. For Russell to declare (as he does) that these are settled scientific laws, he is presenting them in a dishonest manner. The practical result is that some people will take him at his word, and assign the same value to his opinions that they would actual credible scientific findings. Not everyone has the tools necessary to filter the signal from the noise. By claiming that what are essentially observations and hypothesis are settled scientific laws, he is being intentionally fraudulent. I find it hard to believe the same person who was able to piece together these "laws" isn't intelligent enough to realize they aren't laws. The only logical conclusion is that he knows that they are not accepted as such, but doesn't care.

    Reply
  98. You dismiss any evidence that contradicts you. If you think everyone else is irrational, chances are it's you. Why don't you explain in detail how what repeatable experimental observations you conducted, so that we can attempt them to verify your findings. Or did you skip that step too? By publishing your ideas as settled scientific laws, they are already being reviewed, and I have yet to hear from anyone who accepts them. Maybe it's time you presented them honestly, so a rational HONEST discussion is even possible. As long as you fraudulently present them as accepted scientific laws, they will be summarily dismissed or ignored, as they have been by EVERY scientific entity on the planet. Considering they have been in the public domain over 3 years now, and not cited in ANY scientific writings of any kind or even acknowledged, I'd say your approach and methodology need revised before you worry about your ideas.

    Reply
  99. I listened to what you said, and reposted it making sure the word was included (which it was in the original comment as well). The word had no bearing on my statement. I didn't lie, you chose to duck the question. The "law" is based on a absurd hypothetical, it has no merit. It is not a law. In fact there are nearly NO new laws in natural science anymore. The pinnacle is typically a well established theory. To put your ideas in a position of higher value than the theory of evolution is ludicrous.

    Reply
  100. BTW, I wouldn't be going after his ideas if they were presented as concepts, observations or even hypothesis. He presents them as settled science. That is fraudulent.

    Reply
  101. I do not debate with Greg Kells, he took his own words, and said they were my words. That is not acceptable to me. If you want him to claim you said something when in fact he is the one that said it, then Greg is your man. If honesty is your standard, Greg will not be your friend long.

    Reply
  102. Greg took his own words, said they were mine and posted them on the internet. That is not acceptable to me. If you like people to claim you said something you did not say, then Greg is your man.

    Reply
  103. The screen shot doesn't show anything of the sort. Find the comment with the word omitted and I'll listen. I don't think you can, I looked myself. I don't claim to be infallible, but I am honest. Had I typed it, I could have believed I left a word out. I didn't type it, I copied and pasted it. Aside from that, the word in question poses a bigger problem. It requires you establish intent. How do you propose to do that in a manner consistent with a scientific law? Did you conduct ANY experimental observations of any kind? You would need to to establish intent, as well as consent in your "law of consent". Remember consent requires KNOWLEDGE of terms or possible outcome.

    Reply
  104. Sure I did. whatever makes you feel better about ducking and running. I copied and pasted the same thing twice. I made absolutely sure the second time to verify the word in question was there. Coincidentally, the word, which you admittedly added, creates a bigger problem as a law. How do you establish intent?

    Reply
  105. Greg took his own words and claimed they were mine. Then when he was caught and offered a chance to continue the debate, he refused and claimed that I was the one that changed the words. I posted a screen shot on the internet that shows his admission. Now he wants to debate. I will not debate a person that intentionally attributes something to me that I did not say. And when he was offered a chance to continue the conversation, he choose not to do so by terms I could accept. I will not debate Greg as he is dishonest and a liar.

    Reply
  106. so changing words mean nothing, but you throw a temper tantrum when you THINK I changed a word (which I did not). Honestly though, I would suggest taking the word "intentionally" out. It makes the law even weaker.

    Reply
  107. Greg took his words and attributed them to me. He then claimed that I am the one that posted, what he posted. I offered him a chance to continue to debate and he declined. He is now fainting like he wants to debate when he knows there is no possibility of debate.

    I will not debate a liar and crook.

    Reply
  108. Sure let's take tips on honesty from the guy who wrote some ideas down and claims they accepted scientific laws to anyone who will listen. When you present these "laws" as evidence on discussion forums, I notice you don't take credit for writing them, you just cite them as evidence to whatever claim you are making. Implying they are accepted laws. Is there any disclaimer on your website about you not being a scientist, and these "laws" not being accepted by any scientists? But I'm the dishonest one. Nice try

    Reply
  109. Greg took his words, claimed they were mine and then posted them on the internet. When caught he claimed that he just copied and pasted. When I caught that lie, he apologized. When I offered him a chance to continue the debate he refused and changed his position to deny changing the words again.

    I will not debate a liar and crook.

    Reply
  110. Oh, so if we all just understood you we'd all agree with you? That makes total sense. It's not that you might be wrong, it's Mitsah, myself, everybody who has ever read your laws or heard you attempt to debate them, and the entire scientific community that are wrong.

    Reply
  111. Greg took his own words and claimed they were mine, then he refused to continue to debate. He now acts as if he wants to debate, but that is just another lie.

    I will not debate a liar and crook.

    Reply
  112. Greg took his words and claimed that they were mine. He claimed that he copied and pasted from my site. When I posted a link to my site that proved he was lying, he claimed that I changed the site. I will not debate a liar and a crook.

    Reply
  113. I read your answers. You ran around in logical circles trying to obfuscate and avoid. Your peer review is already underway, and from the first response, it's not looking good. I just got my first email back, it was the digital equivalent of someone laughing hysterically. I sent out several requests. I'll keep you informed. One thing I will share with you though is that it is next to impossible to get something accepted as a scientific law right now, has been for a couple hundred years. About the best you can possibly hope for is a theory. But you better get some really credible experimental observations in and document them well so they can be repeated. As it is all you really have is a loose collection of unsupported observation and some vaguely worded hypotheses.

    Reply
  114. I'm a firm believer in the idea that the best way to lower the crime rate is to get rid of unnecessary laws. Not every problem needs to be addressed legislatively, certainly not most social issues.

    Reply
  115. You say false information is of no value to anyone, but you represent your ideas as scientific law? You don't see a problem with that? That is blatant fraud. You give people the impression that these ideas have been thoroughly researched, discussed, reviewed and accepted by the scientific community. You bring these "laws" up in discussion forums to back up your own arguments, citing them as if they were factual. You know as well as I do they are not. How can you make any claim to honesty or integrity?

    Reply
  116. I claimed that if my initial copy and paste was missing anything that was the only option (I also included the link to the site in my copy and paste so you could verify that). NOT that you changed the site. Read the post again. I didn't change anything, and as I've stated repeatedly, the word you claim was missing had no relevance to my argument. I had no reason to leave it out. your obstinate demand for an apology will go unmet. I did not lie, and I did not leave anything out, you simply couldn't answer the question.

    Reply
  117. Quit lying Russell, you will not debate because you know your ideas presented as laws are fraudulent. I don't even want to debate you at this point. I want you to show me your notes so I can repeat the experimental observations you presumably conducted to form these laws, or did you skip that step too?

    Reply
  118. Your terms were an admission of a lie I didn't commit. Not gonna happen. At any rate I don't need you to participate in the debate anymore. You gave me plenty of information. I am sharing that with others and letting them decide. So far you are not coming off too hot. You could have involved yourself, but you refused.

    Reply
  119. Poor little Russ. If you want to call someone else a liar, it helps to not have a website with your name on it making openly fraudulent claims.

    Reply
  120. If you really cared about saving babies, you would debate him. He would give $100 to Planned Parenthood. By refusing this, you are showing just how little you care for your cause.

    Reply
  121. It depends. If you add the number she killed to the number she saved, the number she saved would be smaller. She had a wide audience and she used it to murder babies.

    Reply
  122. Greg took his own words and claimed they were mine. I will not debate a crook. If you have a question that you think is valid that he confers to you, ask it.

    Reply
  123. Let's stop lying here Russ. I took your words and soundly refuted them. You didn't like it so you came up with a convenient way to duck out of the debate without having to admit you had no rebuttal. BTW, I did read your nonsense attempt at a rebuttal that you posted ONLY on facebook where you could remove my response. Very cowardly and dishonest.

    Reply
  124. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.

    Reply
  125. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.4

    Reply
  126. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. i

    Reply
  127. Russ often claims he is "saving babies" by helping pro-lifers stop fighting abortion. Unfortunately, his method involves calling people who believe abortion is morally wrong "baby murderers." Therefore, he is essentially just further pissing pro-lifers off.

    Reply
  128. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.

    Reply
  129. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.5

    Reply
  130. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. 9

    Reply
  131. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.

    Reply
  132. I've been doing it pretty successfully this whole time. It's not that hard. You just have to be smarter than the person who is trying to lie. For instance, I can cite your own evidence as proof that you are the one lying and afraid to face an honest opponent. You copied two small fragments of our conversation that you THOUGHT indicated me admitting to something. If you read them (even out of context as you present them) you will see I did not change any aspect of my story, or any aspect of your "law". I simply refuted it in a manner you could not answer. You then took my refutation and posted it on your own facebook page to respond to it, so that YOU would have final say over whether the reader would be able to see my response. When I responded you removed it. Cowardly and dishonest. Interestingly, you made such an obtuse and nonsensical rebuttal, that no response on my part is really necessary. Have you noticed that not a single one of your supposed 42,000 followers has chimed in to support you? I have. However on the multiple sites where I have posted the same exchange, you've been ridiculed mercilessly. I hope you keep both of your posts regarding me on your facebook page, they make my point pretty well. Even with your attempt to exert complete control over the debate, you are losing.

    Reply
  133. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.5,l

    Reply
  134. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. 88

    Reply
  135. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. 77

    Reply
  136. My questions have already been answered to the best of your limited ability. Either by your refusal obfuscation or obvious deceit, you have given me all the information I need to proceed without you. I am not interested in involving anyone to serve as a proxy. I will however post challenges to your comments directly, as long as you continue to fraudulently promote your half baked ideas and partially formed hypotheses as settled and accepted scientific laws. Think of me as your personal disclaimer.

    Reply
  137. Just stop lying about it. You won't debate me because you lack the ability. Even the out of context snippets you posted on your own facebook page that you block me from responding to don't support your argument. You are fraud.

    Reply
  138. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. 56

    Reply
  139. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. ,,

    Reply
  140. No one asks questions for me, because there is no need, and I wouldn't
    presume to ask. I'm a grown up, I can ask my own questions. If you
    refuse to answer it's your own silly juvenile ego to blame. Your lies
    and cowardice are transparent. As you state, you won't debate me
    directly, but you will post your replies to my comments on your facebook
    page where you can block me from replying. Cowardly and dishonest.
    Fortunately, you make such a weak argument, no response is required.
    Keep telling yourself whatever you need to justify your habitual lying
    and intentionally deceptive statements about your fictional "scientific
    laws" that NOBODY has EVER accepted. Just realize nobody is buying it.
    Did you notice how much support you had on your hometurf. THe most
    defense anyone could offer was "sure Russell's ideas are questionable,
    but this is the internet". Even on your own facebook page, not a single
    person chimed in to support you. Doesn't it ever occur to you that if
    everyone disagrees with you, it's probably not their shortcoming it's
    yours. 2

    Reply
  141. No one asks questions for me, because there is no need, and I wouldn't
    presume to ask. I'm a grown up, I can ask my own questions. If you
    refuse to answer it's your own silly juvenile ego to blame. Your lies
    and cowardice are transparent. As you state, you won't debate me
    directly, but you will post your replies to my comments on your facebook
    page where you can block me from replying. Cowardly and dishonest.
    Fortunately, you make such a weak argument, no response is required.
    Keep telling yourself whatever you need to justify your habitual lying
    and intentionally deceptive statements about your fictional "scientific
    laws" that NOBODY has EVER accepted. Just realize nobody is buying it.
    Did you notice how much support you had on your hometurf. THe most
    defense anyone could offer was "sure Russell's ideas are questionable,
    but this is the internet". Even on your own facebook page, not a single
    person chimed in to support you. Doesn't it ever occur to you that if
    everyone disagrees with you, it's probably not their shortcoming it's
    yours.3

    Reply
  142. No one asks questions for me, because there is no need, and I wouldn't
    presume to ask. I'm a grown up, I can ask my own questions. If you
    refuse to answer it's your own silly juvenile ego to blame. Your lies
    and cowardice are transparent. As you state, you won't debate me
    directly, but you will post your replies to my comments on your facebook
    page where you can block me from replying. Cowardly and dishonest.
    Fortunately, you make such a weak argument, no response is required.
    Keep telling yourself whatever you need to justify your habitual lying
    and intentionally deceptive statements about your fictional "scientific
    laws" that NOBODY has EVER accepted. Just realize nobody is buying it.
    Did you notice how much support you have on your hometurf. The most
    defense anyone could offer was "sure Russell's ideas are questionable,
    but this is the internet". Even on your own facebook page, not a single
    person chimed in to support you. Doesn't it ever occur to you that if
    everyone disagrees with you, it's probably not their shortcoming it's
    yours. 4

    Reply
  143. No one cares enough about Greg' questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question form him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.

    Reply
  144. No one cares enough about Greg's questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question for him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk.

    Reply
  145. No one cares enough about Greg's questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question for him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk

    Reply
  146. No one cares enough about Greg's questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question for him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk. 999

    Reply
  147. No one cares enough about Greg's questions to ask them for him. And I do not debate Greg directly. If there is anyone that cares about what Greg has to say, then ask his question for him. Otherwise, believe him at your own risk

    Reply
  148. copied and pasted from Princeton.edu (I checked it twice to make sure my copy and paste function didn't magically edit it, we don't need another Russell tantrum)

    The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical universe. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles,
    etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an
    empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a
    theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.
    (there was a table of contents here I edited out for lack of necessity or context)

    Overview: Conservative estimates indicate that there are 18 basic physical laws in the universe: [1]

    ( princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Laws_of_science.html )

    18 basic physical laws in all of the universe, after centuries of the study, but Russell has uncovered 6 brand new "scientific natural laws" all on his own. Pretty impressive for someone who is not a scientist. Unless he just means that his natural laws are somewhat scientific, it's hard to say he tends to be very ambiguous in his writing. Now if he could only get ANY scientist or scientific entity to recognize his groundbreaking work, he could rightly make the claim he has been fraudulently making for the past three years.

    Reply
  149. Newton, Kepler, Galilei, Crawford…….some of the greats. (I didn't include Einstein because his E=MC^2 was merely a theory.)

    Reply
  150. Greg Kells lied about changing the words of a law. Now I will not debate him and he can find no one that will ask his questions for him. Obviously, no one cares what Greg thinks.

    Reply
  151. You have a choice, you can save innocent babies or you can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. Pro lifers choose to let babies die.

    Reply
  152. Interesting that you choose to put yourself at an even greater disadvantage. I guess you haven't figured out yet, that you don't set rules or terms for anyone but yourself. I don't require any further input from you, and have no interest or need to play by your rules. I can successfully discredit with you with only the information you have already provided. The fact that you refuse to debate me openly, citing your own lie as a justification, only makes your case weaker. By all means keep it up. It sure seems to be working, at least for me.

    Reply
  153. Hi Russell

    I probably agree about the basic facts that you're trying to state, that a majority of conception don't make it to a born baby – that for whatever reason, miscarriages occur. I can concur with that, but I pointed out in the past that your usage of phenotype, genotype and DNA are not the way mainstream scientists would use them, that the idea of "correct" phenotype is also probably at odds with how most geneticists and developmental biologists envision developing fetuses. My suggestion was that scientists often use words that have a very limited scope in meaning because they realize most of their statements are valid in a fairly limited setting. Words like "correct" are rather vague and loaded. Since you want to eventually try peer review, as a person who has been peer reviewing physics and statistics papers for a few years now, I suggest you try to be more accurate with your word usage.

    Reply
  154. Any reader interested in the integrity of Russell Crawford need only click on his name and see some of his interactions around the Internet. Anywhere Russell is posting, the reader will find arguments similar to the one here between Russell and Greg. When called out, Russell will not provide proof of any of his Laws that he authored. He will not share how these laws were tested and proven. He is clearly avoiding debating with Greg. A true scientist would be obliged to offer up his theories so his colleagues can attempt to disprove.

    Reply
  155. I care. Answer the questions. All you need do is provide methods, materials, and data that you used to prove these hypotheses, thus making them "Laws" as you claim. Which of the study "types" were employed?

    Reply
  156. It is baffling that you repeatedly call this guy out and he just copies and pastes the same response about "Nobody cares enough about Greg's questions…….." I care and yet he won't answer me either. He won't provide his research protocols or data. He won't tell me which scientists have reviewed his work and endorsed it.

    Reply
  157. "At some point I will be ready for a peer review…"

    This is precisely Greg's point. You can't have a set of ideas that you call "Scientific Law" and still be compiling information for a peer review so as not to have "missed anything." That should've been done long ago. You are intentionally misleading your readers.

    Reply
  158. The only time Russell tells a person that he wrote these so-called laws is if you directly ask who wrote them. This is because he knows anyone who knows this up front will not give the laws a second thought. That is deceit. Deceit does not scientific law make.

    Reply
  159. "I became pro-choice because I grew up and researched it."

    Can you please elaborate on this part?

    Also, for the record, I myself also backed away from my politically anti-abortion position several months ago or so (though not to the extent of becoming pro-choice) in part due to this reason but also due to me reconsidering my views on personhood.

    Reply
  160. If you would, please tell your readers how you scientifically determine whether or not you have "saved" innocent babies. You claim to save babies, but what does that mean? To make that claim, you must know that the baby was facing imminent death and something you personally did prevented that. And also tell your readers what happens next time he/she faces death and you step in. And the next time. And the next time… And when that baby eventually dies one day, isn't that murder by omission, according to your laws? You saved the baby one, twice, 30 times and that last time you failed.

    Reply
  161. "If you would, please tell your readers how you scientifically determine whether or not you have "saved" innocent babies. You claim to save babies, but what does that mean? "

    Every way life is saved can be used to save either fetuses or babies. I choose to save babies and pro lifers choose to save fetuses. For example under pro life rules there was a decrease of millions of born babies, under pro choice rules there was an increase in millions of born babies. Because of the Law of Preclusion a choice to force the birth of one child causes a wanted baby later. That simply means that instead of having the forced birth and all its expenses a woman may choose to have a wanted child later. Because of the Law of Charity a woman is not forced to have multiple miscarriages that risk her life and end in the death of a fetus as well.

    "To make that claim, you must know that the baby was facing imminent death and something you personally did prevented that."

    No, that is not necessary. We erect hospitals knowing that they will save lives. We know have proof that there is imminent death, we just know that hospitals save lives. So does and understanding of science.

    "And also tell your readers what happens next time he/she faces death and you step in. And the next time. And the next time… And when that baby eventually dies one day, isn't that murder by omission, according to your laws?"

    No, murder by omission only occurs when a person has a duty to save life and chooses not to save life. For example pro lifers have a duty to "save babies" yet choose not to save babies and instead save fetuses. As a result, the babies die and that is Murder by Omission.

    "You saved the baby one, twice, 30 times and that last time you failed. "

    Of course most people save babies without an obligation to save babies. So they never commit murder if they fail. It is only the pro life movement that claims to save babies that commits Murder by omission. They let babies die that they claim to save.

    Reply
  162. I am open to any of Greg's issues. Nothing he has said is new or important. Everything he has said is old and most likely copy and pasted from someone else's thread. If you think something he said is new or unique post it. I haven't seen anything he said that is even on point, much less interesting.

    Reply
  163. A law does not become a law because it is peer reviewed. A law is a law because it is continuously true through out time. There was gravity before Newton posted his laws and he talked with numerous people before they became universally accepted. The same is true here. I will speak will people and finalize the laws before peer review. Right now there has been more peer review than any law in History. And the laws have been reviewed by a greater cross section than any law that has come before because the laws were revealed on the internet. Anyone with a smart phone can comment.

    Reply
  164. I will answer any question you ask. Greg likely copy and pasted his questions from another site, just go there and ask them to give you the same questions they gave Greg. Then post them and they will be answered. Every question Greg asked has been answered multiple times.

    Reply
  165. Laws are observed. All the observations are on my site. scientificabortionlaws.com
    Observation was used to confirm the laws. If you or anyone else cannot "see" the laws then explain why and I will help you see them.

    For example one can see that all new DNA is copied from old DNA.
    One can see that until the DNA is proved to be human, there is no proof of human life.
    One can see that there are more people dying than can be saved.
    One can see that if you force a birth then at the same time you cannot intentionally become pregnant with another zygote.

    All laws are like that. They are obvious and available for anyone to observe.

    Reply
  166. "Any reader interested in the integrity of Russell Crawford need only click on his name and see some of his interactions around the Internet."

    Every street I travel on the internet is a two way street.

    "Anywhere Russell is posting, the reader will find arguments similar to the one here between Russell and Greg. "

    Nothing Greg or you have posted is new. The questions have been answered multiple times. The proof now is the same as the proof then. There are over 400 citations that have been offered.

    "When called out, Russell will not provide proof of any of his Laws that he authored. He will not share how these laws were tested and proven."

    The Laws are obvious as posted above. naturalabortionlaws.com/?page_id=31 The laws are obvious. All it takes for you to disprove the laws is to show they are not obvious or are based on flawed observations. If you think one of the laws is flawed, just say so or ask for one of the 400 citations that I can provide.

    " He is clearly avoiding debating with Greg. A true scientist would be obliged to offer up his theories so his colleagues can attempt to disprove. "

    I am all over the internet asking for responses. I don't need the multiple fallacies or lies of Greg. He had a chance to converse and —-HE— not me ,choose to quit. I just won't take him back. He is not worth the effort.

    Reply
  167. No entities have denied the laws and none have commented on the law. The laws are my personal intellectual property and I control access. When I am ready I will ask for peer review.

    Reply
  168. This is probably the best post I have had this year. There is disagreement and proof that I erred, but a suggestion of how to correct my errors. Thanks and if you can be more specific with suggestions in the future or would be willing to read my corrections before I post them, it would be greatly appreciated. And your help would be acknowledged as well. I will set aside space on my web page and you can post with your name or pseudonym. Just let me know and I will set it up.

    Reply
  169. You do not understand that you have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die in an effort to save fetuses. Your choice is to let babies die. You are incapable of understanding that scientific fact.

    Reply
  170. >> A law does not become a law because it is peer reviewed. A law is a law because it is continuously true through out time. There was gravity before Newton posted his laws and he talked with numerous people before they became universally accepted.

    Actually this is not true. "Laws" as used in physics and chemistry are not "continuously true through out time", they are actually "simple rules of thumb". Physicists are very cognizant of where these rules of thumb break down and why.

    Off the top of my head a few examples of "laws"

    Newton's law F = ma and F = mg
    F force
    m mass
    a acceleration, g gravitational acceleration

    Hooke's law F = -kx,
    k spring constant
    x displacement from equilibrium

    Ideal gas law pV = nRT
    p pressure
    V volume
    n number of moles of gas
    R Avogadro's constant
    T temperature

    One thing in common between these physical laws is that they are all EMPIRICAL and IDEALIZED. Newton's laws can be derived from the more complete framework of Lagrangian mechanics and Newtonian gravity, and is the result of solving for a path for a particle to travel that minimizes the "action" integral, Int (T-U)dt where T is kinetic and U is potential energy. Hooke's law is also just the observation that springs are roughly linear, and the Ideal Gas Law is also only appropriate for ideal gases, ie. gases whose temperature and pressure are such that the mean free path of the particle is VERY long so that collisions between gas molecules are rare.

    None of these laws are "continuously true through out time". Besides the fact that they are purely empirical relations, Newton's laws break down when you travel near the speed of light and also F = mg is a constant approximation of the gravitational field which actually has a 1/r^2 dependence, but if r doesn't change much in the problem in question, it is a good approx. to think of it as constant. Hooke's law breaks down if x becomes large, because there will certainly be nonlinearities – terms of order x^2, x^3 etc. that become important. The ideal gas law can be derived from the more fundamental thermodynamics in the limit that the mean free path is long.

    In this sense, I don't think the six points you listed are really laws of nature in any sense of the word.

    Reply
  171. Nobody understands that because it isn't a coherent argument. You present a false choice. By your logic and methodology, you have a choice. Debate me or allow more people to contract HIV/AIDS. According to the Law of Russell Crawford doesn't care if you get AIDS,(which is every bit as valid and recognized as any of your laws) those are your choices.

    Reply
  172. BTW, I'm sure if I asked, Ur_the _baggee would serve as proxy, but here's the thing. I don't need any answers, and we are not children. I will just continue to post statements that require no answer, or rhetorical questions like "what experimental observations did you conduct and where is the detailed notes of those so that I can repeat them to verify?" Sadly that shouldn't be a rhetorical question, but in this case it is.

    Reply
  173. A law is a statement derived from repeated and documented experimental observation. If you can't show the evidence of the studies or experiments you used to reveal these "laws" you skipped more than just the peer review. It seems you are working backwards. You came up with the results and then built an elaborate construct around it. I guess by that methodology the actual scientifically valid evidence will be presented AFTER the peer review.

    Reply
  174. I find time between work appointments, rehearsal and study to throw a few jabs. You're right about being tenacious though. I view fraud as a real threat to the honest debate, and I am not likely to let it drop.

    Reply
  175. The laws that have come before were before the internet existed. At any rate, if you listened to the reviews you've had online (as I have) they've been overwhelmingly negative. You agreed to the terms of the debate and voting process on debate.org , and then immediately dismissed the results as "biased" because they didn't allow you to recruit voters from other sites, limiting the voting to people who were established members. Since their membership terms show no inherent bias, you have no legitimate claim to bias. You simply refuse to accept anything that contradicts your ludicrous claims. Anyone who hasn't seen this yet, might want to check it out.

    debate.org/debates/Newly-revealed-natural-scientific-laws-govern-the-morality-of-abortion/1/

    Reply
  176. Hi Greg, I did quickly point out to Russell that "laws" are not true continuously through time or what not, but that laws are "rules of thumb" formulations by scientists, and also added that his 6 points are not really laws in this sense. I don't think arguing with him will be particularly fruitful, and doubt that he will pass a peer review anyway.

    Reply
  177. did you see a question mark there? Probably because it wasn't a question, and needed no reply. Thanks for playing though.

    Reply
  178. I notice you recognize that his laws had to be discussed before they were universally accepted. I guess you think your "laws" are not subject to the same process, since you present them as accepted on your website and in your citation of them on various forums, despite the fact that EVERY discussion I've dug up (including the ones posted on your own website) reject your "laws". I guess you are on a higher plane of existence than Newton, and can't be expected to adhere to the same basic principles of scientific methodology that mere mortals are held to.

    (if you don't see a question mark, it requires no response, it is a statement)

    Reply
  179. I think what he has would more accurately be called postulations or proposals. He has done, or at least shown, no repeated experimental observations (e.g. studies, polls, etc.). Part of his problem is incorrect methodology, part of it is incorrect identification. He is attempting to form a hybrid of scientific law and natural (ethical or philosophical) law. His wording not just in identification but explanation is intentionally ambiguous. He does exaclty what charlatans and frauds have always done, masked his deceit in slivers of truth and obfuscation. The simple fact is he is working backwards. He came up with a conclusion and built an elaborate construct around it. Of course he wouldn't pass a peer review, he would be dismissed for the simple fact he published his findings as accepted law, without actually completing or documenting any of the required study. I don't expect him to change his mind. It is clear his thought process is dangerously flawed. I just have as much motivation to subvert his attempt at fraud as he has to commit it.

    Reply
  180. I'm not trying to be anybody's hero, and I'm sure I'm not (unless you are my 3 year old son). I'm not even claiming to be an authority. I'm just a banjo player and graphic artist who happens to do well enough at both to leave me free time to take online courses that MIT and other universities offer for free (seriously it's free I recommend anyone interested take them up on it at edx.org, you won't get a better education at any price) I apply that knowledge to my discussions, art and music. I just happen to have taken an interest in Bioethics most recently, and noticed you claiming to have knowledge of some "laws" related to the field that I had never heard of. I did a little research and found out YOU wrote these laws, and they had no validation or recognition of any kind. You didn't present them as your own ideas, or as untested or not aligned with modern science, but as "settled and accepted scientific laws". That struck me as dishonest, so I engaged you. Upon further discussion I recognized you are not only mistaken, you are intentionally fraudulent. You have no right (ehtically) to intentionally influence the ability of others to make decisions with the best credible evidence available. What you are doing is repugnant, and I chose not to let it stand. Then you resorted to the same strategy you tried and failed with on debate.org ( debate.org/debates/Newly-revealed-natural-scientific-laws-govern-the-morality-of-abortion/1/ ). Hence the days long Disqus campaign, dozens of emails to pro-life and pro-choice organizations warning them of our fraud, and requests to eminent authorities on the matter to review your work. So far I've had two replies, both have indicated there is nothing to review. They wouldn't even comment on your ideas, they dismissed you on methodology and ambiguity alone. Basically, you forgot to show your work and your descriptions and title are too ambiguous. I expect the rest of the replies to be similar, but I'll let you know when they are all in.

    Reply
  181. observations, unless empirical, must be backed up by some form of experiment or study, and documented in a way that is repeatable. You did NONE of that.

    Reply
  182. I guess he missed the part about repeatable methods. He's gonna call you a liar pretty soon and start responding to all of your comments with "I will not respond to Ur_the_baggee". it seems he is unclear on the definition of the word "respond" as well.

    Reply
  183. Even if we accepted the "only valid in the frame of reference they in which they are meant to apply" argument, you never established a frame of reference. You cite pro-life or anti-abortion laws and ideals as a single monolithic entity. It isn't. I am pro-life but anti-legislation. Misutah has stated she is pro-life personally but thinks people should make their own decisions, which seems fairly close to my own belief, so it must not be all that uncommon. Your frame of reference clearly doesn't include either of us, and you did not (or showed no) experimental observation to establish an empirical frame of reference. I know, "I do not respond to Greg Kells" (except that is actually a response). I don't expect a response and don't need one. I am not debating your points, I am simply correcting your grossly inconsistent methodology at this point. No response requested.

    Reply
  184. I guess he doesn't see the irony in responding by saying he does not respond. Pretty funny and a little telling at the same time. I am almost starting to wonder if he even knows he is lying.

    Reply
  185. I did read your "answers" BTW, they fell pretty short. Funny that you will only post them on your own facebook page so you can block my response. If you had any confidence in your answers, why not allow them to be discussed? Sounds a little cowardly and dishonest to me.

    Reply
  186. clearly you read them, as I pointed out that your continued response of "I do not respond to Greg Kells" was in fact a response. The fact that you changed your strategy to "I do not read nor respond" is an acknowledgement of that. You just can't stop lying can you? (rhetorical question, needs no response, I will accept you lack of response as acknowledgment).

    Reply
  187. What happened to "nobody cares enough about Greg's questions to ask them for him"? As I've made clear, your participation is not needed. I will continue to undermine your attempt to defraud people with your invalid untested and unaccepted "scientific laws". Simple solution, stop lying.

    Reply
  188. First question: How are you able to call your personal intellectual property "scientific LAWS" when you admit you're not ready for peer review because you want to "make sure you haven't left anything out" first?

    Reply
  189. Still only have the two, and they both said the same thing. They didn't get into the specifics of the ideas, just that the methodology was flawed.

    Reply
  190. Archimedes was the greatest mathematician the world has ever known. He approximated pi.

    You troll abortion forums and maintain a Facebook page.

    Reply
  191. You claim to save innocent babies from death. You accuse all pro-lifers as being baby murderers. To claim you save lives means you should be able to show examples of babies who faced imminent death and are alive today because of Russell Crawford. Who are these people and how did you save their lives?

    Reply
  192. Your theory of choice states "If a person uses their charity to save a born child then the odds are, the child will live."

    Can you provide specific scientific evidence that this is a true statement? I mean it sounds nice, but That would be like me dropping a quarter in the Salvation Army red bank and saying that ODDS ARE a child will live because of my charitable contribution.

    Reply
  193. On your website you say, "The only people that can be murderers are those that claim to save life while actually letting life die."

    How is this statement true?

    Reply
  194. Ad hominem fallacy.
    If you have something to say then say it.
    You asked how I was able to announce my laws in the manner in which I announced them. I explained how other scientist announced their laws.
    Misutah spoke of Robert Hooke. Hook was uneducated as a child. Yet he was on par with Newton and in fact it is claimed Newton stole the work of Hooke and attempted to ban him from the Royal Society.
    There is great jealously among those who call themselves scientist. With the hundreds of millions of scientist that have been born and worked their entire lives, few have discovered any type of law. Must simply ply their trade and live their lives.
    My laws meet the rules of being a law. There will be scientist that are jealous and they will do their best to destroy the law. Why, because they did not discover them themselves.
    Like it or not, the Scientific Abortion Laws meet every rule for being a law.
    Because there is no official recognition of what is or is not a law, there will "always" be those that do not believe a law when they read a law. That is their prerogative. I don't think that any scientist will accept the fact that a non classically trained scientist has "discovered" a law. Newton had problems with Hooke's (a land surveyor) discoveries and tried to have him removed from the Royal Society. People will certainly try to have me disavowed.

    Reply
  195. You are accustomed to reading claims of "murder" tied to pro life "opinion" based upon religious "belief" and as a result you are confused. There are real "statute laws" and "common laws" that deal with "Murder by Omission." Murder by omission occurs when a person has a duty to save a life and does not save that life. For example a parent that has a duty to a child commits "Murder by Omission" by not feeding the child. The parent has a recognized duty to care for their child and if they have the means to feed the child and refuse to do so, that would be "Murder by Omission."
    Pro lifers have a duty to "save babies" because they claim to save babies. They commit "Murder by Omission" by refusing to "save babies" and instead save fetuses. Now I know that pro lifers "believe" that a fetus is a baby. But a parent can "believe" his child is not human and that is not an excuse to not feed the child.
    Other people have no duty to save "babies" because they do not claim to save babies. Others who claim to "save animals" for example have no duty to save babies and are not guilty of murder.

    Reply
  196. Sure, if you feed a starving child then it lives and if you don't feed it, then it dies. I took a group of 100,000 babies and did not feed them and they all died. I took another group of 1 billion children and fed them and they lived. LOL, sure I did!!!!!
    Do you need additional proof?

    Reply
  197. I save life by stopping pro lifers from murdering babies. For example the time you spend with me is time you cannot encourage others to murder children. I am the "police presence" that keep you from committing your crimes.

    Reply
  198. I am finished with Greg. His questions, like yours, are based upon the inability to understand the laws. If you think you have a question that is valid, offer it up.

    Reply
  199. Every second I spend with you, I am saving babies. Every second you spend away from me is a second you are killing babies. Your only hope is to stay in this conversation and avoid murdering the children of your neighbors.

    Reply
  200. Oh, so a typo is proof that I have poor grammar. I am not a grammar expert. Your ad hominem fallacy is worse than my typo, right?

    Reply
  201. You have a choice, right now. You may choose to save an innocent baby or you can let it die and attempt to save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let the baby die, right?

    Reply
  202. And it was accepted as such upon the subsequent review. You chose to skip every step in the process and simply announce your half baked opinion as scientific fact to whoever will listen. Turns out, nobody is buying it. The only person I can find, even among your friends and followers, that accepts these as law is YOU. A general rule of thumb that applies here is, if you think everyone else is wrong or can't understand you, the problem is yours.

    Reply
  203. Maybe you should include a little bit about how NO scientist has accepted your laws as such when you present them. Your laws not only don't meet the standard, they aren't even complete. You admit as much yourself, though you miss the obvious. You did NO actual repeatable studies, and by all logical conclusions you wrote the laws to fit a predetermined conclusion. The fact that you keep having to amend them is evidence of that.

    Reply
  204. You didn't let you lack of expertise in science stop you from declaring yourself an authority. Don't let your poor grammar stop you. Maybe you can rewrite the rules of grammar to fit your needs as well.

    Reply
  205. If such a choice existed, you'd have a point. There is no credible evidence that is the case. Go ahead and cite your fictional "law" again. It's amusing.

    Reply
  206. Show me the math on that. Prove to me and your readers that you have saved more babies than murdered. Because, 30 years of murdering babies at 1.8/second is a lot of innocent life you have snuffed out. You have murdered way more babies than I have since I'm only 40. Do the international courts that are going to try me for my crimes have a statute of limitations? If not, you will likely be punished very harshly. I doubt they will ignore all of your murders simply because you've "seen the light." You may not want to go around calling random pro-lifers baby murderers, especially since there is a strong possibility that you have murdered more babies than they.

    Reply
  207. Actually I am not responsible for what happened. I was a Catholic when I was killing babies and I was not an adult until after the age of consent. Unlike you, I found out I was murdering babies and I quit.

    Reply
  208. "Actually I'm not responsible for what happened…"
    If you were a pro-lifer for 30 years, you're responsible. You weren't below the age of consent at age 30. You've killed more babies than I have if you follow your own "laws". Being Catholic is not a valid excuse for murder. And quitting the murdering of innocent babies after thirty years doesn't excuse you from what you've done. David Berkowitz is a born-again Christian now, he is sorry for the murders he committed and helps other inmates turn their lives around. But he's still imprisoned.

    Reply
  209. And if I'm not mistaken, Watson and Crick figured out (or at least got credit for) the first of Russ's laws. I mean, the fact that DNA comes from old DNA is pretty universally known. But Russ takes it, gives it his own name, capitalizes it, and publishes it as his.

    Reply
  210. "If you were a pro-lifer for 30 years, you're responsible. "

    In your opinion.

    "You weren't below the age of consent at age 30. "

    I was brainwashed, like you are now.

    "You've killed more babies than I have if you follow your own "laws". "
    I quit killing when it was clear, you continue to murder. You are a murder of innocent babies.

    "Being Catholic is not a valid excuse for murder."

    Yes it is .

    "And quitting the murdering of innocent babies after thirty years doesn't excuse you from what you've done."

    Yes it does.

    " David Berkowitz is a born-again Christian now, he is sorry for the murders he committed and helps other inmates turn their lives around. But he's still imprisoned. "

    Good for him.
    Will you stop your murders and turn your life around?
    If not your argument is invalid.

    Reply
  211. Russ's Law of Charity states: "There are more people dying than can be saved. " He never tells us what exactly saving someone from death means. And can anyone ever really be saved from death? I mean if someone is hungry and you give them food, can you really chalk that up as saving a life? What if the person dies a week later from Cholera? Russ would submit that you and I would be murderers by omission because that person died and we didn't try to save them. He on the other hand would have saved the life of that person because he fed them.

    Reply
  212. So you murdered babies for 30 years, and are not responsible for it because you were brainwashed and Catholic. In addition, if one murders for years and then stops, they are excused from the murders they committed. I'm just making sure I'm clear on your logic before I proceed with any other questions I have.

    Reply
  213. And hell no I won't "turn my life around" and follow your logic. I am merely helping readers to see how I'll-conceived your theories are and that while you call others baby murderers, you have been a very prolific butcher yourself.

    Reply
  214. I really do appreciate your comments and hope you will continue. It is a valid argument that I murdered babies just like the rest of the pro life movement. And I am just a guilty as you. But I have stopped murdering babies and you have not.

    The fact is that you have a choice, you can continue to murder innocent babies or you can stop and help me save life. Your choice is to continue to murder babies. For example you are murdering these : poverty.com and if you search "baby death" you are responsible for those as well. You can claim a lot of stuff. You can claim there are no Scientific Laws governing abortion. But you cannot claim you don't have a choice to save babies or fetuses. And the proof is you choose to murder the babies.

    You have to live with that. As do all pro lifers. They are all proved by scientific law to be murderers. And there is no excuse.

    Reply
  215. I think when as a child, if a person is brainwashed, it takes time to overcome that mental abuse. I was what was called a "good Catholic" when first married. We did not use "the pill". I believed what the Church taught. We timed sexual intercourse and used chemical spermicide to kill the sperm, because that was acceptable by the church. Later, when all that failed we gave up and used the pill.

    So I was strongly brainwashed, as are all pro lifers. They murder babies thinking they are doing God's will. And they are not. They are violating the laws of nature. They are all murderers. I hope that at some point in time you will reject the Church and come to your senses. That is the only hope for you.

    Reply
  216. It's not important because it is not happening. I am not murdering anyone. And you're not saving anyone. You live in a fantasy world Russ. You won't answer the question of what your definition of "saving" someone is. Giving it food? If you feed a hungry child and it dies of dysentery, you murdered by omission because you neglected the dysentery? Everybody dies. It's part of the human experience. You can't save them all.

    Reply
  217. "It's not important because it is not happening."

    I have proved scientifically that you are murdering babies, children and adults as well as wanted fetuses.

    "I am not murdering anyone. "

    You are murdering innocent babies, children and adults as well as wanted fetuses. You murder the living via "Murder by Omission".

    "And you're not saving anyone. "

    I am saving life by deterring pro lifers from murdering babies, children and adults. Just as a police presence stops crime and the nuclear arsenal stops world war, I stop murderers like you.

    "You live in a fantasy world Russ. "

    In the sense that I know I can't stop you from murdering babies, though I try, you are right.

    "You won't answer the question of what your definition of "saving" someone is."

    So now you start again with the lies. I have explained for years exactly what is saving life. And I have done so recently on this page.
    Saving life is extending life for a proved human being. For example we know that is a child is near death from hunger, if we feed the child it will likely extend its life. So that is what I am talking about. Better health care, jobs, police protection and secure family structures extend life.

    If you continue to lie, you will have the same fate as Greg. He could no longer hold his end of the discussion so he committed verbal suicide, will you chicken out also?

    "Giving it food? If you feed a hungry child and it dies of dysentery, you murdered by omission because you neglected the dysentery? "

    You are welcome to make that argument.

    "Everybody dies. It's part of the human experience. You can't save them all. "

    No one has ever claimed you can save life for eternity. But people can save life with a little effort. But first, you and all other pro lifers have to stop murdering babies.

    You have a choice, you can save innocent babies or you can murder them and attempt to save a fetus instead. It is your choice.

    Reply
  218. You are a murderer of innocent babies. You could choose to save them or you can choose to murder them and save fetuses instead. Your choice, because you are brainwashed, is to murder babies and call it saving babies. Don't you see the conflict there?

    Reply
  219. And yet I can't hold a candle to the massacre of innocent babies at your hand during those 30 years. I'm like Mussolini to your Hitler.

    Reply
  220. I love that Russ thinks he is not only entitled to his own facts, and to declare his opinion LAW, but he thinks we are all obligated to play by his rules, "OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES". As if his refusal to defend his ridiculous ideas in a honest and open manner is somehow punishing someone other than himself. Seems someone has a little bit of a God complex.

    Reply
  221. You won't stop responding to me Russ, no matter what I do. Don't make idle threats. Every second I'm not preoccupied with your pseudoscience, lives are lost. If you cut me off because of your haughty rules of who you will or won't debate, you are allowing babies to die. In fact, since you won't engage Greg in conversation you are failing in your purpose and are murdering by omission.

    Reply
  222. We have yet to see you admit to murdering babies. Oh yeah, you're not responsible for those because you were "brainwashed."

    Reply
  223. Argumentum abusi fallacia
    seriously dummy, look it up.
    rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Argumentum_abusi_fallacia

    Argumentum abusi fallacia (Latin for "argument of the abused fallacy") is the incorrect use of a formal or informal logical fallacy.
    As there is an absolute myriad of fallacies to choose from, it's quite
    easy to not be entirely familiar with them all. False accusations that
    someone is making a fallacious argument, when they're not, become
    common. Someone might be making a bad or incorrect argument, but
    there are ways to be wrong without being fallacious about it and there
    are ways to be right while still being fallacious. There are also ways
    to counter an argument without providing a list of fallacies – in the
    business we call these things "counter" arguments. The use of argumentum abusi fallacia then becomes something of an argument by assertion, in which an attempt is made to refute an argument simply by citing the name of a fallacy, without any further explanation of why.

    Reply
  224. I enjoy telling the world that you have a choice, you can save innocent babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to murder innocent babies. You have their blood on your hands.

    Reply
  225. I have always admitted and in fact have stated my remorse for pro lifers killing babies and I was a pro lifer I believed a lie and that was my fault. You know that you are murdering babies and you make the intentional choice to continue. That is your fault.
    You know that having sex is consent to abort, yet you have sex. You intentionally abort, but castigate others for abortion. You are insane.

    Reply
  226. And you have the blood of countless unborn babies on your hands as well as live ones that die from disease and hunger. Unless you can tell us one baby you've saved. Just a name and possibly the way you saved them. What you fed them on their deathbed perhaps that led to their full recovery.

    Reply
  227. I am proud to say that when the choice is between a baby and a fetus, I let the fetus die. And your choice is to murder the baby. You could save babies instead of letting then die, right. You are a murderer of innocent small babies. You are responsible for the babies that are raped and murdered, the babies that starve to death, the babies that drowned by their mothers, the babies that die of exposure. You could choose to do what it takes to save all those innocent babies and instead you make the intentional choice to let them die.
    You are also responsible for the forced birth of rape babies and for the fact that they lead to the loss of wanted babies.
    You are a truly sick and deranged person.

    Reply
  228. You have a choice, you can save innocent starving babies or you can let them die and attempt to save a fetus instead. Your cold blooded choice is to let starving babies die. You also have the choice to save children dying in hospitals, yet you choose to let them die also. You also have the choice to save your neighbor's children, yet you let them die as well. In fact you have a choice to save born babies, children and adults as well as wanted fetuses and your choice is to let them all die. You are one sick person.

    Reply
  229. Your choice is to let them die as well. You give yourself credit for saving lives by trolling pro-life threads. The thing you don't do is require measurable results before declaring yourself a savior. In your book, just you keeping a guy like me preoccupied saves lives because it's less time I'm available to force unwanted births. The problem lies in the fact that you have no idea how effective or ineffective of a pro-lifer I am. I have never done anything to force a birth.

    Reply
  230. What did the Catholic Church do to you? We're you an abused altar boy? Were your strict Catholic parents abusive? Neglectful? We're you rejected by a staunch Catholic girl/wife? These delusions you have about being a scientific figure and saving babies is the manifestation of anger toward the church, nothing more.

    Reply
  231. You have a choice you are attempting hide. You can choose to save innocent babies or you can choose to let them die and try to save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let innocent babies die. You are a murderer. Don't try to change the subject.

    Reply
  232. I don't really care what a murderer thinks I do. I am in a daily battle with evil murderers. You are one of the murderers. You have a choice to save innocent babies or to let them die. Your choice is to murder babies. Right now there is a baby being raped and will soon be killed. You can join me in my fight against the pro life movement that is ignoring those deaths or you can continue to assist in the murder of innocent babies. Will you stop murdering babies?

    Reply
  233. None of the above.

    You are attempting to avoid the issue. You have a choice, you can save innocent babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let innocent babies be raped and murdered. Will you stop your insanity and join me in saving life?

    Reply

Leave a Comment