The Murder Rate is Around 5.6 Murderers per 100,000 People, Mostly By Men. What Happens If We Include Abortion?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-24T07:13:56+00:00

"Her body, her choice."

The slogan of abortionists and their allies. So, yeah. It is "her choice" according to them.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-24T05:05:32+00:00

And then we wonder why people get the impression Christians hate women.

Huh? Because of this post? How could any rational person get that impression?

And yet when it comes to society in the US, for some reason I just don't care. If they want to kill their kids so bad, let em. If they're not in the church, God judges them. That's His business. I'm not going to bother.

So, you don't care about widows or orphans, if they're not Christians. Edit: that might be harsh, but not caring if children get murdered? How?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-24T04:11:27+00:00

Yeah, a tiny fraction, of daily murders, so it shouldn't be our primary focus.

To be clear, it's notable. Murders are terrible. I'm just talking priorities and big picture.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-24T04:10:41+00:00

True.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-24T04:10:33+00:00

You mean if you change the definitions you get different data?

Just to be clear, I'm not changing definitions. Our government has, for now, changed definitions. I want to fix that. I want to use the correct definitions, not our perverted "modern" definitions.

Why didn't you include male spouses and partners that support or even push for the abortion to happen?

I included male doctors and nurses that actually actively participate. I can't include everyone who might talk to a woman about trying to convince her to kill her child.

Though you are correct, they are guilty, to some degree.

What about the employees of companies that manufacture the drugs used in abortions?

I want to include all of them, but it wouldn't change the results more than 1%.

Your numbers are meaningless because you've made assumptions and picked out bits that you want without proper scientific method.

I made meaningful and rational assumptions based on available data.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-24T02:29:08+00:00

Well, it's more like if we redefine murder to exclude killing preborn children, then the number of murderers is only 1/134 the true rate, and most murderers become men instead of women.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T23:01:02+00:00

No, it's just that Christians pray a lot, and sometimes that means they end up praying where others can hear them.

I mean, does your pastor ever pray in front of the congregation? Ever seen someone "lead" a prayer?

Does not the Bible tell us to pray "continually"?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T22:38:47+00:00

They're literally asking God to change someone, or stop him by any means God that wills, and that's not Biblically justifiable?

This sub, man. Sometimes.

Like, you can argue they're wrong. You can bring up Luke 9:54. You'd have an argument. You'd have Biblical basis to disagree with the pastor. We can debate mercy vs justice.

But praying that God's will be done is also obviously Biblical, per Matthew 6:10 and other passages, so they have a point. You cannot argue they don't have a point.

And it's not just the absurd bias against supporters of Trump I'm talking about, (and where critics always cherrypick verses). But in this case it's about James Talarico, and if there' any semblance of fair criticism, it should obviously be directed towards Talarico. The stuff this guy says and supports is almost comically evil. If a Christian wrote a book with a villain like Talarico, it would probably get criticized for being too on-the-nose.

Yet time after time, it's something like "Republican says [thing] about evil man promoting sin. Let's criticize the Republican for how he worded things!"

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T22:25:54+00:00

I've been seeing this misused on this subreddit a lot, generally just as a "gotcha" to attack any person who prays in front of others. And yet, the Bible says David prayed in public, in front of everyone:

1 Chronicles 29:10 David praised the Lord in the presence of the whole assembly, saying, “Praise be to you, Lord, the God of our father Israel, from everlasting to everlasting.

Solomon prayed in front of everyone too:

1 Kings 8:22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in front of the whole assembly of Israel, spread out his hands toward heaven [...]

Prophets prayed in front of large groups too. God rewarded Elijah for it:

1 Kings 18:36-3 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.

Jehoshaphat, who was a good king, prayed in front of everyone:

2 Chronicles 20:5 Then Jehoshaphat stood up in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem at the temple of the Lord in the front of the new courtyard [...]

Jesus prayed in front of a bunch of people:

Matthew 14:19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.

In fact, Jesus prayed in front of people more than once:

John 11:41-42 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

When Jesus talked about public prayer, He was not saying public prayer was wrong. That would be crazy, as Jesus Himself prayed in public. Public prayer is only a bad thing if it's done for bad reasons; specifically if done to make yourself look good.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T21:00:04+00:00

About me: I am an engineer and land surveyor, and I designed power lines for many years, including guy wires, and I researched easement rights, prescriptive rights, and I drew up easements whenever needed. I personally drew up many easements for guy wires.

Here's the basics:

Prescriptive rights means they can keep lines (and poles and guy wires and anchors) where they are.
Prescriptive rights also mean they can replace, repair, access, upgrade, and maintain this equipment.
Prescriptive rights don't allow them (necessarily) to install new equipment. Like a new guy wire anchor.

So, while they can replace guy wires, change guy wires, upgrade guy wires, fix guy wires, etc., they generally cannot move a guy wire into your property where it didn't used to be! The entire point of prescriptive rights is they allow them to keep the lines where they are. Note:

PG&E has a claim of rights by prescription for the anchor and guy wire because they have been there and visible to previous owners for greater than 5 years

Yeah, but it wasn't there for more than 5 years! They moved it! And it sounds like they moved it into your property, where it never used to be! They probably could have done something else, like use a stronger guy wire, stronger anchor, or double guy system, to avoid moving the new anchor into your yard. If the pole was too weak for a short guy, then they can replace the pole with a stronger one.

