Do children raised by same-sex couples have higher rates of depression?

I do not know.  This post is two-fold.  One is to raise awareness to a potential issue that is an uncomfortable topic that nowadays people find it easier to ignore altogether rather than ask honest questions and have an open dialogue.  The other is to point out that many people will look at this as attacking same-sex couples rather than investigating potential harm to the children themselves.  Here in upside-down world many will immediately take the side of the “minority group” rather than the actual potential victims.  Again, this is not an attack at all on same-sex couples.  What two consenting adults do is none of my business.  But we need to be able to ask difficult questions.  We can still do that in our society, right?  Right…?

This article was published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016.  Knowing the reproducibility crisis in science there absolutely needs to be more research into this and independent studies to verify the results.  It is interesting, though not necessarily surprising, that previous research that contradicts this study has poor statistical analysis and very small sample sizes which lead to hazy conclusions at best.  I could not find follow-up studies to confirm or deny these findings but if anyone has please post in the comment section.  I will add an update if they are confirmed or denied.  A snippet from the article:

Abstract

The relationship of elevated depression risk recently discovered among adult persons raised by same-sex parents with possible precipitating conditions in childhood has not previously been acknowledged. This study tests whether such inattention is supportable. Logistic regression based risk ratios were estimated from longitudinal measures of mental health outcomes observed in three waves (at ages 15, 22, and 28) of the US National Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 15,701). At age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression (CES-D: risk ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–4.6) as persons raised by man-woman parents. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Elevated risk was associated with imbalanced parental closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity. More research and policy attention to potentially problematic conditions for children with same-sex parents appears warranted.

1. Background

In research and policy settings, children in unique distress with same-sex parents are not supposed to exist. Most studies have reported “no differences” in well-being, most often using psychometric measures of depression or anxiety, supporting a lapse in policy attention to the potential needs of such children. Uniformly benign findings for this population have recently been challenged, however, by several original research efforts [], the rediscovery of older studies [], and the reanalysis of studies long thought to support “no differences” [].

The sparse and gendered nature of the same-sex parent population largely restricts research in this area to the examination of small samples of lesbian parents. Unfortunately, this difficulty has prompted an almost universal dependence on convenience samples [] recruited, with knowledge of study goals, from internet surveys, “LGBT events, bookstore and newspaper advertisements, word of mouth, networking, and youth groups” []. Reanalyses have confirmed, not surprisingly, the presence in such samples of strong ascertainment bias, social desirability bias, and/or positive reporting bias []. In most studies, lack of statistical significance using simple bivariate tests in such samples is then erroneously interpreted as strong evidence of “no differences” in the population, even when difference in estimates or effect sizes are substantively large and even though the sample is not representative [].

In fact, only four of the several dozen studies alleging “no differences” have examined a representative sample. The largest and most recent of these, Rosenfeld’s analysis of 3,174 same-sex parented children on the US Census, is discussed in Section 5. The other three are related studies based on a single sample, a group of 44 adolescents with lesbian parents captured on over 20,000 population-representative cases of the initial wave of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”) []. Sullins, however, recently found that most (27 of the 44) adolescents in this sample allegedly with same-sex parents were actually living with opposite-sex parents including, for most of them, their biological father as well as their mother. After removing the mixed cases, the remaining sample members fared significantly worse on psychometric measures of anxiety and autonomy than did their adolescent counterparts with opposite-sex parents, albeit comprising only 17 cases []. Other studies employing large representative samples have also found higher depressive symptoms, indicated by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D []), among younger same-sex parented children [] and adults who report having had a same-sex-related parent at some point during childhood []. The design and methodology of Regnerus’ study were the subject of a brief but vigorous debate [], which turned largely on definitional issues [].

No study has yet explored the connection, if any, between late onset distress and precipitating conditions in children in this population, and no research reporting “no differences” has yet investigated parental child abuse or adult onset difficulties []. The present study aims to amend these gaps in the research. It improves on the sample limitations of prior studies by employing data that are both representative and longitudinal, following the corrected Add Health sample of adolescents with lesbian parents, the most well-regarded small sample used in this field to date, through Wave IV, thirteen years after the initial interview at age 15 (on average). It improves on prior methods by the use of standard psychometric scales, to the extent possible, and the estimation of relative risk by logistic regression models with appropriate survey weighting. As the first study to examine children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood, this exploratory study aims to contribute new information for understanding of the effects of same-sex parenting through the life-course transition into early adulthood.

The analysis followed a grounded theory approach, first identifying the presence or absence of pertinent differences by family type and then developing and testing grounded hypotheses, drawing both from the observed bivariate characteristics of the data and prior research where applicable. For clarity the research presentation will also follow this order, with the formulation of hypotheses presented following initial bivariate results.

This is how toxic subjects like this are.  The same thing played out when The Bell Curve came out.  Though the evidence was rock solid, the attacks were relentless because nobody wants to address the difficult questions and implications surrounding IQ.  The publisher was quick to put out this “Expression of concern” over the article.  Damage control, as it were.

On behalf of Hindawi Limited, the publisher of Depression Research and Treatment, we would like to express our concern with the article titled “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents” published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016 [].

The article has been cited to support arguments about same-sex marriage that Hindawi believes to be hateful and wrong. These arguments do not represent the views of Hindawi, our staff, or the editorial board of Depression Research and Treatment. We strongly condemn any attempt to justify hate speech or bigotry through reference to the scholarly record.

In June 2016, several readers raised concerns about this article. At that time, we evaluated the article’s peer review process and brought several concerns to the handling editor’s attention. These included: the study’s small sample of same-sex parents, the lack of discussion of other influences such as family breakup on the wellbeing of the children included in the study, the implied causation in the title “Invisible Victims,” and the potential conflict of interest implied by the author’s position as a Catholic priest.

The handling editor believed the article’s reviewers addressed these concerns, and the author made sufficient revisions to the article to address these flaws. In the editor’s opinion, the limitations of the study did not warrant further correction or retraction. As publisher, Hindawi does not overrule the editorial decisions of our academic editors in such cases.

Nevertheless, Hindawi felt it was important for the criticisms of this study to become part of the scientific record. We invited Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a critic of the article and director of the “What We Know” project (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/) at Columbia Law School, to publish a letter to the editor in Depression Research and Treatment making these concerns visible to the journal’s readers []. That letter is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3185067. We also published a subsequent response from Dr. Sullins [].

Whether the long-term outcomes are proven true or false, I have to applaud Dr Sullins for being brave enough to even ask the question.  Again, that is the main thrust of this post.  Yes, it’s a sensitive topic.  Yes, it will ruffle a lot of feathers in the current climate.  But the pursuit of the truth is important.  And if children truly are worse off in same-sex households isn’t it worth investigating that if there is seemingly credible evidence?  I completely agree that additional studies need to be done.  The initial study was funded by a Catholic group.  Which doesn’t necessarily mean it is biased but it opens the door.  It would be great if non-partisan groups did their own studies.  That is how science is supposed to work.  Dr Sullins issued a response to the publisher’s expression of concern which a few snippets are worth posting.  The entire response can be found here.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Frank’s letter [] about my article [] and applaud Hindawi fostering a free and open exchange. Frank’s complaint that I “fudged” the sample to bias the results in ways that are “damning” to gay and lesbian parents is emphatically false. Frank’s claims are based on multiple confusions and errors, mischaracterize the state of knowledge, and use special pleading. To the extent some of his points have merit they tend to undermine not my study but rather others showing benign findings for children with same-sex parents and suggest I have if anything understated the level of harm for such children.

No Harm Studies: 74, or Fewer than 10? Frank characterizes my findings as an “outlier” from 74 studies collected on his website showing no disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. But there are many other studies he did not select, which report difficulties in same-sex partnerships similar to my study. I cited three such studies concerning health difficulties and intimate partner violence (IPV). Messinger’s conclusion, for example, is very similar to mine: “concerns over ‘airing the dirty laundry’ of an already stigmatized community alongside researcher prejudice or indifference cannot justify treating GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] IPV victims as invisible, leaving them without support in a painful and potentially dangerous environment.” [] My study is not an outlier but is in line with the concerns and approach of these other studies.

Frank also does not mention that his website also includes four studies that do show disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. Three of these studies employ three separate large population samples, finding similar levels of disadvantage []. By contrast, the 74 studies include only two or three which use population samples. The remainder are small convenience samples, typically recruited from sympathetic groups and settings, that are (in my view and that of detailed reviews) [] worthless for the question of child outcomes. These studies do not meet minimal scientific standards and are biased toward benign findings []. Asking patrons of a local LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] bookstore or gay friends network about child outcomes is like surveying a Bible study about religiosity: the rosy picture is misleading about the larger population. Excluding such nonrandom or biased samples, fewer than 10 of the 74 studies remain.

One last snippet:

I think I have addressed enough errors in Frank’s critique to establish that his criticisms of my study are unfounded and that my findings are well justified. However, I doubt this will be convincing to him or those sharing his perspective, because what appears to disturb them is not the study methods but the findings. I suspect no evidence will convince Frank that children with same-sex parents may face unique and heightened struggles and difficulties. It is right to be appalled at that thought, but the most useful response is to try to understand the problem better, so as to address the conditions or provide support necessary to ameliorate the problem, not deny the evidence.

And sadly, I think Dr Sullins is right.  Even if this was perfectly executed from a procedural standpoint, it will never be enough, because they don’t like the OUTCOME.  Which is the truly sad part, because in the end if that is the case then it’s the children who are the ones who suffer because of a political agenda.  We may not always like the truth.  It may hurt.  But one should ALWAYS take the truth rather than lie about it.  The more one lies to one’s self, the easier it becomes to justify worse and worse behavior.  Letting the evil one rule over yourself will always lead down a dark path.

If genetics don’t matter…

Then why is it whites systematically beat out hispanics and blacks across the board in this particular arena?

U.S. racial and ethnic groups vary significantly in their knowledge of science-related issues, according to a new Pew Research Center surveythat quizzed Americans about subjects ranging from life and physical sciences to numeracy and chart reading.

About half of whites (48%) got at least nine of 11 questions correct. In comparison, much smaller shares of Hispanics (23%) and blacks (9%) correctly answered at least nine of the questions.

On average, whites got 7.6 questions correct while Hispanics got 5.1 and blacks 3.7. English-speaking Asians got an average of 7.0 correct answers, but it’s important to note the survey was only conducted in English and Spanish. (Asians are less likely than whites and blacks, but not Hispanics, to be proficient in English.)

The poll is careful to point out that whites and blacks only include non-Hispanic.  Given the attacks on the educational system over the years this cannot be simply attributed to which school one or the other went to; most don’t really  have a choice anymore.

FT_19.03.28_ScienceKnowledgeRace_Whitesmorelikely.png

And it can’t really be a fluke if whites perform the best across the board.

People ask why this matters?  “Doesn’t this only fan the flames of hatred and racism?”  No, not at all.  We already know science is dealing with a reproducibility crisis of massive proportions, partially attributed to the fact that scientists are often times not honest at all about the research they are performing.  And rather than face the questions head on and honestly, to garner honest results and potentially enact real, positive, changes to the system, we cover our eyes, block our ears, and pretend that that there’s nothing there.  People are perfectly willing to accept that some races are taller than others and some are faster than others, but the minute you suggest maybe there’s a difference in intelligence as well, everyone freaks out.

Facing the matter head on could yield better ways of educating our children and putting them in environments for them to excel and reach a higher potential of their overall ability.  Treating everyone as if everyone has the exact same capacity and skills is not only ineffective, it is cruel.  And artificially inflating scores or grading on a curve to control how many of which race gets into a particular school is particularly racist.  The actual African-American who is genuinely gifted intellectually is forever questioned whether s/he got in on his/her own merit or if s/he was given a boost.  Completely unfair to those individuals.

People need to learn that there is a difference between the macro and the micro.  It is a fact that on average, east-Asians have a higher IQ than whites.  That is the macro.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t whites who are smarter than some east-Asians; of course there are.  That is also why you should treat people on a per-individual basis.  But to pretend that on the whole we can’t reliably measure and predict on the macro is not only patently absurd, it prevents from ever enacting beneficial change for fear of hurting feelings or some other nonsense.  Then again, in a multicultural society where every group will raise hell anytime anything comes out about them they do not like, what can you really expect?

United Airlines is converged

United Airlines is the latest to kowtow to the SJW narrative.

Welcome Aboard, Mx.: United Airlines Continues to Lead in Inclusivity by Offering Non-Binary Gender Booking Options

March 22, 2019

CHICAGO, March 22, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — United Airlines today announced it has become the first U.S. airline to offer non-binary gender options throughout all booking channels in addition to providing the option to select the title “Mx.” during booking and in a MileagePlus customer profile. Customers now have the ability to identify themselves as M(male), F(female), U(undisclosed) or X(unspecified), corresponding with what is indicated on their passports or identification.

“United is determined to lead the industry in LGBT inclusivity, and we are so proud to be the first U.S. airline to offer these inclusive booking options for our customers,” said United’s Chief Customer Officer Toby Enqvist. “United is excited to share with our customers, whether they identify along the binary of male or female or not, that we are taking the steps to exhibit our care for them while also providing additional employee training to make us even more welcoming for all customers and employees.”

As part of implementing these new changes, United has worked with the Human Rights Campaign and The Trevor Project on employee training initiatives. These initiatives include teaching employees about preferred pronouns and the persistence of gender norms, LGBT competency in the workplace and other steps to make United an inclusive space for both customers and employees.

“At the Human Rights Campaign, we believe being acknowledged as the gender you identify with is part of treating everyone with dignity and respect,” said Beck Bailey, acting director of the Workplace Equality Program. “By providing non-binary gender selection for ticketing and the gender-inclusive honorific ‘Mx’ in user profiles, United Airlines is taking an important step forward for non-binary inclusion.”

People often say “why do you care so much?”.  The more ground we cede to this utter nonsense the harder it is going to be to take it back later.  Again, capitulating to this more-than-two-genders BS is only adding to the delusion of these people.  We cannot give into their fantasy, their mental illness.  These people need professional help and our compassion.  Playing along with their illness is not helping.

What’s the over/under on how long it takes before a flight attendant or gate agent uses the wrong pronoun on one of these unhinged people and gets sued for millions?

Child Abuse

From an article recently posted on the Christian Post:

Eight year-old Jack Wilson was on a weekend visit to his grandparents’ house in mid-December 2016 when he informed his grandmother that his name was really Jacquelyn.

“Grammy, my name is Jacquelyn,” he complained as he walked into the room and sat down at the kitchen table for lunch. He had just received Christmas presents from friends of his grandmother addressed to “Jack” and was visibly upset.

“Why is that your name?” Amanda Wilson, his grandmother, asked in response as she set a plate of chicken and rice in front of him.

He replied: “Because I’m a girl now.”

“What makes you think you’re a girl?” she inquired.

“It’s my gender,” he said.

She pressed him: “Well, what’s a gender?”

He stared back at her, puzzled, and said: “I don’t know.”

Amanda Wilson hasn’t seen her grandson in two years and each day she longs to hold him in her arms and hug him but can’t. Her daughter, Marissa, and her spouse began believing that little Jack was really a girl around three years ago and because Wilson doesn’t agree they’ve cut off all contact with her, no longer speak, and don’t allow her and her husband to see him.

Shortly after Jack turned 7, Marissa and her spouse excitedly announced on social media that Jack was a girl and they couldn’t wait to start him on puberty blockers in two years when he turned 9. They posted a picture of Marissa’s spouse and Jack outside a children’s hospital that is home to one of the 55 transgender clinics now operating in the United States.

The social media account Wilson’s daughter had was deactivated and Wilson no longer has the exact words of her daughter’s happiness about starting Jack on puberty blockers but she still has the picture.

At Wilson’s request, The Christian Post is using pseudonyms in this report and has changed or removed identifying details in order to maintain her anonymity. Although she was baptized as a Methodist, Wilson is not a subscriber to any particular religious faith but chose to speak with CP because she felt it was important that the voice of a grandmother is heard as more parents speak out about their heartache of losing their children to what many are calling a transgender “social contagion.” She has reached out to many secular journalists to no avail.

In 2008, Marissa, who lives just outside of Portland, Maine, was in a relationship with a man, became pregnant and gave birth to Jack in 2009. That relationship ended soon after Jack was born and just a few years later, when Marissa was 26, she came out as a lesbian and started dating a woman. Approximately 16 months later, they married in June 2013. Seven months into that marriage her spouse came out as transgender and changed her name to a male name and started taking hormones. The couple separated last year and now share custody of Jack.

What do you call this if not child abuse?

As mentioned in a post last week, as Christianity has been systematically removed from western civilization so has any moral imperative to be honest.  We have seen this most notably in politics and science, to name just two examples.  Without any higher moral impetus to tell the truth, money and ego have pervaded the science community and resulted in a reproducibility crisis, amongst other things.  Another area that has been hit hard, because the science community is unwilling to tell the truth about many things, is more extensive research on “uncomfortable” topics.

There are many verboten topics in science including IQ with respect to race, sexuality, and honest climate science.  Within the past few years there has been a concerted effort to pervert sexuality.  They tell us it is on a spectrum, that there are more than 2 genders, and that homosexuality is inherently natural.  Before I go further I should say I do not have a dog in this fight, other than wanting the best for our society.  I am on a journey to seek the truth, and not turn away from it regardless if it makes me uncomfortable or reveals hard truths that are painful to swallow.

I don’t know if homosexuality is natural.  Clearly it cannot be the norm, or else we would not survive as a species.  My guidance on the matter comes from the Bible.  But we need to do far more research into the topic.  While many people are convinced that it is entirely genetic that is highly questionable.  There are some studies, though hard to confirm in this day and age, that have studied identical twins.  One of them is straight and the other is not.  If this is true, then it clearly cannot be entirely genetic.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is we need better studies on sexuality in general.  We need to understand how one becomes homosexual.  We need to better understand the underpinnings of what makes one think they are transsexual.  And we need to be honest and truthful about the results that we find.  Going further, if what we do find suggests it is something mental or points to mentally unstable people, perhaps we need to reconsider who should be allowed to be able to adopt and raise children.

Again, this is an uncomfortable topic and I am merely searching for the truth.  If we can’t even talk about the subject we have a major problem as a society.  I don’t want to have to say that we shouldn’t allow some people to be able to adopt children and others not.  But if there is consistent evidence that points to negative outcomes for the children being adopted, the entirely innocent party in this, the topic needs to be revisited.  This to me is a clear cut case of child abuse.  At least one, if not both, of the parents have serious issues, and they are foisting these issues onto an innocent child.  There is no way in hell this kid thinks they are a girl on their own.  It is being placed in their heads by the parents.  And no.  It is not brave.  It is not admirable.  It is disgusting.  They are poisoning this child’s brain with this vile garbage.  Socially (and soon unnaturally) engineering him into being what THEY want to see him become, not with the best interest of him in mind.  Can we please use some common sense and call this what it is, rather than kowtow to the sick fantasies of the parents?

Speaking the truth

Matthew 5:37 New King James Version (NKJV)

37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

If you aren’t already following Vox Day’s blog I highly suggest that you do.  This is a passage he often brings up.

There are signs all around us that western civilization is crumbling.  Much of it has to do with the removal of Christianity from the equation, one of the three main pillars of western civilization.  I could be wrong, but in no other major religion is it explicitly stated to always tell the truth.  This is a distinctly Christian value.  There are exceptions where one can lie in Judaism, and lying is explicitly allowed in Islam as well.  Contrary to what many may think, telling the truth is not a self-evident virtue.  Nor is it part of Judeo-Christian morality, as this is a made up term and does not exist.

There may be no more telling evidence of how important Christianity is to western civilization than this.  We see it every day, notably in politics and science.  And the more people accept and rationalize that it is okay to lie, and the more that it is done and allowed to be done without any repercussions, the worse it will continue to get.

Take politics.  There are very few people left in politics that one can say are truly Christian.  Combine this with a population that is becoming less Christian and you have a recipe for disaster.  Lying becomes normalized.  It becomes accepted.  Tolerated.  To the point where it becomes more surprising when someone is actually punished for lying than the other way around.  How many people have lied under oath and had no repercussions?  Who knows how many times Hillary Clinton has lied under oath.  The Benghazi fiasco is just one of probably many.  Swamp creature James Brennan lied under oath about the NSA spying on Americans.  The depths of lying under oath for the Hillary Clinton email scandal and Russia scandal witch hunt, with any luck, will all come out some day.  Lying has become normalized and expected.  And there are very few, if any, Christians left in Congress to stand up for the truth and enact punishments for these people who have committed perjury and often times treason.  No good Christian would lie under oath.  And anything goes for all of these non-Christians who are under oath and are lying outright.  Why not, if you think you can get away with it and see no other higher reason to tell the truth?

You see the same in the science community as well.  Scientific study was funded by churches early on, and many scientists were Christian.  Somehow throughout the years Christianity has been stigmatized in the science world, and Christians have been ridiculed and driven out in many disciplines.  Is it any surprise that science has a reproducibility crisis?  Even in the hard sciences!  When there is no greater purpose to tell the truth, to let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything can be rationalized.  When you tell yourself everything is subjective, that there is no objective truth, anything can be allowed.  “Oh, I need to fudge these numbers, or omit this piece of data that would refute my work, or I wouldn’t get the funding I need.”  Or lying to protect one’s life’s work, even if it is demonstrably false.

These are just two of many examples.  Humans are not inherently wired to tell the truth regardless of the situation.  It would do western civilization a world of good, and its very survival depends upon, restoring the pillar of Christianity to it.  To bring back Christian morals.  To let your yes be yes and your no be no, as Jesus Christ taught.

Can we pump the brakes on 5G?

I came across this video on my feed today and it is a topic I have wanted to write about for a while.  It seems like the push for 5G everywhere has become ramped up in the past year.  Whatever one’s position is on 5G, I think most people can agree that it warrants a far more in-depth investigation into its potential health effects on a population, especially when the towers that need to be installed are no longer 1000s of feet or several miles away but rather only a couple hundred feet and far more numerous throughout neighborhoods and right next to homes.

Sites like infowars.com present far more concerns about privacy instead of just the health risks.  And sure, you can laugh at infowars, but they seem to be a far more reliable news source these days than a lot of others out there.

Take a look at the video if you are interested.  A few interesting takeaways I didn’t realize:

  • The weaker your cell signal, the more radiation your phone puts out to make the connection with the cell tower
  • There are studies out there that link exposure to brain cancers like glioblastomas (GBM)
  • The acceptable levels of RF exposure via each country’s guidelines show that we allow waaaaaay more here in the USA than most other countries, including China by orders of magnitude.
  • It is usually telling when a country like Israel bans Wi-Fi in schools for worries of exposure.

Judge for yourself.  It would always seem prudent to err on the side of caution before rolling out massive technologies too quickly without knowing the consequences.  It seems like the potential risks outweigh the benefits by a large margin at this point.  Are people really that unsatisfied with the current speeds we download at?  Enough to warrant this potential risk?

Lowest

Apple.JPG

TENS is falling apart

It should never be this way, but there are a few areas of science that are untouchable for one reason or another.  Questioning climate change will get you ridiculed and potentially risk your career.  Other topics, like the investigation of IQ and differences across races, is subverted to the point that it is hardly studied at all anymore, and like climate change is career suicide.  The theory of evolution by natural selection is another sacred cow that is all too often accepted as scientific fact.  But the theory is falling apart, and more than 1,000 brave scientists are risking their careers to sign a dissent statement about it.

Earlier this month, a long kept list of Ph.D. scientists who “dissent from Darwinism” reached a milestone — it crossed the threshold of 1,000 signers.

“There are 1,043 scientists on the ‘A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism’ list. It passed the 1,000 mark this month,” said Sarah Chaffee, a program officer for the Discovery Institute, which maintains the list.

“A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism” is a simple, 32-word statement that reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Launched in 2001, the list continues to collect support from scientists from universities across America and globally. Signers have earned their Ph.D.s at institutions that include Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania. Others on the list earned their doctorates at Clemson, UT Austin, Ohio State, UCLA, Duke, Stanford, Emory, UNC Chapel Hill and many others universities. Still other signers are currently employed as professors across the nation.

Those who sign it “must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine,” according to the institute.

The group points out that signing the statement does not mean these scholars endorse “alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design,” but rather simply indicates “skepticism about modern Darwinian theories central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life.”

According to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer, the signers “have all risked their careers or reputations in signing.”

The theory of evolution by natural selection, much like climate change, is one of those topics every lay person takes for granted assuming it is true because lots of scientists say that it is.  And like climate change, you are roundly laughed at or worse if you even remotely question its validity.

If you are willing to keep an open mind, consider watching the three videos below.  One is a debate between Vox Day and biologist Jean-Francois Gariépy.  It is Vox Day essentially positing his theory to JF about why he doesn’t think TENS is a realistic possibility.  What is interesting about it is he is coming at it from an economist point of view, as that is his background.  In short, the math doesn’t add up.

The debate goes a little bit off the rails so I’m also including a follow up video by Vox Day here where he goes into more detail and breaks down his line of thinking a bit more for those who did not understand the debate.  It is also clear that JF is dodging the question, but decide for yourselves.  And lastly, another video by VD…the nail in the coffin of human evolution.

Pure Evil

An old article from 2015 is circulating around voat about reports of Planned Parenthood keeping aborted babies alive to harvest organs.  This is the hill worth dying on, folks.  This is pure evil.  And it is not debatable.  Shame on any pro-choicer who defends funding this institution.  Enough with the pleasantries.  IT IS NOT OKAY TO KEEP BABIES ALIVE TO HARVEST THEIR ORGANS.  I thought I was once pro-choice for very early abortions.  No more.  Via the article:

In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthoodpersonnel and practices.

And a little further down:

California law also prohibits any kind of experimentation on a fetus with a discernible heartbeat, said the Center for Medical Progress, which is calling for the federal government to cease its $500 million a year support to Planned Parenthood and for it to be investigated.

“Today’s video is especially gruesome, and it shows, once again, the barbarity of what takes place at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country,” said Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, one of several congressional panels investigating Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday that all the videos are “disturbing,” and his committee’s investigation will look into whether “any federal funding supported transactions involving fetal tissue.”

“Top-level employees of Planned Parenthood admit to changing their procedures to harvest intact bodies of unborn children for body-part trafficking,” said Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice.

Mr. Franks and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, also said Wednesday that they have written to 58 Planned Parenthood affiliates. They are seeking 10 years of data about all abortions, late-term abortions, “born-alive” infants, fetal tissue collections and any modifications of abortion techniques to “increase the odds of preserving intact fetal tissue and organs.”

Five states — Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah and New Hampshire — already have defunded Planned Parenthood.

The video is posted below.  It is a little gruesome at parts, especially from the 5′ 30″ mark going forward.

The article was from 2015.  Planned Parenthood’s annual report from 2017-2018 shows that they are still well funded over half a billion dollars a year from the government.  That is your tax money, folks.

PPFunding2018PieChart

PPFunding2018

This is what happens when you turn away from God.  People can roll their eyes; once upon a time I would have too.  But it is true.  Since we have turned away from Christianity can we honestly say we are better off as a country?  Have we really progressed as a society?  No.  Christianity instilled a moral compass that has been eroded to the point where you are shamed if you question the KILLING OF BABIES.  Where some people will honestly justify this, like it is an acceptable moral position, saying a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body.  NO.  The moment you decide to make a bad decision, the moment you choose to get blackout drunk and sleep with someone you probably don’t even know, you have made your decision.  When another life now depends on your own, you do not have the right to kill it.  Shame on us for ever allowing it to come to this.  Where we cannot even hold that moral position without caving to some BS about “my body my choice”.  It is not progress to kill a human life because a woman wants carte blanche to sleep with as many partners as she wants and then not suffer any of the consequences of her actions.  Even worse is that we are all paying for it.  Why are we funding birth control measures?  Why are we funding abortions?  Yes, Planned Parenthood receives federal reimbursement through Medicaid.  Medicaid covers abortions.

Enough is enough.  Do not commit the sin of omission by sitting idly by knowing what you now know about the situation.  Write your state representatives.  Do not be afraid to call out pro-choicers, feminists, or anyone else who will try to justify this unjustifiable position.  Vote out the politicians who support funding Planned Parenthood.  Consider moving to states that will not fund this.  The reasons continue to pile up for why I should leave California and move back to New Hampshire.  California is at the very heart of all of this.  We all need to step up and take action.  Merely shaking our heads and saying how terrible it is is not enough.  Spread the word.

More abortion atrocities

This time in Virginia.  A bill has been proposed there to abort up to…and after…birth.  Via freebeacon.com:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?” Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked.

“Or physical health,” Tran said.

“Okay,” Gilbert replied. “I’m talking about the mental health.”

“I mean, through the third trimester,” Tran said. “The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks.”

“Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?” Gilbert asked.

“Yup, I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” Tran said.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?” Gilbert asked. “She’s dilating.”

Tran responded that is a decision between the woman and her doctor would have to make. Gilbert asked if her bill would allow an abortion right before the infant was born.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran said.

And a little further down:

Northam continued by saying government shouldn’t be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn’t be telling women what to do.

“I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should or shouldn’t be doing with her body,” Northam said.

I don’t need to be a woman to know that it’s fucking MURDER to abort a baby 10 seconds before a woman gives birth.  Lady, that is not your right.  Do these people have any compassion at all?  How utterly self-centered and morally deprived does one have to be to take the position that this is okay?  This is pure evil.

Again, as with the NY abortion law, this country may not be worth saving if this is the direction we are going to go.  I do not want to live in a country where this becomes acceptable.  We have to fight back against this.  Literally murdering children.

Are people enjoying the civilization we have now since we removed Christ from the equation?  Is this really better?  Do people really feel like we’ve hit some kind of moral nirvana, some higher level of moral consciousness, since we became a post-Christian nation?  I for one do not think allowing babies to be murdered seconds before they are born, or after they are born, is a step in the right direction.  I will post this video once again as long as the link stays up to remind people what a third trimester abortion entails.

NY approves horrific abortion law

Something those at CNN will no doubt applaud as progressive and some great step forward.

On the 46th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, New York state passed a law to protect women’s access to abortion if the historic case is overturned.

“Today we are taking a giant step forward in the hard-fought battle to ensure a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own personal health, including the ability to access an abortion. With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body,” said Gov. Andrew Cuomo after signing New York’s Reproductive Health Act on Tuesday night.
Not only will the law preserve access to abortions, it also removes abortion from the state’s criminal code. This would protect doctors or medical professionals who perform abortions from criminal prosecution. The law also now allows medical professionals who are not doctors to perform abortions in New York.
“The old law had criminal penalties. It was written that the doctor or professional could be held criminally liable,” Cuomo said during an interview on WNYC Wednesday.
The law also addresses late-term abortions. Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, they can be performed after 24 weeks if the fetus is not viable or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.
“It’s about the health and safety of the mother and it’s always been the point where the conservatives wave the flag, they want to roll back Roe v. Wade — this is not gray here it’s black and white,” said Cuomo.
Atrocious.  This is not progress.  This is a disaster and morally reprehensible on so many levels.  Essentially they’ve legalized 3rd trimester abortions.  They now allow less qualified people to perform abortions.  And they’ve removed it from the criminal code so if a woman is assaulted and the baby and/or the mother dies the consequences are much less.
This whole notion of “my body, my choice” bullshit has gone way too far.  How about this ladies, if you make terrible decisions why not live with the consequences of your actions?  Getting blackout drunk and sleeping with numerous random partners will have consequences.  The fact that we’ve removed said consequences does not absolve the bad behavior.  It’s clear that these women clearly aren’t mother material in the first place, but it’s disgusting to think that they’d end a life, a defenseless life literally depending on you to survive, because, welp, “my body my choice”.  Please spare me the BS about the health concerns.  The amount of sketchy stuff that goes on in abortion clinics, as we’ve seen with Planned Parenthood executives bargaining to sell baby parts, does not give me any hope that they’ll have strict guidelines at all regarding the health issue.  Mental anguish will surely be enough to “warrant” this 3rd trimester abortion.
Nope.  This is pure evil.  A baby can be delivered prematurely months before they are due.  This is not just a few cells.  This is a baby.  The fact that this even needs to be discussed shows you how deep the moral rot is in our country.  Remove Christianity from Western Civilization and this is what you get: celebration over being able to abort a baby minutes before it’s born.
I’ve tried to temper my judgement for people defending this in the event that maybe they just don’t know what goes into a 3rd trimester abortion.  Share this video, if it even survives on YouTube, on 3rd trimester abortions.  Gruesome stuff.
%d bloggers like this: