Category Archives: News

News

Scott Klusendorf discusses right to life, assisted reproduction, and end of life

1 Comment

Here’s the video, featuring my favorite pro-life speakers Scott Klusendorf. Scott is the founder and President of the Life Training Institute. LTI’s mission is to make a rigorous, rational defense for pro-life positions with respect to a variety of ethical issues. If you listen to Scott, you will learn a lot, and learn it from someone who has been tested on the battlefield of ideas.

Three topics:

  • right to life of the unborn
  • reproductive technologies
  • end of life questions

40 minutes of guided discussion, 20 minutes of Q&A. This video was apparently recorded in the summer of 2016.

Abortion:

  • the 1-minute case for the pro-life position (excellent)
  • dealing with those who dismiss the pro-life case as religious
  • how and when do people win arguments?
  • how does one get better at discussing moral issues?
  • who are some of the best books to get informed about life issues?
  • what are some of the best books from the other side?
  • what is the SLED test? do pro-abortion scholars accept it?
  • if abortion were illegal, who should be punished and how much?
  • is it inflammatory and dangerous to say that abortion is killing?

Assisted reproductive technologies:

  • how should we speak to people considering ARTs?
  • what is the underlying issue in ART discussions?
  • should pro-lifers be opposed to all use of ARTs?
  • what should pro-lifers think about surrogacy?
  • which books provide an introduction to ART ethics?

End of life issues:

  • what is the central issue in end of life discussions?
  • should treatment always be continued or are there situations where treatment can be withdrawn?

Final issues:

  • if a student wants to take courses in bioethics, where should they go to take courses or do a degree?
  • what is the policy situation for pro-lifers in terms of legislation and SCOTUS decision-making?
  • what are some policies that pro-lifers can support as incremental measures that move the issue in the right direction?

I liked this discussion. I tried to listen as someone new to the issue and he did a good job of not assuming any prior knowledge of the debate. My favorite part was his survey of books and arguments on the other side, and what they say. I don’t think that most people realize what the implications of the pro-abortion worldview really are for things like infanticide, and so on. The discussion about who should be punished for abortion and how much was new to me – and that actually came up during the last election, during the GOP primary. Personally, I would let the woman get off, and just prosecute the doctor.

It’s very very good to listen to crystal clear thinking on these controversial issues from someone who has encountered the other side in their writings, and in public debates with them. Not to mention having to interact with people making decisions in these areas.

News

I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness for the same reason I’m not a global warming alarmist

5 Comments

In the summer, a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies were going door-to-door and they stopped by my house while I was out mowing. I decided to talk to them. They asked me why I was an evangelical Protestant rather than a JW. Rather than go into a lot of theology about the Trinity and the Watchtower translation, I decided to to just tell them about the false predictions their group has made.

So, let’s just quickly review that using this article from Watchman fellowship, which quotes JW publications:

Initially the organization taught the “battle of the Great Day of God Almighty” (Armageddon) would end in 1914. Every kingdom of the world would be overthrown in 1914 which was “God’s date” not for the beginning but “for the end” of the time of trouble.

“…we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914” (Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell, The Time is at Hand, p. 99).

“…the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced” (Ibid., p. 101).

“CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914?…our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can last so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (Watch Tower, 15 July 1894, p. 226).

Clearly, the world did not end in 1914, and it did not end at subsequent JW predictions, either, e.g. 1925, 1975.

So, as the title of the post says that I can’t be a global warming alarmist for the same reason I can’t be a Jehovah’s Witness: failed predictions.

Here’s an excellent article from Daily Signal by famous black economist Walter Williams, who explains the connection:

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness:

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Williams concludes:

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.

We have known for decades that the Earth’s temperatures were much warmer during the “Medieval Warming Period”, hundreds of years ago. But some people are just having irrational fears about overpopulation, resource shortages, etc. and so they will promote nonsense to try to scare people into doing what they want. World history is full of pious-sounding attention-seeking hoaxsters who try to scare the gullible masses into giving them money and/or power. It’s not new.

News

Father wins custody of son from woman who wanted to raise him non-binary

1 Comment

There are a bunch of these cases going on in Canada and America right now. Usually, the wife wants the child to go transgender. The father opposes it, and points to evidence. The wife divorces the father. The courts, medical experts, therapists, public school teachers, social workers, etc. all side with the wife. The wife gets full custody and transes the kid. The father pays all the costs.

So, I was shocked to hear about this case on the Daily Signal podcast, which is the best podcast… except for the Knight and Rose Show, of course.

There are two episodes to this story. One is from November 2023, where Harrison Tinsley explains the situation to Virginia Allen, the interviewer:

And then this week, we got the happy news:

This transcript is from November 2023 and was reported in Daily Signal.

It says:

Harrison Tinsley’s son, Sawyer, will turn 4 in December. He likes to play hockey and football with his dad and also enjoys singing. According to his father, Sawyer is a happy little boy, but the child’s mother is attempting to raise him not as a boy, or as a girl, but nonbinary.

Tinsley has seen photos of his son in dresses on social media, and Sawyer told his dad that when his mother took him to Disneyland, “she wouldn’t let him go on the rides unless he wore princess shoes.”

Tinsley is concerned for his son’s well-being and is seeking full legal and physical custody of Sawyer, and arguing that his son should be treated as a male.

This was a podcast episode, and there’s a transcript. Here is the background:

Allen: It’s special to have that relationship. And I know you said before we started, he turns 4 in December. I want to dive into some of the details behind this custody battle. What exactly is going on here? Sawyer’s mother is your ex-girlfriend. You have partial custody right now of your son, but you’re seeking full custody in part because you say that Sawyer’s mom is seeking to raise him as nonbinary. Can you just explain what exactly is happening here? What is the situation?

Tinsley: Well, I have half custody. So I mean, me and his mom both have 50%. And his mom makes the claim that she is now nonbinary and that Sawyer is nonbinary or that she’s at least trying to raise him that way. Although, some of the things she does seem more girly to me than nonbinary.

Not that I admit that’s a real thing. I radically disagree that it is or it’s an appropriate thing, rather, for children. But I think putting them in dresses and princess shoes seems girly to me and not so much nonbinary, not so much neutral.

However, Sawyer knows he’s a boy, loves being a little boy. He’s adamant about it. If you give him a girly toy, he’ll yell and scream at you, “I’m not a girl, I’m a boy.” So thankfully he’s a strong-willed rebel like me, and that hasn’t been working and I’m extremely thankful for that.

And then this part about why he fights was interesting:

Allen: Harrison, how have you held up through this whole court fight?

Tinsley: It’s been almost four years, but it’s hard sometimes. But I just do what I can to be the best version of myself I can be and be as strong as I can be. And I accept the responsibility. I look the evil right in the eye and say, “This is life. This is what I have to do.” I have a duty to Sawyer. I have a duty to children everywhere to stand up to this and to fight for what’s right.

And I know that I’ll be able to sleep at night because I choose to do the right thing. No matter how hard it is, no matter how much pain it causes me, I’m never backing down. I don’t care. I’ve accepted life for what it is and what I have to do. And I just look at it with that attitude that I have a responsibility to do it and I’m going to do it regardless.

Allen: Where does that conviction come for you?

Tinsley: All my life I’ve always, regardless of how terrified or scared I am of things, the one thing I’m most proud of about myself is that I’ve always been brave. Whether it’s singing in front of people or doing a back flip on my snowboard, I’ve always been able to find courage to do things in life. And I think that’s a big part of it.

Music affects me incredibly. I mean, I get chills when I listen to music. I love music so much. It makes me feel inspired. I listen to some Jordan Peterson or different stoics that just give me wisdom to guide me through this and the Bible, and there’s just all these different things that help inspire me.

And at some point in your life, you just have to make a choice: Who do you want to be? Do you want to be strong or do you want to be weak? And I just choose to be strong.

That was the first episode, and then this week we got the good news in the second episode.

I have some thoughts about this.

I rarely ever heard much admiration from women for men who have character and convictions. Usually, women today don’t like when men have firm religious and moral convictions. One of the first questions that young women like to ask men to test them is “are you pro-choice?” because pro-life men are immediately disqualified from relationships. Too judgy. Too narrow-minded. Too mean. Young women today like the idea of men protecting and providing, but they don’t like the idea of spiritual and moral leadership. Especially when doing the right thing goes against their feelings or their desires. Good men often end up having to choose between being good, and being liked.

Whether they know it or not, what men really want and need most is respect. And we have to get it for being good – good for Boss. It’s not good when men seek respect by adapting their behavior to what the selfish, evil people around them demand.

In my IT career, I’ve worked with many intelligent, wealthy, programmers who changed their convictions 180 degrees opposite to how they were raised, in order to get women to like them and to marry them. I worked with US-born, Christian-raised, church-attending men who voted for Joe Biden in order to keep peace in their homes – and to keep the bedroom door open. This is the opposite of masculinity. Men are masculine when they  fight evil, and women have to respect them for putting right and wrong above her feelings and desires.