If you are Pro-Choice as well as anti-death penalty, you've got a serious conflict.

That is what abortion is: The death penalty, only worse.

Let's say that John Smith murdered a hundred women in the most vile manner possible.

He would have committed several crimes to become eligible for the death penalty in America.

He would, however, get a full trial, with appeals, averaging an 18 year delay between arrest and sentence.

Then, he would be killed in the most humane manner possible, unless he requested to be shot or hung, in which case, that's his decision.

Abortion is the death penalty for someone who never committed a crime; never gets a trial, and they will be killed in the most inhumane manner possible.

Ripped limb from limb, or chemically scalded to death or the new thing is to poke a hole in the skull and vacuum the brains out.

Is this a position that anyone really wants to defend?

People talking about time travel always bring up the classical question: If time travel were possible, could you travel to the past and kill your grandfather?

After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that the answer is YES.

I have developed a simple theory to demonstrate. This theory is measurable as well as universal (as much as we can describe something with that term) and can be successfully applied during any point in history or the present.

It is summed up thusly:

Past Actions > Present Actions > Future Actions

That is, Past Actions take precedence over Present Actions which take precedence over Future Actions.

Using that theory, if someone went to the past and killed their own grandfather, the grandfather would indeed be dead, but the grandson would still exist.

Why?

Because the grandson exists in the past and therefore his existence in the past takes precedence over the future repercussions of his actions, even his non-birth.

Not only that, but the grandson would not instantly disappear or slowly fade away as many television shows would assume.

After all, why would he?

His presence in the past proved his existence, taking precedence over the present and future (assuming he lives to those periods of time).

Therefore, his moving forward in time would not negate that fact. His moving through time, in fact, guarantees his existence during any time period that he travels to!

The only problem would be that when he traveled to the future again, no one would know him, since in the newly reformed Time continuum, he was never born, never met his friends, never got the job he had, never married his wife, etc.

TIME TRAVEL RULE #1: If you travel to the past, make sure you have a DVD of home movies showing your wedding, stuff at work and movies of all your friends.

Why?

Because you would paradoxically but literally have a man exist from another world (a parallel universe that no longer exists anywhere but in his memory) without mother, father or even BIRTH.

End result?

Again, my Time/Space Theory:

Past Actions > Current Actions > Future Actions

BTW, the term "Parallel Universe" is the description of a Time and/or Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons unaffected by the change.

It cannot be used in any other context.

The traditional view of parallel universes states that any time a divergent action is caused other than normally what happened in the past (Joe walked on the left side of the street instead of the right), then an alternate or "parallel universe" is created.

That is not correct.

Again, "Parallel universe" is simply the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons.

Only human vanity would believe that one person manipulating an event in the past can create an exact copy of the entire universe billions if not trillions of time per second.

Think about it: the proposition of this theory requires you to somehow believe that if you go to the past, changing one thing would literally create (down to the molecular level) another universe, with another exact set of STARS, PLANETS, PEOPLE, etc???

As any scientist knows, such creation would require a near beyond belief expenditure of energy and there is nothing in the "Parallel Universe" theory that explains :

1) Where this energy comes from
2) How it is expended and
3) Why / how it precisely duplicates the known universe with the exception of one event (and therefore, the resultant consequences)

"Ah," one of you says, "The energy that transported you to the past is what makes the change."

That adds MORE problems:

1) There is not enough energy in such a transfer (There is not enough energy on Earth to duplicate the entire universe)

2) The energy transference is not linked directly to changing a past event. (i.e., the energy isn't related to the fact that Johnny walked on the left side of the street instead of the right and even IF it were, how would that cause said energy to duplicate the universe?)

"Parallel Universe" therefore can only be recognized as a term used to describe the memory of how the universe used to be, no more.

Thoughts?

(C) 2000, Gerald Welch. All Rights Reserved.

When it comes to the topic of abortion, you will hear many claims. Things like "a woman's right to choose" or "reproductive freedom" without any background.

But they forget; despite the Supreme Court's attempt at overstepping their Article III and Tenth Amendment limitations (apart from ignoring the Fifth Amendment right to life), there is no such thing as a "right to abortion".

You will also hear things like "No one knows when life begins, and besides, it's not even human."

An easy one to rebut;

1) If it's not human, please tell me what species it is. Seriously, think about it; are you LITERALLY trying to say that a "species change" occurs in the womb? At no time is the offspring of a human anything other than a human. That's basic biology.

2) You don't think it's alive? Hate to update you, but we learned over a hundred years ago that life doesn't come from non-life. Get with the twenty-first century...

I encourage anyone who wishes to address this subject to reply.

I used to be Pro-Choice until I learned better.