Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by MattthewCScallon

Peters Denounces Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling; DeMaio Responds

@Peking_Duck_SD, you're entitled to your religious bigotry, but you're not allowed to pass it off as science.

Contraceptives prevent conception. In fact, it's in the word; "contra," meaning, "opposed to," or "against." Abortifacients don't prevent conception. Conception occurs, and then the abortifacients acts to kill off human embryo, either by making the uterine environment chemically toxic (e.g, IUD), making the uterine wall impermeable to implantation, or killing the embryo directly through introducing a toxin into the uterine environment. Since all this occurs once the human embryo has already fecundated, they are not contraceptive and are therefore abortifacient.

Now, I realize that, as a scientist, I may used some words which layman may not be familiar with, but my information comes from empirically repeated, peer reviewed sources. I specifically reference the sworn testimony of the late Dr. Jerome LeJeune, one of this world's leading embryologist, recorded the book, "The Concentration Can."

There is no scientific doubt that human life begins when the human sperm fertilizes the human ovum. At that point, we have, barring contamination and mutation, 46 human chromosomes, 23 from the father's sperm and 23 from the mother's ovum. If you have scientific source that proves to the contrary, then please provide it. If you can't, then you can't keep your snarky remarks to yourself.

July 3, 2014 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Peters Denounces Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling; DeMaio Responds

I'm sorry that Scott Peters hates religious liberty.

I'm sorry that KPBS rejects science by not distinguishing between contraceptives and abortifacients by lumping the former with the latter in its reporting.

And I'm sorry that Carl DeMaio is just as spineless as his opponent.

July 2, 2014 at 5:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New California Law Requires Doctor's Note For Vaccine Exemptions... But There's An Out

@Peking_Duck_SD, why should the evil perpetrated for profit by Big Pharma be rewarded with shoddy reporting? Why can't this same reporter bother herself to question why the FDA refuses to approve a morally acceptable form of the MMR rather than rail against said moral positions against morally objectionable vaccines?

January 14, 2014 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New California Law Requires Doctor's Note For Vaccine Exemptions... But There's An Out

@Claire Trageser, so protecting religious beliefs in the law is something you take as a, "weakness in the law?" That certainly explains a lot.

There are moral problems with different vaccines. The MMR vaccine in this country, for example, come from the cells of a murdered baby whose cells are continually kept alive in order to produce the vaccine --with the accompanying profits . Though such a vaccine can save a child's life, that only ameliorates the evil of murdering the baby. The UK has an MMR vaccine that doesn't depend upon the cells of a murdered baby, but the FDA refuses to approve its use in this country. And, so long as reporters such as yourself consider religious beliefs and moral discernment to be a, "weakness in the law," I don't see much hope in that changing.

January 7, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner Resigns

He blamed his opponents for his own bad behavior. No, Bob. You're the only who's to blame. You have political opponents? Guess who's to blame for their opposition? You are, Bob, and only you. You tore apart fellow Democrats, treated anyone who was running for the same office like scum, and, as it turns out, it is you, Bob, who's truly scum.

Goodbye to bad garbage.

August 23, 2013 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chancellor: Two-Tiered System Could Privatize Community Colleges

I don't know how the education code is written in California, but, back in Illinois, the community college attended routinely charged more for more expensive courses. For example, both my computer programming and music classes charged a, "lab" fee. Now, practice space for a bass stretches the definition of a, "lab," but everyone knew that this was the way to pay for extra equipment or, in the case of my bass class, a specilized instructor.

April 5, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Schools Trustee Says District Dropping Ball On Academic Planning

Wow! The government schools underperform yet again, and that's when they get MORE money! Maybe if they got LESS money, they might perform better --or at least it would free up the taxpayers' dollar so parents can pay for a private school that really educates their child.

I can only hope for the latter....

March 29, 2012 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@DeLaRick, that is not so. The sacred seal of confession is still in place, regardless of what sin might be confessed. So you're factually incorrect.

Just, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Catholic Church "adapts" Her doctrine on Onanism. If She does, that's Her business and not the business of the government. The only one with a "just because" approach to morality are the relativists who claim that a change in doctrine is an "adaptation." The Catholic Church has reams of explanatory to why Onanism is wrong. What does the other side have? Nothing but polls. For the record, Jesus never took a poll to determine doctrine, and neither will the Catholic Church. .

@benz72, by pointing out the health risks of Onanism, I stated that Onanism is not in and of itself healthier than alternatives to Onanism. For the record, the Catholic Church isn't requiring everyone to abstain from sex, but rather teaching that we have healthier respect for their bodies and their sexuality than Onanism can ever provide. If you don't want to listen to that teaching, fine, but don't force the Catholic Church to bend to your will simply because you don't like the teaching. And, even if your claim is true --which it isn't-- what the government is trying to do to the Catholic Church in order to have Her bend to its will is not just counterproductive & rude: it's unpatriotic and unconstitutional.

What happened to liberal ethic of, "What's good for me is good for me; what good for you is good for you?" Today, liberals say to the Catholic Church, "What's good for me is good; what's good for you, Catholic Church, is for you to pay for what I say is good for me." So much for liberal ethic of tolerance.

March 28, 2012 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review (2): 'The Hunger Games'

Since "October Baby," is playing El Cajon, is anyone going to review it?

March 28, 2012 at 11:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Contraception Clash, Catholic Latinas Stray From Doctrine

@Peking_Duck_SD, when you get a chance, try reading the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Churches do not exist UNDER the government; they exist SEPARATE from the government. That means that the government can not impede the free practice of religion. The HHS mandate is impeding the free practice.

You can repeat this straw man about churches taking government money over and over again, but it still won't be the point to the HHS mandate. Regardless of whether or not Catholic hospitals, schools, or charities receive government grants, HHS is forcing Onanism upon them, and that IS THE POINT!

BTW, OT, how do get bold letters? The standard hypertext doesn't work on these comments.

@benz72, not practicing Onanism is healthy behavior. Given all of the health risks with practicing Onanism --from perferated uteri to death-- it's far more healthy than practicing Onanism. I don't mind being the voice crying out in the wilderness so long the government was trying to impose itself on me, and THAT'S THE POINT!

March 28, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )