Please note: this is a re-post, I have not been going on dates with anybody, recently.

I’ve been thinking lately about how to measure how committed and capable a person is on issues of interest to conservatives. For example, on abortion, most conservatives will say, “I vote pro-life”. But I think a higher level of conviction and commitment is shown when a person can show WHY they are pro-life. And I’m not looking for feelings, here. I’m looking for handling scientific evidence.

So, when it comes to the abortion issue, the first step is to answer the question “what is the unborn?” And again, I’m not looking for an opinion here. I’m not looking for feelings. I’m not looking for what your parents, or your pastor, or your church choir says. I’m interested in whether a person can cite some scientific evidence.

Fortunately, we have first class scientists who have collected the relevant information for us, like Dr. Maureen Condic, She’s an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, and recently served on the National Science Board. She earned her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley, and has published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

One of her publications (PDF) explains what science tells us about the unborn. The title is “When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited”. A good paper to have available, especially if your opponent has nothing but purple hair, tattoos and nose piercings. But if you want something easy, you can just use quotations from a variety of embryology textbooks (PDF).

Like this one:

“Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

Source: Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2016. p. 11

Don’t just use one quotation, use lots.

Also useful to know is what the unborn baby can do during the process of developing.

Here’s an article from the famous Cleveland Clinic that explains:

At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. The gender of your baby depends on what sperm fertilizes the egg at the moment of conception.

And a bit further along:

Month 1 (weeks 1 through 4)

In these first few weeks, a primitive face will take form with large dark circles for eyes. The mouth, lower jaw and throat are developing. Blood cells are taking shape, and circulation will begin. The tiny “heart” tube will beat 65 times a minute by the end of the fourth week.

And a bit further along:

Month 2 (weeks 5 through 8)

Facial features continue to develop. Each ear begins as a little fold of skin at the side of the head. Tiny buds that eventually grow into arms and legs are forming. Fingers, toes and eyes are also forming.

The neural tube (brain, spinal cord and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) is well formed now. The digestive tract and sensory organs begin to develop too. Bone starts to replace cartilage.

The head is large in proportion to the rest of the body at this point. At about 6 weeks, a heartbeat can usually be detected.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, and that’s why pro-lifers say “abortion stops a beating heart”. It’s definitely human, and it’s definitely killed in an abortion.

So, what’s the point of this post? I’m saying that if you are a conservative, then you have to be familiar with enough evidence to be persuasive to others who do not share your views. Not just on the issue you like, but on EVERY issue – social issues, foreign policy issues, fiscal issues.

It’s not enough for you to be happy that you have the right opinion about one issue. It’s not enough that the people around you like you because they agree with your “right answer”. You have to be able to make a case that crushes your opponent with evidence. Being a conservative isn’t about you or your feelings. It’s about the world out there – can you make a difference by being convincing to other people?

Of course if doesn’t feel good to have to learn how to talk about issues using scientific evidence. It’s work. And of course it doesn’t feel good to disagree with people about controversial issues. But you have to get used to not being ignorant and not being liked. I know a lot of feelings-based Christians who know a lot about sports, fiction, music, essential oils, and other nonsense. They want me to be satisfied that they have the right answer to questions like “Does God exist?”, “does military preparedness deter aggression?” and “does the free market system make people more prosperous than socialism?” But if I am out on a date with you, and I ask you these questions, I’m looking for more than the right answer. I want you to show your work. I want to see you demonstrate your ability to persuade people on the other side, either in your writings or in your discussions.

Don’t cry to me about how you can’t find a husband when you can’t do anything that a husband needs you to do. There is no path to impressing a conservative man that allows you to be lazy, ignorant and cowardly. I expect performance. If you are smart enough to get a college education and a job in the competitive private sector providing value to paying customers, (not a public school teacher or anything disconnected from reality, like that), then you are smart enough to be able to explain your views on moral issues and public policy.

Sometimes, when I raise the fact that women initiate 69% of divorces, I get the response that this number is men’s fault. For example, pro-marriage Christian feminists and sociologists will say “it’s because men are less emotionally intelligent, they don’t meet the needs of women”. If that’s true, then we should expect that lesbian relationships will be the most committed. Are they?

Here’s a study from August 2022, published in the Journal of Family History.

The abstract says:

The trends in marriage and divorce among male and female same-sex couples in urban and rural Norway were compared to different-sex marriages. Norway legalized same-sex living in 1993 and marriage in 2009. Cohorts from 1993 to 2018 were included. The 2009 gender-neutral marriage law appears to have had minimal impact on the rate of same-sex unions and divorces. Moreover, divorce risks are highest in female same-sex marriages, whereas male same-sex marriages have the same divorce risk levels as different-sex marriages. The divorce risk is declining for same-sex marriages in urban areas, while the opposite is observed in rural areas.

And down in the results section, we have this:

Female same-sex marriages had the highest total divorce rate throughout the period, followed by male same-sex marriages. The highest total divorce rate was observed among female same-sex marriages formed in 2003, with 59.1% divorced before 2018.

Now, some people will say, but this is just one country. Yes, but it’s a same-sex marriage affirming country. They’ve had same-sex unions since 1993, and same-sex marriage since 2009. So critics can’t blame disapproval of LGBT for these numbers. And this study agrees with previous studies.

Now, let’s make a comment about this.

I think this data suggests a wonderful question for men to use in the course of vetting a candidate wife for marriage. Just casually mention the study, and then ask her “what do you think the explanation for this is?”

There will be one group of women who say “that’s easy. women are very emotional, and that causes them to have more difficulty keeping to their commitments. It’s something that men should test for. Men should choose women who have a habit of taking on tough tasks, and seeing them through to the end. And maintaining their relationship obligations with difficult or demanding family members, friends, elderly pets, etc.” That’s the right answer. I like women who do STEM degrees and work hard jobs in the competitive private sector, they tend to be good at sticking with tough situations and engineer solutions, instead of quitting.

But there’s another group that will reply “these numbers are the result of external forces that are conspiring against women to make them fail. It’s all the fault of insufficient resources, or social disapproval, or sexism, or the males in their lives.” That’s the wrong answer. I avoid women who do easy degrees like English, psychology, etc. They tend to go straight to a safe unionized job teaching children in the public school monopoly. That’s not good training for commitment-keeping. It shows that they like to do easy things. Marriage is hard work. Don’t pick a wife who likes fun and thrills. Pick a wife who engineers solutions to problems.

I do understand that women expect high quality communication and emotional intelligence in their relationships. To those women, I would just say, you need to choose better men. You need to know up front what marriage is about in the long-run, and you need to choose the things that you really need for the long run.

I wrote this post to try to help men avoid disasters when making their relationship choices. The best we can do as men is to take responsibility for our own choices. That means not letting ourselves be carried away by emotions. We have to test by asking questions. And even better than listening to an answer, is looking at the actions. Always look for women who keep their commitments when it goes against their self-interest. They are out there. Pick one.

I know, I know. And from Australia, of all places. I would classify Australia as a secular left police state, at this point. I’m not sure if this judge’s ruling will stand up. But it sure is amazing to see a judge side with the father instead of the secular leftist mother. And even better, the judge sanctioned an “expert” in transgenderism – in fact, a transgender activist – for misleading the family court.

Here’s the story (biased to the left, of course) from The Australian. (full text archived)

Here is a summary I found on Twitter.

BREAKING: A Family Court Judge has prevented a 12-year-old boy from receiving ‘gender-affirming’ treatment and removed him from his mother’s custody after determining he does not have gender dysphoria, finding the boy had been surrounded by ‘gender-affirming and external influences’.

The mother claimed her son was gender-dysphoric from the age of 6 and started taking him to a children’s gender clinic.

Despite no formal diagnoses or consultation with the treating doctor, his mother gave him a female name and socially affirmed her son, including making him wear ‘gender-affirming’ underwear described as ‘small, tight, and padded underpants designed to pressure and flatten his penile area’.

The mother then sought the son to be prescribed puberty blockers, which the father objected to, resulting in court action. There was no formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria from the gender clinic until the commencement of the court case.

The Judge slammed one of the key witnesses in the case, a paediatric gender-medicine ‘expert’ who for failing to meet court requirements in giving an ‘objective and unbiased opinion that is independent and impartial’ after she was found to be an advocate for trans people who’s preferred model of healthcare for transgender children is ‘gender-affirming’ care and supported the removal of court authorisation for trans and gender diverse adolescents to receive gender-affirming hormones.

The Judge also found the RCH Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines ‘do not have the approval or the imprimatur of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory Government, including any such minister or Department of Health’.

This damning judgment further highlights the need for an urgent national inquiry into youth gender medicine in Australia and a pause on all medical gender transitions for children and young people until this inquiry is complete.

So, this is a shock ruling, to me. It goes against the other cases that I blogged about recently where women were claiming that their children had gender dysphoria in order to get full custody of the children, and the maximum child support from the father. Basically, they wanted the father’s money, and to raise the child without any male influence, and the family courts were giving it to them. Then we saw a case out of Colorado about legislation designed to label any dissent from transgenderism as “abuse”, which is typically used in divorces to cut the father out of his natural role.

What I expect from family courts is what I see in cases of divorce. I expect to see false accusations against the father, with no supporting evidence. I expect CPS to show up and take the child from the father. I expect the judge to award alimony and child support to the mother. So, this story out of Australia was a real shock. My view of Australia is that it’s become a feminized police state, where men are viewed as dangerous and evil. So I really was not expecting any kind of recognition of the importance of male influences in bringing up children.