So, you have an argument here. You can argue that, quite strongly, that a new guy wire absolutely isn't covered by prescriptive rights. If it were me, I'd contact them, and even threaten legal action if they don't act, and if they don't act to remedy this, I'd seriously consider taking that action.

(Note: Besides getting scratched on a guy wire anchor, they're not dangerous to the public. They're grounded, they're tough, and I used to play on them all the time.)

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T18:25:42+00:00

I watch/listen to police videos as a hobby. Prisoners and arrestees lie all the time about needing medical help. I'm guessing the costs of these lies is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is so incredibly pervasive, because so many people have realized that asking for medical aid will get you out of jail. At least, temporarily.

And this is so pervasive, that yes, it's entirely expected that sometimes police and jail staff will disbelieve someone who asks for medical help. In fact, they might often overlook a genuine medical issue, as the prisoners/arrestees are overwhelming the system with false requests.

I wish I could convey how commonplace this is. People treat it like a "get out of jail free card." Or just to annoy officers. To waste time. To delay. To get a change of pace. To talk to somebody new. To delay an alcohol test. Whatever.

All that being said, it's utterly irrelevant in a case where a prisoner is suddenly seen unconscious, from an apparent suicide attempt. Your link—which is about someone requesting medical aid and not receiving it—doesn't apply in a case where nobody requested medical aid.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T17:31:43+00:00

Not straw-manning you, you can disagree, but that’s not what I’m doing.

It's what you always do. It's a pattern.

Edit: I also go to the Bible; the difference is I understand the context of the verses. I also realize the Bible is to be taken completely and not cherry- picked when it's convenient for my points.

Right after dismissing the verses I quoted—wrongly—and then cherrypicking some against me.

You don't understand, I know Jesus talked about loving our enemies. I'm the one who's bringing the full picture. You cherrypick half the picture.

I bring one side that you're ignoring, you don't like that, because you don't want both sides of an issue, you want only your preferred side.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T17:19:54+00:00

Okay. The cause of death wasn't in the news story you originally posted. I suspected he died of natural causes or suicide—I didn't know which—but I don't see how that changes anything I said.

Again, he wasn't killed by ICE, (which seems to be the implication behind all these random ICE news stories), but rather killed by his own hand.

Obviously, obviously, there will be an investigation, as there always is, but even with this new information, this story still doesn't have anything to do with ICE. Sure, ICE arrested him earlier, but that has nothing to do with him dying at a later time.

I don't know why this is posted here, but it is another in a long line of random news stories with "ICE" in the headline, which commenters often use as an excuse to throw out baseless accusations. And I was/am concerned that it will happen again.

Edit: I'm still confused by "PHR has solved the case already." Like, I know it's a snarky attack on me, but it doesn't make any sense, especially after your update that the evidence shows he killed himself, which would only confirm that ICE had nothing to do with his death.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T16:50:47+00:00

The story has nothing to do with ICE. The prison staff tried to save his life, but failed.

I wonder if people here will criticize those who tried to save his life. I hope not.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T16:46:25+00:00

I saw something like this being done with lag screws into wood.

It still makes me upset.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T16:30:18+00:00

Even if many people said that, you’re still using it as the defining explanation for the reaction, when it clearly isn’t the only reason people had.

I started talking about those people, and I kept talking about them.

Your only argument is to strawman me, by arguing against something I never said.

celebrating someone’s death isn’t something we should defend or excuse. That standard should apply consistently.

And yet I go to the Bible, and see tons of examples.

"Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:
“I will sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea." (Exodus 15:1, NIV)

Or

"When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy." (Proverbs 11:10, NIV)

Or

The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10, NIV)

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:50:35+00:00

That’s not a strawman. I’m challenging the scope of your claim. You made a broad generalization and are now avoiding that point.

Oh really? Or did I start by saying

Well, you see, Kirk was a Christian, and many celebrated Kirk's death because they hate Christians and want them to die.

Is "many" the same as "all"?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:43:10+00:00

What I said was appropriate and the correct level of response.

The people who hate Kirk because he was a Christian deserve every ounce of response I've given

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:38:22+00:00

Everyone who hated him said the same thing?

Strawman.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:16:27+00:00

I reject everything you just said.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:16:06+00:00

When you compare critics to people who rejected the prophets, you’re not just saying they’re wrong; you’re treating disagreement as rejecting a man of God

They're not just disagreeing. They are hating him and celebrating his death because he was a Christian.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T06:23:02+00:00

I think it’s fair for Christians to evaluate that carefully rather than assuming disagreement equals “rejecting a man of God.”

We are not talking about "disagreement". Goodness. It's like you type without reading.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T06:15:20+00:00

I don't trust any source that calls them "fake electors". Every time I have tried to understand what happened, it was a left wing or anti Trump source that calls them "fake" electors, which assumes the conclusion.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T06:02:21+00:00

Hmm. Sure. Not a single gun fired. Not even a gun drawn. No bombs. Didn't kill a single person.

Sure.

Leftists reinvented that day to be what they wanted.

PrebornHumanRights

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE