In my continued praise of the .22LR firearm...

Yes...while all the other "gun nuts" in the world are debating the AK v. the AR, the 9mm v. the .45ACP, the handgun v. shotgun v. short-barreled rifle for QCB, et cetera, I am forever the "black sheep". I'm that random weirdo that says you should be able to use whatever works best...FOR YOU. You can take all the trajectory calculations, ballistic gelatin cross-sections, rate-of-fire comparisons, et cetera, and throw 'em all out the window...because they all mean dick squat, if you can't hit what you're aiming at.

Now, let's look at the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. For those who aren't "gun nuts" like myself and the rest of my friends and family, the "Long Rifle" designation DOES NOT imply the use in an actual long-barreled rifle. In the .22 rimfire category, you have four distinctively-sized cartridges. You have the .22 Short, the .22 Long, the .22 Long Rifle (typically referred to as the ".22LR"), and the .22 Magnum.

Amongst these, the .22LR is the most commonly-used and most commonly-chambered cartridge. The .22 Long is currently only available via "specialty manufacturers", as its commercial viability simply no longer exists. The .22 Magnum is still manufactured for those who choose it for its projectile velocity, as it travels quite a bit faster than the typical .22LR round. The .22 Short is also currently manufactured, and is quite useful in general training and short-range target-shooting scenarios. For those of you who know me personally, I'm sure you've seen the photos the "laundry room possum". I used an available short-round for that shot, because it does not produce the sound level typical of the .22LR. My father tells me he used to target-practice with .22 Short in his living room, because he could safely use an old telephone directory as a backstop!

Most single-shot and "repeating" (meaning non-single-shot) firearms that do not use a semi-automatic action are capable of chambering the .22 Short, .22 Long, and the .22 Long Rifle. Most do not accept the .22 Magnum, because this is a relatively "modern" (it being only 50 years old, as opposed to more than 100, like the other .22 rimfire cartridges), and is more of the "specialty" type. The revolver I shot the possum with, as well as the bolt-action rifle I was shooting yesterday afternoon, will both accept the three lower-velocity rounds.

Most semi-automatic firearms do not accept the .22 Short or .22 Long rounds, when specifically chambered for the .22LR round, as they do not produce enough recoil force to adequately operate the action.

There is a very high probability that, if you happen to own a .22 rimfire rifle or handgun of the semi-automatic variety, it is going to be chambered for .22LR. Every single semi-automatic rimfire firearm that I've ever laid my hands on has been chambered for .22LR...and I can guarantee you that's quite a few different species of weaponry.

Because of this reason (the "common usage" aspect of it), .22LR is DIRT CHEAP, even in times like now, when ammo is short. Even today, it's not uncommon to purchase a thousand rounds for under $20US. I guarantee you that you'll get tired of the heat, the reloading, or the walking out to inspect your targets, before you'll finish off a 500-rd brick of .22LR ammo. In all probability, you'll spend more on a package of decent targets, than you will on a 500-rd brick of ammunition.

Now that I've got all of that squared away, let's look at why you should own a .22LR firearm. Actually, you should own three of them.

First and foremost, they are excellent "trainer" guns, for anyone looking to get started in shooting, or to hone their mechanical shooting skills...because, as I stated before, they are DIRT CHEAP to shoot. 20USD will buy you 1,000 rounds of *HIGH QUALITY* .22LR, whereas 20USD might buy you 20 rounds of whatever random standard-grade ammo for your center-fire pistol or rifle.

They are also a great way to promote "family bonding". If your family is anything like mine, your family is highly competitive, but not necessarily "athletically able". You don't need to run a 4-minute mile or do 200 pushups in two minutes, in order to shoot well...but you do need to be able to focus on the fundamentals, and put them to use.

*****************************

The last, but certainly not the least, important reason for owning a .22LR firearm? When you're confronted with the inevitable "When the Shit Hits the Fan" scenario, do you want to concern yourself with trajectory, force, and velocity, or do you want to be able to get the job done?

We can talk about "stopping power" all night long, but typically (and erroneously), this will end up in the arena of damage caused to the human body.

"Stopping power", contrary to popular belief, is not limited to immediately putting an "enemy" on the ground. True "stopping power" is, effectively, doing whatever necessary to take the enemy "out of the game"...regardless of whether it kills him, makes him physically unable to remain a threat, or merely makes him turn around and run while thinking about how he's just screwed up. Regardless of what has happened, if you produce either of these three results, you have achieved "stopping power"...because you have effectively neutralized your enemy.

Many people feel like the .22LR simply is lacking in the "ass" department, meaning that it is simply not strong enough to get the job done...and that is one subject that I would definitely find arguable. While a slug from my 12ga can literally crack an engine block, and will most certainly penetrate a Kevlar vest, it is utterly useless against a man if I can't hit him with it.

On the other hand, there's not a predator in the world (two-legged or four-legged) aside from possibly a rhinoceros, that won't either drop dead, stop in its tracks, or run away as fast as possible if hit in the face with a .22LR slug.

The "when the shit hits the fan" scenario can include damned near anything...including a wild animal attack, a carjacker, a home-invader, or even agents of a tyrannical government.

I've been shooting .22LR firearms for the past two decades. Almost as long ago, my uncle gave me my first firearm that was "mine", and was a .22LR "break-down" rifle. At the age of 16, my father bought me my first pistol which was a .22LR Smith & Wesson. Between these two firearms (and due, in a large part, to the economic viability of shooting them), I've literally fired thousands of rounds through them.

Unfortunately, my S&W pistol was stolen from my father's home a few years ago...but I still have the rifle my uncle gave me. I took this rifle, along with an antique bolt-action rifle and an antique Hi-Standard semi-auto pistol, to the range with me yesterday. I brought a box with more than 500 rounds in it, and the contents of that box can fit in my pockets.

While my cousin, his friend, and his mom were shooting the "high-powered" pistols they brought, they had difficulty hitting the targets on the 25m range. The Hi-Standard pistol that I was firing for the first time on that day was able to hit the target repeatedly without difficulty. How wide is your head? I was shooting a target 8" in diameter, at 25 yards.

With my breakdown rifle, at that same distance, I was able to put a full magazine into a space the size of a cigarette pack...and that grouping got smaller when I took out the longer-barreled bolt-action rifle.

At 100m, I was still able to put most of that magazine into that same 8" target, with that same breakdown rifle. With the bolt-action rifle, at the distance of 100m, I can put one between your eyes without using a scope.

An SKS, an AR15, a Glock 21, and most certainly a 12ga shotgun pack more "firepower" than the .22LR firearm...but if I can put SEVERAL rounds of .22LR in your face (or your neck, your nuts, your knees, your ankles, et cetera), at rapid fire, who's gonna win that firefight? How many rounds' worth of practice have you had?

Did I mention that until yesterday, I hadn't shot the breakdown rifle in ten years...and that pistol and bolt-action rifle EVER?

When the shit hits the fan, do you want to be throwing a "bull's eye" to win the game in a dart or two? Or would you rather throw cinderblocks, resting on the knowledge that a direct shot wins the game, but you might throw 30 of them before you hit your target? How many rounds does your mag hold? Can you get those rounds off, before I get off a single shot?

ask, and ye may receive...

In the ongoing debate over abortion, my cousin Billiam asked me a question regarding my friend's freshly-arrived son. You see, little Brody has this interesting tendency to throw the "Black Power" fist in the photos from his first week on this earth. Personally, I think that's just gangsta as hell, but that's beside the point.

As this debate rages on, my cousin is convinced that because a fetus has been known to do so (as clearly seen in sonograms), they also are in possession of at least the minimal amount of cognitive self-awareness...essentially, the ability to recognize the basic fact of "I am". Not "I am in pain", "I am hungry", "I am bored", "I am cold", but merely, "I am".

So he asks me, after a few rather asinine and intentionally sarcastic comments raged back and forth between us, "And you're going to show me scientific proof that shows a baby in the womb doesn't ball up his fist of his own accord. Or, rather, that a baby outside the womb does? I mean. I want completely, irrefutable scientific proof that it's a FACT that baby did that through thought."

In response to this, I will say "No". Very clearly, and very simply, NO. I cannot do this. Why? Because every person on this planet is DIFFERENT. Now, pay attention here Billiam, because you might actually learn something. It happens to all of us, every day. Even today, I learned something new. You might learn something new here, if you pay attention.

I cannot provide you with "completely, irrefutable scientific proof" that my sister from another mister's kid can ball up his fist and hoist it in the air, and do so AS A RESULT OF HIS OWN VOLITION. I can't. Why? Because I A) don't have access to the machinery required to do so, and B) seriously doubt that my friend would loan her baby to a drunken jackass like myself, merely for the purposes of proving a point and providing a boost to my already over-inflated ego.

There are several facts we must look at here, however:

1. The Human forebrain (the portion of the brain responsible for all cognitive function) does not develop to the point of even the most BASIC functionality until around the eighth month of gestation. The reason for this is not known, but is theorized that it is due to being the least MECHANICALLY necessary portion of the brain required for survival...in other words, we know it "is" but do not know "why it is".
   
2. Prior to this, all muscular movement (and there is quite a bit of it, as modern science allows us to see via the sonograms Billiam mentioned) is the result of muscular spasm, nervous system interaction with the muscular systems, et cetera, while the portion of the brain responsible for muscular movement is in its development stages.
3. With regard to the debate over abortion (the debate that originally spurred this question), 99% of all abortions (in America, by licensed medical personnel) are performed prior to the 20th week of gestation. That doesn't even bring us into the third trimester, let alone the middle of the third trimester, where basic cognitive self-awareness is beginning to form.

Without being able to perform a brain scan, at the precise moment of muscular activity, there is no way of knowing that a particular baby (or fetus, depending on whether birth has occurred or not) is consciously thinking about the movements he is making. Because the human forebrain (as well as the rest of the brain) is still in the basic developmental stages AFTER a normal 9-month gestation period and standard human birth, there is a very distinct possibility that Baby Brody's fist-pumping denouncation of oppression may be the mere result of a non-cognitive muscular action. A newborn baby, after a normal 9-month pregnancy, is able to make basic muscular movements of his own volition (as his still-developing tiny little body will allow, while his still-developing tiny little brain is discovering how to make such basic muscular movements).

So no, I can't say without a doubt that little Brody's fist-pumping exercises are the result of a cognitive desire to throw a fist in the air and demand equality for all men. I can't even say that his raised fist is the result of a cognitive desire to simply raise his own fist, because I do not have access to the tools necessary to prove such a thing. What I can say, however, is THAT'S MY LITTLE HOMIE, RIGHT THERE, PUMPIN' HIS FIST IN THE AIR!



Oh yeah, btw...such a thing CAN BE PROVEN. You and I just don't have access to the tools (or the baby and/or fetae) necessary to do so.

So, Billiam, let's recap what I've talked about today...

1. I can't prove that the sonograms of balled fists WERE, OR WERE NOT, the result of cognitive capabilities...because A) I have no idea how far along in the gestational period those fetae were, B) I lack the necessary equipment to determine such things, and C) readings on the brains of said fetae were not taken AT THE TIME.
2. Likewise, I cannot prove for certain that Baby Brody's throwin' up the fist was the result of cognitive capabilities coupled with intentional muscular motion, for the same reasons (except for reason "A", because I am aware of the exact age of the baby in question).

For all I know, the sonograms you have seen were taken a week prior to a natural birth, or were sonograms taken of "freaks of nature" that had functional forebrains prior to the eleventh week of gestation, and their balled fists may have very well been the result of a cognitive desire to ball up a fist. Conversely, they may also have been random synaptic firings of muscular and nervous systems that are typically found within a fetus during the middle of a normal pregnancy. I honestly don't know...because not only did you not provide any information other than the basic "I've seen a sonogram of a fetus with a balled fist", I wasn't there at the time of the event AND I don't have the necessary equipement or expertise to operate it.

Now, just for the record, you can't provide "completely, and irrefutable proof" that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. For that matter, you can't even provide such proof showing that he was even killed by an actual bullet! All you have are words on paper, and the Zapruder(sp?) film of his head exploding. I'm quite certain that his head DID explode because a bullet entered (and then exited) with the proper amount of force, as are most people...but we don't have access to the bullet, the body, or any tangible proof that a bullet flew through his head.

And Billiam, in case you're wondering, I was led to discover this knowledge through PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. In the very early part of 2003, Allison's monthly visit from "Aunt Flo" came a few weeks late. An appointment was made with the doctor, and in the meantime, the subject of abortion was brought up. Before any final decision was made on my part, I wanted to know anything and everything about the subject that I could...so I LEARNED. I read scientific journals, I read my Gideon's, and damned near everything else I could get my hands on. I'm not sure if you've ever been in a similar situation, but I can assure you that it is a truly mind-blowing experience that I never want to experience again. Thankfully, "Aunt Flo" arrived just a day before Allison's appointment with the doctor, and such a choice was never made between us. Children are precious, and I would like to have at least one child of my own, at some point...but that doesn't change the facts of the matter, regarding basic human development.

If there's any scientific data you'd like to share with me, either supporting or refuting these facts, I would love to read it. Until then, my opinion stands as stated...in order for a human being to be considered a "person", and therefore subject to the standards of "murder", that human being must be in possession of at least the basic and bare minimum of cognitive self-awareness.

For the time being, I'll just continue to marvel at the beauty of my friends' newborn children...

On the eighth day, God created light beer...

So I got into this discussion with my cousin the other night (sorry it took so long to get to this, Travis), in which we started talking about God and science. As I've previously mentioned, I believe the human mind is the greatest creation God has ever been responsible for...and it would be a sin to let it go to waste.

Before I go further, I would like to say that without a doubt, I am a firm believer in the One True God of Abraham. I am of the Christian persuasion, and believe a sinless man named Jesus was borne of a virgin, walked this earth, and eventually died for my sins before rising again a few days later. Hopefully, that should clear up any misconceptions that anyone may have.

Now, moving right along. I'd also like to say that I am also a firm believer in Darwinian Theory, at least the minuscule portions of it that I understand. Why? It's quite simple. I place far more belief in what I see, rather than what I read...especially if the text is several thousand years old and has been translated across several different languages, after being passed down through generations by people who had no written language.

Let's look, for a moment, at Darwinian theory. Yes, it is a THEORY. No one knows exactly what happened several million years ago (or, as Travis believes, a few thousand years ago). The best we can do is SPECULATE and base our theories upon the evidence we can actually see...in nature presently, in nature from the past (via fossil records), and what we can observe in laboratories.

Then, we have Creationist theory. Yes, it is a THEORY, as well. No one knows what happened a few thousand years ago (or several million years ago, as I believe). Again, the best we can hope for is evidence based upon observation, both in nature and in the lab.

As I was telling my cousin the other night, I am of the opinion that science used for the purpose of proving an ideology is doomed to fail...because you will ALWAYS find evidence that supports your theory, even if you think JFK was assassinated by little green men from Mars. Science should never be utilized for ANYTHING except the search for honest knowledge, regardless of whether it supports or disputes your ideology. If your findings don't support your preconceived notions, is there a chance that your preconceived notions might possibly be wrong?

Think about it this way...it's obvious, to both me AND my cousin, that our Almighty created the universe. Now, taking that into account, wouldn't you agree that he's a pretty intelligent dude? In my opinion, he's the most "Intelligent Designer" ever. Ever. EVER. EVER! Sorry, I just can't seem to emphasize that one enough.

If he's intelligent enough to create something as complex as the human mind, would he not be intelligent enough to create something so SIMPLE (in my opinion, anyway) as the mechanism of biological evolution?

Obviously, there are massive "holes" in evolutionary theory, that cannot be readily explained away. There are also quite a few massive holes in creationist theory that can't be explained scientifically...and sorry, but NO, quoting the Holy Bible doesn't count. Not even if you use the King James Version. That's just not science.

I have faith in God, but I will never truly understand him until the day I meet him and get to have a chat with the guy...and you won't either. There's a reason why they call it "faith" in God. You believe it. You can't touch it, you can't taste it, you can't see it, but you know it's there.

**********************

Now, for a response to something I saw on ProjectCreation.org...and I must admit, I had to rummage through some stuff, because it's been a while since I've had a biology class. On that website, there were three questions posed to believers in Darwinian (aka "Evolutionary") Theory...here they are, and here are my answers.

1) Where did the information in DNA come from originally?
It came from the earth, just like everything else God so intelligently designed. DNA is nothing more than a very complex polymer, made of elements found naturally in the earth. If natural events can cause something as spectacular as a volcanic eruption or a tsunami to occur, is it really that far-fetched to believe that millions of years of nature (or even thousands, if you so believe) cannot produce the necessary environment for the creation of life? If a small group of humans can produce an actual artificial organism less than 150 years (138, to be exact) after actually discovering DNA, I'm quite certain that nature can create the necessary environment somewhere.

2) How can mutations that are only capable of rearranging or losing information, cause brand new information to appear?
This question is, quite simply, a loaded question that contains a logical fallacy. If information is "rearranged", it is NEW INFORMATION. For a practical demonstration, let's look at something known as an "anagram". An "anagram" is nothing more than a word, whose letters are rearranged, to produce an entirely different word. There are only 26 letters in the modern English alphabet...and, literally, thousands of anagrams are known. DNA consists of 4 distinct molecules, which are cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine. They are bonded with "hydrogen bonds"...and, due to basic chemistry, adenine will bind with thymine and cytosine will bind with guanine. It doesn't change. What DOES change is the pattern of binding. If you REARRANGE the pattern of binding, you have CREATED NEW INFORMATION. For instance, take the word "bastard". Merely using those six letters, and THE EXACT NUMBER OF LETTERS IN THAT WORD, you can come up with no less than 38 other words or combination of words.

The manner in which DNA differs from an "anagram", even though it uses the base pairings of A+T and G+T, is the fact that these combinations are not limited to the number of pairs that may be used...and they don't have to conform to a preexisting written language! The largest DNA strand responsible for a single human gene consists of 220 MILLION base pairings...and it doesn't have to make a readable word or anything! All it has to do is convey information.

3) Why is there no evidence of 2, 4, 8 celled animals etc., ever having lived?

Umm, that's a good question, but let's think about this for a minute. Without digressing into a history lesson about Darwin's finches, let's look at WHY evolution takes place (according, of course, to Darwinian theory). Biological evolution is, with regard to the "short answer", the survival of the fittest. If a species is capable of surviving while being single-celled (such as the "Sea Grapes" are), they would have no reason to evolve into multi-celluar organisms...but would instead, evolve into the largest and strongest single-celled organisms, because this is what works.

Cockroaches are still in existence, in much the same state they were millions of years ago (if you follow modern science), because THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF CHANGE FOR THE SPECIES TO SURVIVE. Cockroaches breed at a rate that would make a rabbit blush, can survive nuclear fallout, and will even survive being "nuked" in a microwave oven. Even though they can't survive the heel of my Bates steelcaps, you can rest assured that their brothers and sisters will. There's no need for the species to evolve, because there is nothing to prevent the survival of the species.

According to the website these questions came from, "There is abundant evidence for one-celled animals in both the living world and the fossil record, but there is not one shred of evidence of any animal above the one-celled level until it reaches many thousands of cells in multi-cellular creatures."

Let's look at that statement, and look at this. There are certain species of amoeba (the world's "single-celled animals") that have a MAXIMUM size of 3microns. The largest fossilized organism known to man is 5microns wide. If this is true, then it is possible for a species to be smaller than what is detectible by fossil record AWKI ("as we know it", from here on out).

Now, let's look at the fact that we have actual laboratory evidence of 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-celled organisms of the fungus category...both laboratory-engineered, and naturally-observed. It's obvious that life DOES happen in a 4-cell scenario.

Looking back that the animal kingdom questioned, let's examine the question of multi-celled and single-celled organisms. The human body is made of literally BILLIONS of cells, working simultaneously. The largest-known single-celled animal is the "Sea Grape", recently discovered on the ocean floor in the Bahamas. It's clearly visible to the naked eye, and has been photographed near a shrimp for comparison. It's at least 1/4" wide. A red blood cell, by comparison, is roughly 7microns wide.

This goes back to original Darwinian theory (long before we ever discovered Sea Grapes or blood cells), but if an organism was able to sustain the species in an "as-is" format, it did so...and the members of that species most likely to survive were also the most likely to procreate. If you are an animal with no known natural predators, and you can survive with nothing more than a single cell, you are unlikely to have a need for cell division into specialized cells.

Lest we forget, even the Human body is made up of nothing more than a gazillion cells that work in conjunction with each other. In the scientific sense, the human body isn't really that spectacular. Cells make up organs, organs make up systems, and systems make up the complete body...it's all "building blocks". If you can have a single organism that is capable of survival without having to branch off into specialization, why fix it if it ain't broke?

Furthermore, we have undeniable evidence that both multi-cellular AND single-cellular animals exist and may consist of cells smaller than the smallest known fossilized cell. Taking this into account, along with the fact that multi-celled organisms whose cellular count has not reached double-digits are CURRENTLY in existence, is it not that far from the realm of possibility that an eight-celled animal might have existed (and, for that matter, may STILL exist) and we just don't know it?

I'll be the first to admit that I've read Origin of Species and still don't understand much of it...but to deny the possibility of evolution based upon a book that has been translated across several different languages (after being passed down from generation to generation in a society that had no written language) just doesn't seem very scientific to me.

God created mankind, as well as every other creature and plant on this planet. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he is able to create something as simple as biological evolution? In the grand scheme of things, evolution is much simpler than creating man out of dirt. I'm quite certain that my Almighty God is more than capable...

Then again, that's just the way I see it, I could be wrong.

"Traditional Marriage"? Seriously, what the eff?

Okay, you're a fan of "traditional marriage". Congratulations. You're a happily married heterosexual person.

I have no problem with that, as a marriage between consenting adults should be legal. You're happily married to the member of the opposite sex that you chose.

So what about the fraction of our society who happens to be homosexual, and the fraction of these people who choose to enter into a monogamous and legally-recognized relationship with the consenting adult of his or her choice?

Marriage, in the state of Texas, is not a "religious" institution in the eyes of the law. I know from personal experience. Instead of being married to the woman I was madly in love with, in the church I was baptized in, we got married in the courthouse across the street from said church.

The church did not decide when we could or could not file our taxes together. It didn't decide that my wife was allowed to use my name. It didn't decide that my wife was allowed to join my health care plan. It didn't decide that my wife was considered my "next of kin", and I hers, in the event of a tragic accident.

The deciding factor, in these events, was not the Church's blessing, but rather a piece of paper signed by an agent of the state...which was granted to us, after paying a tax to the state for the privilege of being married.

The legal denial of the right to be married to the consenting adult of your choice is a direct violation of the First Amendment, because it is based upon absolutely NOTHING BUT religious doctrine.

The three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) tend to frown heavily upon homosexuality within most sects. Fortunately, we don't live in a nation ruled by religion, but a nation that declares liberty to be the fundamental basis of our rule of law (see "First Amendment" if you have questions about this!).

Some of this nation's citizens would like to see Christianity be the basis of our laws, and to them, I'm curious...what version of Christianity would that be? Would it be the Christianity of my Southern Baptist grandmother, the Christianity of her Catholic son, or the Christianity of the members of the "Cowboy Church" down the street from my house? Personally, I don't think our laws should be dictated by someone who tells me I'm going to hell for drinking beer and listening to Rock & Roll music...or a man in a funny hat...or a group of people who feel the need to worship in a cow pasture, behind a sign bearing the catch-phrase of their favorite redneck comedian (with the apostrophe in the wrong place). All three of these groups agree that homosexuality is wrong, but can't agree on how to say the blessing before sunday dinner.

Most importantly, they can't agree with the two other major sects of people who worship the same God of Abraham but call Him by a different name, when it comes to whose God is the "One True God"...even though it's THE SAME GOD.

Fortunately, our forefathers saw the folly of allowing such things to dictate what is and is not legal, due to the simple fact that a religious majority would certainly infringe upon the religious freedoms of others who do not worship in the same manner...or, for that matter, worship at all.

If this nation's laws were based solely upon "Christian" ideals, there's a good chance that my Wiccan friends (a happily- and legally-married HETEROSEXUAL couple) might be burned at the stake. There's a strong chance that my Jewish classmates' WWII-veteran grandfather wouldn't be allowed to have a Star of David on his GI headstone. Unfortunately, my Wiccan friend can't have the symbol of his faith on his headstone when he dies...even though his religion is recognized by the United States Government as a tax-exempt religious entity. If that isn't a slap in the face, to someone who vowed to defend the very constitution being violated by this rule, I don't know what is!

Without digressing any further about the idiocy of US Army regs, I'll say this loudly and clearly:

THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT FOUNDED AND BASED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

Yes, the majority of our founding fathers were devout Christians (typically of the protestant variety). However, while liberty and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, they are not synonimous, either. This nation, being originally founded by those who were escaping religious persecution, understood better than anyone the importance of religious freedom...both the freedom to exercise their religion as they saw fit, but also the freedom to NOT exercise a particular religion as they saw fit.

Liberty is the absence of rule and regulation. There is no such thing as "pure" liberty, because there will ALWAYS be something that prevents a person from doing as he chooses. Unfortunately for some in this nation, it is ILLEGAL to use religion as a means to prevent another person from doing as he chooses.

So to those who wish to keep homosexual marriage a violation of the law, I ask you this:

What legal basis do you have, that does not violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, to prevent an adult from marrying another consenting adult of his/her choosing...regardless of gender?

An addendum to last night's post...

I got to thinking about a response from my cousin on last night's post, and I can't help but be reminded of my mathematical reasoning course at UH (think sophomore high school geometry proofs that the college makes you run through again). In addition to the sorority chicks that surrounded me because they didn't feel like studying, it taught me to analyze things from every angle before coming to a conclusion and to do so in a step-by-step process.

Applying this technique, let's look at something here. A "murderer" is a person who takes the life of another living person without legal justification. A "serial murderer" is a person who takes the life of more than one person, using the same modus operandi, over an extended period of time.

If you are of the opinion that a fetus without a functioning frontal lobe (and, therefore, has no possible way to even realize its own existence on the most basic of levels) is still a "person", then receiving a therapeutic abortion is tantamount to MURDER. To do this on two or more occasions would make the impregnated woman (and her doctor, who was legally licensed to perform such a procedure) a SERIAL MURDERER.

So yes, if you are of the opinion that a fetus is a person, you are also of the opinion that my mother is a SERIAL MURDERER. It matters not how you dress it up, mince your words, or think that it might be different if it involves someone you know. There is no "grey area" here. Either it is, or it isn't. It's cut and dried. That's just the way it is. You may not use those exact words, but the meaning of words do not change depending on a particular random situation. Either it is, or it isn't.

Moving right along, let's talk about our "correctional" institutions and our law enforcement officers. If a person declares that a policeman needs to "protect himself", especially against people like me, you are insinuating one of two things...either I am out to harm police officers because I am a criminal, or police officers are needing to protect themselves against "people like me" because I might not sit idly by while my rights are violated. Which is it? In either scenario, one party is a criminal. Is this person calling me a criminal, because I feel no regret or remorse about doing what is morally and legally justified in defending my inherent rights as a member of the human race? Is this person declaring the police officers who point guns at my head for no valid reason to be criminals, because even though I have committed no crime and have no desire to harm random people, they still need to "protect themselves, especially against people like me"? It's one or the other...and, judging by the constant talk of how supposedly ignorant I am on the subject, I can't help but think this person is declaring me to be a criminal...especially when he uses the phrase "Society has a place for you. It's called JAIL." Am I wrong here? If so, please enlighten me. If I'm not mistaken, this person has declared me to be a CRIMINAL.

So if I'm a criminal, and my mother is a serial killer, am I not the criminal son of a serial killer? Words do not hurt me, but they still have meaning. That's also something to think about...

*******************

And for the "unanswered questions", I'm still wondering what my cousin was talking about. Was it the question about the mentally challenged, or the question about dogfighting?

Self-awareness, on its most basic level, is merely the ability to recognize the fact of "I am". It's not the ability to understand geometry or astrophysics. It's not the ability to say hello or tell someone where it hurts. It's merely the ability to understand the concept of "I am here, these are my surroundings as I understand it, whatever the level of understanding may be".

Those who do not possess this ability are referred to as, typically, DEAD. A conscious self-awareness is what separates the animal kingdom from a stem of broccoli. You have it, or you don't.

You can read about basic cognitive self-awareness here. Even dogs and cats have it. Hell, even the "slowest" of our society has a basic modicum of self-awareness. It has nothing to do with being able to speak, move, eat, shit, solve algebraic equations, or screw. It's merely the ability to think, even on the most basic of levels.

If "I think, therefore I am", then "I think not, therefore I am not". It's that simple, and it doesn't matter how much one thinks, it only matters if one does or does not...and that's why I didn't bother to answer these questions about special olympians or dogfights. It's because they are irrelevant to the conversation at hand...and are only used by those who either wish to divert attention from facts, or by those who do not understand them.
************
Edit: If understanding any of this makes me "arrogant" or "immature", then by God, call me the most arrogant little prick in the entire rosebush. Personally, I think it's just basic simplicity.

What does it mean to be "alive", and more about abortion.

From a scientific standpoint, something is "alive" if it consumes sustenance, is capable of reproduction, et cetera. According to this definition, FIRE is technically "alive". So are microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses. Naturally, living breathing people are also considered to be "alive".

But what does it truly mean for a person to be "alive"? In my personal opinion, you are not truly "alive" unless you are in possession of enough cognitive ability to know that you exist. It's really not that difficult to have that much brainpower. Cats and dogs have it. Even the lowly little cockroach knows that it exists, even if its brain can't function much farther beyond this.

The reason I am bringing this up is the fact that certain questions were posed after relatives had read my last blog regarding abortion, and other philosophical questions were brought into the discussion, regarding an uncle who was left with massive brain damage after a motorcycle accident.

I am of the opinion that, no matter how bad it really sucks, being "brain-dead" is still dead. Period. If you are unable to know that you exist, and will never regain the ability to know you exist, you are not alive. You may eat through a tube, breathe through a machine (or even on your own, for that matter), et cetera...but if you cannot understand the basic concept of "I am", you simply aren't.

My father watched his oldest brother go from being one of the brightest men on this planet to being a "vegetable", after a serious head injury stemming from crashing a Harley-Davidson. At the age of 25, I purchased my first motorcycle while in college. Shortly after, I had a very long discussion with my father concerning what we would do in the event of any injury that ever left either of us without a functioning mind. Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels the way I do.

Much like my father, I have also lost a brother on the road. On my 17th birthday, my brother was traveling home from a New Year's Eve party with his fiance when she lost control of her Toyota pickup. She was ejected from the vehicle, and is still alive to this day. Brandon, on the other hand, was wearing a seatbelt. His head was crushed by the roof of the cab when the truck flipped over repeatedly, but was still technically "alive". Alive in the sense that certain vital organs were still functioning, even though the majority of his brain was shredded apart by shards of metal. He technically "died" three and a half hours later, in an emergency room, when these organs finally gave up.

In my opinion, however, my brother died on a deserted highway in East Texas.

Had it not been for the massive amount of blood loss, there is a possibility that he might still be "alive" today. There is, of course, also the possibility that his brain was so ripped apart that he would never actually know it.

Had his vital organs been able to make it through such trauma, our mother and his father would also be faced with a very challenging question... "Should we pull the plug?". It's a question no one wants to be forced to answer, because it is only asked in cases where a loved one is lost.

It still doesn't change the fact that the basic underlying question is also there. What does it mean to be "alive"? Again, I don't think one is truly "alive" unless one is capable of knowing that one is "alive".

The human body is, in my opinion, perhaps the greatest of all God's accomplishments. The human mind is the most important feature of that body, for it is the essence of the soul.

I can use my legs to run, or use them to sit myself down. With my hands, I can either destroy or create. I can open my mouth to speak or close it to remain silent. Without a functioning mind, I can do none of these things. Without arms, legs, or a tongue, I can still engage in philosophical introspection, as long as I have a functioning mind.

This opinion of mine, that states a person is not truly alive without a functioning mind, does not mean that I care any less for the person who no longer has one...it merely means that I accept death as the natural end of life, no matter how or why the death of a loved one may occur. My grandmother fought hard against breast cancer that spread throughout her entire body, and up to her last breath had a functioning brain. My brother had a body that fought hard for more than three hours, against all odds, but had a brilliant mind that was destroyed by an automobile accident. I loved them both dearly, as my father loved his father and brother. Accepting a loved ones' status as being dead or alive holds no bearing on this love, as it will endure forever.

*****************

Now, moving right along to the original discussion of abortion. First off, let's go over some facts. These facts are from an ANTI-ABORTION website, so you can be assured that it's not "just a bunch of liberal propaganda".

1) In the average human pregnancy, the gestation period is 39 weeks...or, roughly, nine months. The gestation period is typically broken down into "trimesters" of 13 weeks. This stuff isn't actually from the website, it's just a refresher course of basic knowledge for those of us who slept through junior high science class.

2) In America, all but 1% of abortions are performed prior to the beginning of the third trimester. As a matter of fact, these 99% are performed prior to the 20th week of gestation. 95% are performed prior to the 16th week, and 89% are performed prior to the 13th week. 77% of all abortions in America are performed before the tenth week of gestation, which is the point where medical science begins to call it a "fetus".

3) Those who consider themselves to be "Christians" represent 75% of all women who have had an abortion in America.

Okay, so we've got those facts out of the way. Now, let's look at basic biology. As with any other living organism, the human body begins development of its most essential features first. The abilities of the five basic senses are considered necessary for survival (yes, you can get along without them, but having all five sure does help!).

The human body has many INVOLUNTARY reactions to the world around it, which are completely independent of the cognitive human mind (the doctor kneecapping you with the little hammer to check your reflexes is coming to mind here).

The basic building blocks of the human body are put together long before the non-essential features, and this holds true with the human fetal brain as well.

Prior to the 25th week, the fetal heart should be adjusting itself to outside stimuli (sound, temperature, pressure, et cetera). Much like your own heart rate self-adjusting without control from your mind, cognitive awareness is not necessary for this to occur.

As early as the 9th week, fetal muscular movement is possible. Until near-term, however, these are involuntary responses to stimuli. The forebrain, responsible for cognitive thought, simply has not developed until that point.

Is a fetus "alive"? Of course it is. It has its own DNA, blood type, heartbeat, and brain. It does not, however, at the point where 99% of abortions are performed in America, have a functioning mind that is capable of self-awareness.

Now for my family that felt the need to blast me for my opinions earlier (as well as any others who might think I'm promoting "baby-killing" or something similarly retarded!), I'll say this:

I AM NOT PRO-ABORTION. I am pro-choice, and choose to look at this matter from an objective view. My cousin's wife is going to have a baby in the near future, and I couldn't be more proud. Two of my dear friends just recently gave birth to their babies (in Kim's case, a pair of them!), and I couldn't be happier for their addition to humanity. At some point in my lifetime, I also hope to have a child of my own.

That still doesn't change the fact that I have the opinions I have. Of course I don't walk around asking my pregnant friends "how's your fetus doing?". I understand that having a baby is a very personal thing, as it is the creation of a life.

What I DON'T understand is how people can honestly say that you were a "person" from the moment the sperm fertilized the egg, if they understand anything at all about basic human biology. How is a cluster of cells considered a "person"? That's what an embryo is. If abortion is murder, is a miscarriage considered "involuntary manslaughter"?

At some point, we as a society need to overcome our personal beliefs and look at the law from an objective point of view.

At the time of my birth, and ESPECIALLY during the time of my father's birth, countless mothers smoked like a worn-out Chrysler while they were pregnant...and most of us came out just fine. My mother's "anesthesia" during childbirth, according to those who were there in that apartment, was a joint and two glasses of red wine.

Today, under Texas state law, you can legally be prosecuted for "endangering the welfare of a child"...for smoking a cigarette while pregnant. And yes, it's happened before, believe it or not. Sadly, this is what happens when THE MAJORITY of society becomes completely entrenched in their personal views that they feel the need to spread them to everyone else...even those who don't agree with the views of the majority.

Just for the record, there is only ONE passage in the bible that mentions the death of a fetus through causes unnatural.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:22-25

If I didn't know any better, it would seem that even the bible doesn't define a fetus as a "person", if it declares in the same passage as the famous "eye for an eye" law that the punishment for killing a fetus should be a fine set by the father...instead of the penalty of death, which was proscribed for the crime of killing a person.

It's quite simple...if you oppose abortion, don't get one. I don't agree with the practice of abortion, therefore I do what is necessary to prevent myself from impregnating anyone. If those steps are not enough to prevent the pregnancy, I still have no right to make a choice for another person, until that fetus becomes a "person"...and, at 13 weeks of gestation, it just simply isn't.

God gave us all a brain. Let's start using them in an objective manner, m'kay?

Two new abortion-related laws passed in the state senate of Texas...

And again, they are completely useless, except to produce the type of partisan stupidity typical of most "politically active" types. They really AREN'T doing anything worthwhile.

Well, perhaps the "Choose Life" license plates we just authorized might do some good, if the license plate fees really do go toward adoption charities...unlike proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets, which were supposed to fund our public schools but mainly went to line the pockets of the private entity that sells them.

Aside from the license plates, we also had another abortion law passed in the Texas senate. It's a law that requires an ultrasound prior to an abortion. Oh, wait...that's right, it doesn't. It was originally supposed to, but because of "bipartisan compromise", it merely requires that the doctor OFFER an ultrasound before a potential mother terminates her pregnancy.

Essentially, all the time and effort wasted on this bill accomplished absolutely nothing but requiring the following conversation:

Patient: Doctor, I'm ready for my abortion.

Doctor: Would you like an ultrasound first?

Patient: No, thank you. I'd just like an abortion.

Doctor: Okay, let's get you into the stirrups.

Wow, wasn't that special? I'm so glad that we were able to get that accomplished. Now, moving right along, I'd like to discuss my views on why this state should get back to the law as written prior to being overtaken by religious fundamentalist nutjobs who have no understanding of medical science OR the Holy Bible.

The "anti-abortion" debate continues to rage on in this nation because of ignorance. To claim that a fetus is a "child" or even an "unborn baby" is not much different than saying a piece of iron ore is a brand-new Cadillac. It's just not true, no matter how you look at it.

The heart of the abortion debate, interestingly enough, doesn't even revolve around science. Rather, it revolves around the moral question of what constitutes a "person". In my personal opinion, one does not actually become a "living person" until one acquires a brain capable of the most basic COGNITIVE function. Not merely the presence of a brain or even individual brain cells, not the presence of "brain waves", but enough cognitive capabilities to understand (even on the most basic level) that the self exists.

Modern science tells us that the human brain begins its formation very early on in the course of a human pregnancy. The human heart also develops early on, as does respiratory function. Very early in the gestation period, ten tiny little fingers and ten tiny little toes will also begin to make their first appearance. The cardiopulmonary function will also make self-adjusting variations depending on environmental variables, such as sound and temperature. While the fetus depends upon its mother for nutrition and oxygen, it is an organism independent of its mother. This fact is the reason many have incorrectly labeled a fetus as a "parasite", but that's neither here nor there.

In spite of all this knowledge, there is one fact that remains at the heart of this debate...and is often dismissed as being "irrelevant", if not ignored altogether.

The human brain does not develop cognitive ability to recognize the fact that it even exists, until near the beginning of the eighth month of gestation. The overwhelming majority of LEGAL ABORTIONS PERFORMED BY LICENSED DOCTORS in this nation occur six months or more before this point.

Allow me to put this another way...if you can breathe, consume sustenance, et cetera but CANNOT THINK FOR YOURSELF ON THE BASIC LEVEL OF EVEN BEING ABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR OWN EXISTENCE, you are not truly "alive".

Prior to this point, you truly are nothing but a "cluster of cells". When most abortions are performed, the fetus is roughly the same size as the average adult male thumb. The "brain" hasn't even begun to form, as the "neural tube" that will later allow the complex network of nerve cells and brain matter to form are just beginning to assemble themselves. At this point, you are every bit as "alive" as your average piece of broccoli...and just as much a "person" as your average fingernail.

When abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. History has shown us, however, that outlawing abortions WILL NOT prevent them from happening. Even in countries run by a Catholic majority, such as many of those found on the South American continent, "back-alley abortions" are just as common-place there as abortions performed by licensed physicians are here.

People are still going to have abortions, whether you agree with it or not, much like the way drug usage continues in a nation that has criminalized drug usage to the point where we have to sign a registry to buy certain types of over-the-counter cold medicine.

The debate over abortion centers around whether it is actually "murder" to terminate the life of something that is obviously a living human being, but isn't actually a cognizant and sentient human being.

Prior to the religious fundamentalists taking control of our state legislature, a "Person" was defined by state law as a "human being that has been born and has breathed". Yeah, that sounds about right.

Did we really need to piss away a bunch of time arguing about whether the state has the authority to DEMAND that a woman be forced to view an ultrasound? Perhaps the biggest absurdity of this whole thing is the fact that, in 99.9% of all legal abortions performed in this country, an ultrasound is already done...in order to determine that the woman is in fact pregnant, and to determine how far along in the pregnancy the woman really is.

Such a law is nothing more than political posturing and pandering to a bunch of religious nutjobs who still think research on laboratory-created embryonic stem cells is tantamount to "murdering babies".

On top of all of this, the "compromise" of the senate bill has lost its teeth because the ultrasound is not REQUIRED by law, so doctors are merely required to provide the opportunity for it.

Yeah, we scored big with this one! And people wonder why I have complaints about organized religion. For some reason, discussing the word of God in large groups seems to make people instantly retarded...