8:05p Gary Bauer, President, American Values:

Every now and then the press gets on a theme that they replay over and over. They've got a theme going right now. For the last 8 weeks, they've been riding a theme of the death of the values voter movement. I say, we've only just begun to fight. You haven't seen anything yet….

Without the first right in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, the Founders knew the other rights were irrelevant.

Our country 150 years ago made a mistake. Unbelievably the highest court in the land said of Dred scott, the runaway slave, that he was not a person for the purposes of the Constitution. That Supreme Court decision unleashed in our society a poison.... It nearly destroyed the union. That poison is still in our society today....

But you'd think when a court did something history had judged to be so evil that it would never do it again. But in 1973 the Supreme Court did do it again and made the same mistake as Dred Scott.... They unleashed a poison in our society that we must overcome.... We have elevated the destruction of the unborn to a constitutional right like the right to free speech....

You know in the last 8 weeks our movement has encountered some problems... some disagreements.... It doesn't mean we're becoming enemies.... It means we're serious people. The last month or so, there's been a lot of talk about a 3rd party. My view is, that's not the way to go. [Applause] I am not going to turn over the party of Lincoln and Reagan to our political opponents. A 3rd party is political suicide.

Whether we agree on that or not, at the end of the day we agree we all want Roe v. Wade disposed of in the trash can of history where it belongs.

7:28p: Phyllis Schlafly, head of Eagle Forum, and responsible for stopping the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s-80s....

It is definitely not enough for a candidate to say he is pro-life. It is not sufficient to say he is against Roe v. Wade, because he cannot impact it.

We want to know if he would veto the Freedom of Choice Act. FOCA would wipe out every single pro-life bill we've passed in the last 34 years. We must have certain knowledge would veto any such law.

We want to know our candidate would veto funding for embryonic stem cell researching... or cloning.

We want our candidate to pledge to support retention of the identical pro-life plank in the GOP platform.

Another great speech worth hearing in entirety, and young women need to see and hear this great woman.

7:15p: Before Ben Stein speaks, a 7-minute trailer of his new movie debunking Darwinism, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, to be released February 2008.

Here are 2 shorter trailers:

6:45p: Romney:

I'm going to use the bully pulpit to teach America that before they have children they should get married. I really think it's time to make out-of-wedlock births out-of fashion again....

I will be a pro-life president.... [Went into great detail that he would cover just about every pro-life issue... too quickly and too much for me to type - but he was thorough. Hopefully will get transcript.]...

I'm grateful for all the work you have done on this issue for years and years. Like Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde, I'm a convert....

6:33p: Romney. Hm. Not getting applause when he should. Talking about Judeo-Christian values and quoting Scripture. By that he may be drawing attention to the elephant in the room, his Mormonism.

6:30p: Wow, sorry about the red font for 2 hours. Had a great dinner with good friends. Back to the Briefing. Romney is up next. Jay Sekulow is now introducing him. The place is packed. I'd say there are about 75-100 bloggers. Standing O for Romney.

4:25p: C-Span has been televising this event live. Time for dinner.

4:15p: Sorry, took a pro-life gossip break. Here 'tis....

Bobby Schindler has a prospective girlfriend here.

Deborah Flora has had a recurring small role on the soap The Passions and is going to be shooting a commercial next week.

Keith Olbermann has a guy here trying to get conservatives to say stupid things on camera.

3p: Rick Santorum, former Republican Senate Majority leader who lost to Democrat Bob Casey in 2006:

There are over 250 credentialed reporters covering this event. I'd like to tell these reporters a little about us, so they can report their stories accurately....

This weekend you are here to determine who among those who would... Is there a candidate who truly shares our values, convincingly articulate our worldview? The answer is there must be, and we must fight to assure there is....

2:45p: Jonathan and Debra Flora, director and lead actress, respectively, of A Distant Thunder, the short film on partial birth abortion.

We know a lot of media outlets are here, so this is our official coming out of the closet as conservatives....

2:40p: Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition:

We believe that killing the unborn children is a terrible idea. And for every reason we give, social secularists will give three ideas why it is a good idea. And we end up simply disagreeing. We have to find the courage and the strength to say the reason killing unborn children a bad idea is "because the Bible says so."

2:25p: Star Parker, founder and president of CURE: Wow. What a great speech.

I am not going to compromise. The Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln, and I'm not going to settle. On the question of slavery, we know God had an answer, and politicians decided to micromanage that effort....

The Sexual Revolution ran concurrent with the Civil Rights Movement and bankrupted our movement....

They call themselves liberals or progressives. I prefer to call them creature worshippers....

We have the body and blood of Christ. They have the body and blood of babies.

[Photo courtesy of Peter Shinn]

1:35p: My blogger friend Peter Shinn is here and is live streaming video of the Briefing free at www.prolifenews.tv

1:30p: Ron Paul is up:

It's most important to know how to defend life. I have written a booklet on the right to life issue.

When I was a resident in the 1960s [Paul is an ob/gyn] my professor was doing and teaching abortions against the law. Once I walked into the room where they had just aborted a #2 infant alive and let it die. That was an outrage.

The most despicable of all Supreme Court rulings was Roe. vs. Wade, and our goal should to be repeal it. There are a couple ways that could be done. We could wait for Supreme Court justices to be appointed and hear a case that will trigger it to be overturned. That would take a long time.

My approach is a little more direct. As a legislative body and as president, we can remove the jurisdiction of this issue from the courts. I have a bill, the We the People Act, which literally takes it away from the federal courts. This means if any state passes a law, a prohibition on abortion, the federal courts cannot touch it. Why have we not moved in that direction? I wonder why hasn't that happened before? We have had a majority in Congress and pro-life presidents. We should not let that option drop.

1:19p: Hunter's only comment on life:

One job of president is to appoint judges. If a judicial candidate can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see a valuable human life, I will not appoint that candidate to the federal bench.

I really like this guy on all the issues. Always have. This was corroborated when he scored highest on the Select a Candidate QuizI took. I sure wish he were first tier.

[Photo courtesy of Peter Shinn]

1:05p: For $9.95 you can register at AFA to watch the entire conference online, which AFA is video streaming live.

Duncan Hunter is speaking. I'll likely only blog what candidates say on the pro-life issue.

12:40p: Just arrived here, although the event started at 8:45a. So I'm still getting acclimated, although fortunately it's lunch time, so I have for that. I spoke at the Hope Pregnancy Resource Center banquet at Applachia U in Boone, NC, last night -shout out to Brian and company - and just arrived back in DC. Am running on three hours sleep, so I've got my trusty Red Bull sitting next to me.

Am sitting in bloggers row. There is LOTS of press here.

I'm proud of you, Jill! God bless you!

OK--this is off topic and I said I wouldn't post here again, but I'm desperate.

All you PL'ers: I am spending tomorrow with a dear friend of 20+ years who is a rabid-pro-abortion feminist and since I've been so involved with the 40 Days, the conversation on what I've been doing with my time is bound to come up. I've been arming myself with prayer and facts so if we broach the subject I can speak to her logically. One of the things I know she's going to throw out there is "all the women who died from illigal abortions". I need some quick facts, and where to find them.

1) Can anyone tell me where to find statistics on deaths in BOTH illegal abortions pre- R. v W. AND deaths from legal abortions since? (in USA--not worldwide) So I can show her it really is more lethal now...

2) Can anyone verify for me when abortion was legalized in California pre R. v W. I heard it was, but I don't know when.

Thank you for any help you(mk, heather, PL Laura and gang!) can offer. And do me a favor PC'ers--save the bashing, I'm not here for a fight...just some facts.

No one knows how many women died from illegal abortion before Roe/Wade.

It was illegal, so it couldn't be monitored.

Plus, you have to take into account the women who died in childbirth because they couldn't get abortions.

Remember, maternal death is more than ten times more likely in childbirth than in abortion.

I think if you're "arming yourself with prayer", that's all you should do! God will speak to you & let you know what to say...through Him, of course!

Theresa? The same Theresa that was going to leave us?

If it's you, welcome back!

Deaths from legal abortions: Check out Christina's blog. It might be there since she posts post-Roe deaths' anniversaries.

Pre-Roe deaths: please note that Dr. Nathanson and crew conjured up the numbers in order to gain support for the then-embryonic NARAL. SoMG's right; no one knows with absolute certainty.

"...the We the People Act, which literally takes it away from the federal courts. This means if any state passes a law, a prohibition on abortion, the federal courts cannot touch it. Why have we not moved in that direction? I wonder why hasn't that happened before? We have had a majority in Congress and pro-life presidents. We should not let that option drop."

This is the first time I hear of this Act. Interesting...

"please note that Dr. Nathanson and crew conjured up the numbers in order to gain support for the then-embryonic NARAL."

I have heard (I haven't verified this yet) that Dr. Nathanson talks about this in his book "The Hand of God," if you want a potential reference. God love upi Theresa (beautiful name!).

Here comes Rick "Man-on-dog" Santorum.

I always wanted to bugger him.

Him, and Dan Quayle.

The "We-the-People Act" would be unconstitutional.

A state cant pass a law over riding the Supreme Court. The SC is a 'higher law' than the individual state and the SC rules on constitutionality. Whoever came up with the 'We the people act' doesnt know jack diddly squat about how this nation is run.

That's right, Texas Red.

On another topic, we might be about to learn the names of A LOT more gay Catholic Priests, at the Vatican, including a Bishop or two. Check this out (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan) http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=95567

Theresa,

There is a great deal of information on maternal abortion deaths, from both legal and illegal abortions, at www.realchoice.0catch.com.

For a study showing that induced abortion is 4 times more dangerous to women than childbirth, check out www.afterabortion.org.

You might also want to want to check out
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=42462; it's also quite an eye-opener.

1967 – Then-Governor Ronald Reagan of California signs the most liberal abortion law of the times allowing freedom of choice during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

http://www.hopeclinic.com/AbortionHistory.htm

For a study showing that induced abortion is 4 times more dangerous to women than childbirth, check out www.afterabortion.org.

*************************************************
The CDC disagrees with those findings. And I have a great deal more faith in the CDC than I do some antichoice propaganda site. According to the CDC gestation and birth is about 11 times more dangerous than abortion.

Someone needs to tell Rabi Lapin that saying abortion is wrong 'the Bible says so' is a pretty silly argument since the bible doesnt do any such thing

Theresa,

I hope this means you're back for good!

Here is Physicians for Life. Scroll down to wehre it says that abortion is not good for women...

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/9/26/

also, there is this quote from:

http://factcheck.org/article336.html

"In 1972, the last year before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, CDC counted only 39 deaths from illegal abortions based on surveys of health care providers, medical examiners' reports, state and national records, and news reports. "

Hope this helped!

On another topic, we might be about to learn the names of A LOT more gay Catholic Priests, at the Vatican, including a Bishop or two. Check this out (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
************************************************
From what I've read, pedophiles have a very close knit subculture in the US. I've always suspected that the reason some of the US Bishops covered up for these pedophile priests is because they themselves were pedophiles. Any organization that involves children is going to draw pedophiles. But the RCC covered up for them, protected them, and let them "flourish" for decades and THAT is what is the true abomination. Most organizations condemn them as soon as anyone finds out - the RCC enabled them.

"Someone needs to tell Rabi Lapin that saying abortion is wrong 'the Bible says so' is a pretty silly argument since the bible doesnt do any such thing"

I admire his honesty in saying that if you don't believe in the Bible you can't defend outlawing abortion.

And on California:

In 1969, the California Supreme Court, in People v. Belous, ruled that Penal Code 274 was "vague and uncertain," and therefore deprived a person of due process of law. It went on to find a right of privacy or "liberty" in matters related to family and sexual relations and used this right as a springboard to find "the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children." This decision linked the two rights: that of life itself and that of choice to bear children because childbirth involved risk of death. And more importantly, for case law, this court specifically rejected the argument that the State had a compelling interest in the "embryo and fetus" equal to or greater than the mother's right to choice because "the law has always recognized that the pregnant woman's right to life takes precedence over any interest the state may have in the unborn." This decision was the first in the nation to strike down an abortion statute.

In 1967, the California Legislature enacted The Therapeutic Abortion Act, Health and Safety Code (sections 25950-25958), and Governor Reagan signed it. It was "sold" as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the "hard cases." This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court invalidated nearly all the provisions of the Therapeutic Abortion Act for many of the same reasons that it had overturned Penal Code 274: the language was vague and due process was not guaranteed. The only part of the law not ruled unconstitutional was the requirement that the abortion be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital.

Later in 1972, three months before Roe v. Wade, the people of California, by initiative, specifically added the right of "privacy" to the other inalienable rights of individuals enumerated in Article I, Section I, of the state constitution and stipulated that the rights in California's constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed in the U.S. constitution. It is interesting to note that Californians were convinced to vote for this amendment using a financial privacy argument. Ironically, following passage, abortion rights were guaranteed and we are still waiting for financial privacy.

As a direct result of the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court abortion rulings, the only part of California's Therapeutic Abortion Act that remained "constitutional" was that a physician must perform the abortion.

http://www.cacatholic.org/respect4life/abortionlaw.html

"In 1972, the last year before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, CDC counted only 39 deaths from illegal abortions based on surveys of health care providers, medical examiners' reports, state and national records, and news reports. "

Hope this helped!

*********************************************
Deaths FROM abortion werent necessarily reported as being caused by abortion though. That's why there is no way of really knowing how many abortions were performed, or how many women died as a result, or came close to dying.

TexasRed and SoMG,

Since when did you guys become homophobes? I thought you guys were all about personal choice.
Why is a priests sexual orientation news to you?

Or are you guys implying that all homosexuals are pedophiles?

Tex,

Deaths FROM abortion werent necessarily reported as being caused by abortion though

What is the difference?

TexasRed and SoMG,

Since when did you guys become homophobes? I thought you guys were all about personal choice.
Why is a priests sexual orientation news to you?

Or are you guys implying that all homosexuals are pedophiles?

Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 3:47 PM
*********************************
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Why am i not surprised you came up with it? But you tend to grasp at straws whenever you can. I couldnt care less about someones sexual orientation but it takes a dishonest fool to try to pretend the RCC covering up for pedophiles, including pedophiles who preyed specifically on young males, has been a source of embarassment and shame for the RCC for quite some time now.

Tex,

Deaths FROM abortion werent necessarily reported as being caused by abortion though

What is the difference?

Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 3:50 PM
********************************************
Youve got to be kidding. Deaths from abortion were listed as deaths from other causes. A woman could die from 'blood poisoning' but no mention would be made that the infection was a result of an abortion. Or she may have died 'from blood loss' while the doctor covered up WHY she lost enough blood to kill her. Doctors and ME's sometimes covered up deaths from illegal abortions.

It's not worth it, MK...

You don't think it's interesting news, if the officers of the Church are actively practicing homosexual sodomy? Aren't they supposed to be celibate? (Aren't all Catholic homosexuals supposed to be celibate?)

I agree that homosexual orientation should not exclude you from the priesthood. But homosexual activity is a clear violation of the priest's most sacred oaths.

If it's true, then these guys are, effectively, farting into God's face.

"Someone needs to tell Rabi Lapin that saying abortion is wrong 'the Bible says so' is a pretty silly argument since the bible doesnt do any such thing"

I admire his honesty in saying that if you don't believe in the Bible you can't defend outlawing abortion.

Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 3:41 PM
**************************************
That doesnt even remotely make sense. There are people who are christians and jewish who are pro choice and there are people who are athiests or agnostics who are antichoice. But the fact of the matter is the bible never addresses the issue of abortion even though the practice has been around for thousands of years.

"it takes a dishonest fool to try to pretend the RCC covering up for pedophiles, including pedophiles who preyed specifically on young males, has been a source of embarassment and shame for the RCC for quite some time now."

This is true. It does take a dishonest fool to pretend that the RCC covering up for pedophiles has been a source of embarrassment and shame.

Texas Red,

Oddly enough, I was about to post that you are actually right about the coverups...but I think I'll just keep my opinions to myself where you are concerned.

My comment was because SoMG had just posted:

On another topic, we might be about to learn the names of A LOT more gay Catholic Priests, at the Vatican, including a Bishop or two. Check this out (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

And I thought he was talking to you.

And lastly, why would you say something like this?

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Why am i not surprised you came up with it? But you tend to grasp at straws whenever you can.

Please show me where I have straw grasped and I'll shut my mouth. Not that I address you all that often to begin with...

"I agree that homosexual orientation should not exclude you from the priesthood. But homosexual activity is a clear violation of the priest's most sacred oaths."

You're absolutely right, SoMG. If it turned out to be true, it would be quite shameful.

SoMG,

I read your article, and from what I recall it is a list of homosexual priests not a list of priests that engage in man on man sodomy. They only listed one priest, and accused him of soliciting another man.

TR,

Youve got to be kidding. Deaths from abortion were listed as deaths from other causes. A woman could die from 'blood poisoning' but no mention would be made that the infection was a result of an abortion. Or she may have died 'from blood loss' while the doctor covered up WHY she lost enough blood to kill her. Doctors and ME's sometimes covered up deaths from illegal abortions.

Ahhhhh yes, I forgot that you would be looking to prove that there were MORE deaths, not less...

1) Can anyone tell me where to find statistics on deaths in BOTH illegal abortions pre- R. v W. AND deaths from legal abortions since? (in USA--not worldwide) So I can show her it really is more lethal now...

Theresa, I think you will find detailed statistics on this at abortionfacts.com there is a lot of great info under the link "statistics". Also, try this:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp#What%20is%20the%20maternal%20mortality%20from%20childbirth?

There's also a good section called "abortion arguements" that addresses many of the pro-choice argurments as well.

Good luck talking to your friend! I hope she can see the light!

Yup--I am defector Theresa.

Thank you Bobby Bambino, life lynx, mk, carder and PL Laura. I will look into all of the resources you suggested. Carder--where will I find Chirstina's blog? And PL Laura, yes I do understand that arming myself with prayer is the most important part, but my friend is a very intelligent and highly educated scientific type. I've known her a long time and if she is receptive, my best bet with a one-time shot to talk to her is going to be from a factual and statistical point of view...she's not going to respond to feel-good words. God can shore me up and give me the right words and inflection, but I have to go find the facts. For example: she once told me she would have gotten a breast augmentation, but has chosen not to because the procedure isn't safe. If I can show her through statistics that abortion isn't any safer (and perhaps even more dangerous) than an augmentation that will have a good chance of getting her attention.

Thank you for all the information....it's more to go on than I had earlier today!

Christina's blog is http://realchoice.blogspot.com/ .

"Keith Olbermann has a guy here trying to get conseervatives to say stupid things on camera."

How hard can that be?

And thank you Kristi! Your post showed up while I was composing mine--didn't mean to leave you out.

Thanks for the wishes of luck...I just got off the phone with the co-director of the local 40 days and she's going to let me take her 7-10 fetus models down with me tomorrow in case I get the opportunity to explain it's not "just a blob".....you guys have been very helpfull and I REALLY appreciate all of the resources you've cited!

Here's Newt! (I'm watching it on CNN.)

He's saying let's all work together and get along.

More War on Terror.

Religion in Schools.

"We're the real America".

"We are not going to tolerate secular judges...."

Nothing new here. He gave the same speeches in the 1980s, (except for the War on Terror stuff).

I SO love Keith Olbermann...

Hal,
He's just trying to get us to speak on a level you guys can understand! :)

Laura, me too!

And thank you Kristi! Your post showed up while I was composing mine--didn't mean to leave you out.

Thanks for the wishes of luck...I just got off the phone with the co-director of the local 40 days and she's going to let me take her 7-10 fetus models down with me tomorrow in case I get the opportunity to explain it's not "just a blob".....you guys have been very helpfull and I REALLY appreciate all of the resources you've cited!

Posted by: Theresa

No problem! I love those little fetal models, they are amazing! I volunteer at my local Pregnancy Resource Center, and we have those there. My favorite are the models showing 7, 8, 9, and 10 weeks gestation.... since those are the "most common" ages aborted. Yes, they are tiny, but still obviously a BABY!

One of Newt's strong negative-assets is his squeaky voice. He sounds like a character actor.

Theresa,
I understand...here's some stats:
http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm
Hope this helps a bit!

Theresa, here's the authoritative reference, the one the docs themselves read: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/8/620

Bobby Schindler has a prospective girlfriend here.

Booooooo! I first met him in 2003 and had a raging crush on him since. Not fair! I saw him first!

Rabbi Lupin's statement is factually inaccurate. The Bible does not say that killing unborn children is wrong. The Bible says that killing is wrong, and on that, most people agree, whether or not they are religious.

About 150 years ago, when it was discovered that human life begins at fertilization, the reasonable mind understood that the prohibition on killing should be extended to that human life as well. This is not a religious position; it is the logical extention of ethics based upon scientific discovery.

Deaths from abortion were listed as deaths from other causes. A woman could die from 'blood poisoning' but no mention would be made that the infection was a result of an abortion.

Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:55 PM

Yes, isn't that crazy? My dad had lung cancer but the 1st cause of death was "renal failure," then something else, then finally "carcinoma of the lung."

Strange since he (probably) wouldn't have had renal failure without the cancer, and why do they have to list three different causes?

"I SO love Keith Olbermann..."

..he should be sent to gitmo with his buddies

"I SO love Keith Olbermann..."

..he should be sent to gitmo with his buddies

Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 5:50 PM

Funny jasper. If you believed that, you'd be the most Un-American person on this site. I know you're just trying to offend. Have a nice weekend.

"Keith Olbermann has a guy here trying to get conservatives to say stupid things on camera."

If I was there, I'd take him outside and kick his butt the old fashioned way.

If I was there, I'd take him outside and kick his butt the old fashioned way.

Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 6:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(What makes me think that if I drew myself to my full five feet and threw down, I could kick Jasper's azz...?)

You do that Jasper, if you feel the need to personally re-enforce your masculinity...

If I was there, I'd take him outside and kick his butt the old fashioned way.

Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 6:34 PM

sure you would. How come you don't do that to the liberals you work with? Maybe you only assault famous people.

Since y'all were so helpfull the first time, I have another question. I'm trying to get the whole story on the abortion ban in SD. But everything I'm finding is very convoluted. Since I don't live in SD, and I'm coming in the middle of the story, can any PL-er's offer up a timeline of events/current status source??

Thanks!

"More War on Terror.

Religion in Schools.

"We're the real America".

"We are not going to tolerate secular judges...."

This Newt dude sounds a little nuts to me. Im all for stopping Terrorist... but so far, all we have done is invade two countries and proceed to destroy them.

If people want to learn religion in schools FINE. But keep your Jesus away from MY son until hes old enough to look into it himself.

Is there a fake america i wasnt aware of? or does he mean only christians are really american?

And im all for secular Judges. i am not a christian, and im supposed to be tried by my peers... so why would i want only christian Judges. As a muslim, i would not even want all muslim judges, that leads to the kind of Religious State you see in Pakistan.

Hi Theresa, welcome back. How's 40 Days going?

"How come you don't do that to the liberals you work with?"

we try not to talk politics Hal, because we just end up arguing...LOL

"You do that Jasper, if you feel the need to personally re-enforce your masculinity..."

oh Rae-Rae, why you teasing me?

Mitt Romney's speech is going well.

@Theresa: I'm sort of from South Dakota and the ban was first up for referendum in 2004-2005ish and it was put to a vote throughout the entire state. The first ban banned all abortions except for those when the mother's life was at risk. Most South Dakotans were against this as the most common response as to why the ban was voted AGAINST was due to it being too restrictive due to no exception for rape and incest.

The second time it came around it was killed in the state legislature even though it allowed for a rape/incest exception in addition to the life exception.

It hasn't come up since.

Liam, you are being way too rational.

@Jasper-Jasper: Yes. I haven't poked fun at you in awhile. :) But I shall discontinue. I just think that the need to "beat somebody up" is ridiculous and completely counter-productive. I disagree with you Jasper, on many, many things but I would never hit you for doing so. I may scream...and I may tear my own hair out, but I won't lay a hand/finger/sharp-pointy-object on you. I'd feel bad...

*shrugs*

Hal; Sorry, i didnt realize i was supposed to come in screaming and yelling.

i sometimes believe i am the only one left who believes my Religion is person, and has nothing to do with anyone else. Nor do i have the right to force anyone to think/act/pray as i do. In my experience, Agnostics/Deists make the best group leaders, they dont deny Gods existence (thus not offending anyone for that) and but they also dont have the "my God is right and Yours is wrong" attitude of many Religious people.

@Liam: Not all Christians are "My God is right and your's is wrong". I think majority of Christians that you talk to aren't like that (however it can be argued that they aren't "real" Christians, whatever that means).

Don't write all people off because they're Christian, that's just as bad as writing somebody off because they're Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shintoist, Pagan, Agnostic, Deist, or Atheist.

I like Romney. He's always seemed like a trustworthy guy, at least as far as politicans go. Are there really people who won't vote for him because he's Mormon?

Romney is probably the most electable of the Republican field. I disagree with him on some issues (many perhaps) but he seems smart, and that would be a nice change.
There are indeed some people who would not vote for him because he's Mormon. Maybe more who don't trust his pro-life conversion.

@Carrie: Yes. There are people who won't vote for him because he's Mormon because to many uneducated folks Mormon = polygamist. ::headdesk::

If Mormonism was about polygamy...then Rudy Giuliani is probably more Mormon than Romney. :-p

There is also that little myth that Mormons aren't Christian, which is patently false. I think their emphasis on the family is a very Christian value and I think it is a wonderful thing.

Ben Stein is wrong about the state of science today--lots of scientists are investigating the chemistry that goes on inside the cell.

Carrie;

I dont think i said anything about Christians except that i dont think they should be the only judges.

i am certain i said RELIGIOUS people. i know Muslims and Hindus and Jews who are just as bad as christians. and i know members off all them that are very easy going.

Yes, Romney's speech went well. He had a good laugh line about Mormonism, saying he's afraid people may be holding it against him thanks to Harry Reid.

Rae, that's too bad that some people feel that way. I think Romney is a great choice. As a resident of MA, I can tell you that I had no problem with a Mormon leading our state. Hopefully his candidacy will serve to educate more people about Mormonism. Maybe with knowledge there will be less fear.

Hal, you're right. Some prolifers probably don't trust Romney's conversion. He's our best hope though....

Hi Liam. I wasn't referring to what you wrote. I was just wondering if Romney's Mormonism will be a big issue.

hey Carrie;

oh ok. i didnt want you to think i was a bigot. i dont believe people should be given jobs based on religion is all i was trying to say.

@Carrie: I would agree. One of my best friends in South Dakota was Mormon and she was the nicest, kindest person and she taught me a TON about Mormonism. I think they do great things with their missionary work and it allows them to experience other cultures in a way that most people cannot even dream of.

There has to be a reason why Mormonism is the fastest growing Christian denomination in the world.

Sure, there are tenets of Mormonism that I disagree with, but there are also tenets of Catholicism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, etc that I disagree with as well.

Liam, no problem.

Rae; I'm with you, im looking forward to this election because its my first. I am torn between Romney and Hunter.

It saddens me that Rudy and Ron Paul are such frontrunners.

Oh Ben Stein...

What he says on science is basically irrelevant to me.

I still really enjoy how bloody dry he is in those Clear-Eye commercials. Lol. :)

He will forever be the teacher who said, "Beuller? Beuller? Beuller?"

@Liam: Eh. I'm actually not fond of any of the candidates. They're all pretty incompetent and weak and completely unoriginal and uninspiring.

It's going to be 2004 all over again...should I vote for Mr. Douchbag or Mr. Turd-Sandwich?

Phyllis Schlafly talks like Dame Edith Evans.

I've been arming myself with prayer and facts so if we broach the subject I can speak to her logically.

Theresa, there's the rub. If you want logic, then the "prayer" stuff isn't it. There's no proof of any supernatural stuff as it's "aimed" at. Do some people have the emotional need to go for such stuff? Sure. But of course that won't necessarily apply to other people, or a given other person such as your friend.

Hey - it's pretty cool you can call her your friend.

Best,

Doug

@Liam: Ron Paul isn't a front-runner. He is only popular among the stoner "WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING US WHAT TO DO" college crowd. He has no influence anywhere else that really matters considering the college crowd very rarely participates...which is unfortunate for the most part.

Hi Theresa, welcome back. How's 40 Days going?

Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 6:54 PM

Hi Carrie,

It's going amazing. Every time we have a need, God fills in the hole! We have not had one gap in the prayer chain since it began, and we have found that many, MANY people going in for "other" services don't support abortion and didn't know it was performed there. We have printed up information about free/low cost alternative places to go for BC/tests/blood work and a lot of people are taking their business elsewhere now. We've been so effective that PP has hired a fencing contractor to erect a 6' fence across their entire frontage!! We are looking at that as a huge victory because that means we are being effective!! It has been totally peaceful and reverent...no shouting, no signs...just prayer and sidewalk councilors quietly offering information to anyone interested. I stumbled on this completely by accident because I was following the Aurora thing strictly from a professional interest (I work in Land Surveying) and was cross referenced to the 40 day website...I just signed up for updates and got a call the next day from a local co-director. I haven't had good luck with volunteering, so I was pretty skeptical, but it's been such a blessing. I am actually between jobs and the moment (land development in my region is really taking a hit) and have found so many places to be useful behind the scenes that I mustered up the courage to start doing some sidewalk counseling (bear in mind that I am an introverted, cynical misanthrope who would rather have my teeth drilled than talk to strangers). It’s very intimidating, but today I made the decision to become a dedicated sidewalk counselor after the vigil is over. I lived a shamefully promiscuous lifestyle from 16 until I met my husband at 27, and I always wondered if I would ever be able to reconcile that past with my current perspectives….turns out that the shameful actions of my past are what’s driving not only my courage to speak to strangers, but also making my heart soft to these girls who are living the same lifestyle that I once lived. I’m so nervous about this commitment, and I know it will never be easy…but that’s when I remind myself:

Hanging on a cross wasn’t easy either.

Rae;

i was told (by my Dissertation Supervisor) that voting in america is not about finding someone who wont "F$#K you in the A$$" ,because they all will, but to find "the one who will at least give you a reach around well he does it"....

i thought he was kidding originally.

It does take a dishonest fool to pretend that the RCC covering up for pedophiles has been a source of embarrassment and shame.

Bobby - whoa - I'm surprised you said that.

Doug

He's just trying to get us to speak on a level you guys can understand! :)

PL Laura - I have to laugh.

But it's not really a bad thing. ; )

Doug

@Liam: Ha-ha. That's pretty funny. And unfortunately true. It shouldn't be like that. The President and Congress should be there to protect freedom and to put the citizens of the country first, not their own interests and desire for power.

(What makes me think that if I drew myself to my full five feet and threw down, I could kick Jasper's azz...?)

Laura, you're killin' me. I love it. And I'm willing to pay admission and buy some expensive popcorn too.

Doug

Gary Bauer, what a greasy little gnome.

"God will protect us from terrorists with dirty nukes." Yeah.

i sometimes believe i am the only one left who believes my Religion is person, and has nothing to do with anyone else. Nor do i have the right to force anyone to think/act/pray as i do. In my experience, Agnostics/Deists make the best group leaders, they dont deny Gods existence (thus not offending anyone for that) and but they also dont have the "my God is right and Yours is wrong" attitude of many Religious people.

Liam, quite a nice, refreshing take on it from you. I note that many people around the world wonder (to say the least) about many Americans who do just the opposite.

Doug

There is also that little myth that Mormons aren't Christian, which is patently false. I think their emphasis on the family is a very Christian value and I think it is a wonderful thing.

Rae, I hope so, for their sake. Yet there is much within Mormonism that vast numbers of people have serious problems with, and no surprise.

Doug

,i>Hanging on a cross wasn’t easy either.

Thereas, I have to laugh - indeed - like it being a heck of a way to spend Easter. Anyway, I hope you stay.

Doug

@Doug: That's true. There are things with Mormonism I don't agree with (which are basically the same exact things I disagree with about Christianity in general). However, I don't think somebody's religious beliefs should be a reason to vote or not vote for them even if you agree with everything they stand for.

That's un-American in my opinion, discriminating against somebody because of their religion.

Theresa, I am a very introverted person so I know what you mean. I pray infront mills twice a week-one PP and one not. I get more nervous before heading off to the PP mill. I get more verbal abuse there. You know: "Get a life", "you are a horrible person" and my personal favorite "Loser". What's weird about it is I all I do is pray. I don't yell or scream. Our side is very peaceful.

I think my peaceful manner offends people more than if i was a screamer.

@Carrie: It probably does. They don't know how to react to people who don't fit the stereotype.

It goes both ways though. :)

“Theresa, I am a very introverted person so I know what you mean. I pray infront mills twice a week-one PP and one not. I get more nervous before heading off to the PP mill. I get more verbal abuse there. You know: "Get a life", "you are a horrible person" and my personal favorite "Loser". What's weird about it is I all I do is pray. I don't yell or scream. Our side is very peaceful.

Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 8:36 PM”

Carrie,

I heard two things today that I'm actually going to type up on a card and keep with me for when I get abused:

1) John, James and Mary didn't stop Jesus from being crucified...but they showed up. (The other disciples having scattered)

2) When I am standing before the judgment I will hear a chorus of voices saying "be merciful to her....she showed up for us"....those voices being the unborn who were aborted while I was there trying.

From one introvert to another: keep it up.

“Thereas, I have to laugh - indeed - like it being a heck of a way to spend Easter.”

Jesus wasn't crucified on Easter. Easter celebrates the day of his resurrection....Good Friday represents the day he was crucified. I’m glad you think crucifixion is so amusing.

“Anyway, I hope you stay.
Doug”

Be careful what you wish for. (And do try to spell my name right.)

*snort*

Just thought I'd share...the burns on my left index and thumb, from where I picked up a super-hot microscope slide (I was flame-heating it to dry it off after preparing a gram stain) are healing nicely. There were little microscope-edge-sized divots on both phalanges, but now they are nice and swollen and have no feeling. They're healing. :)

My own lack of common sense astounds me at times. ^_^

I pray infront mills twice a week-one PP and one not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your god doesn't hear you when you pray at home?

Maybe you enjoy the abuse...

I almost trust Romney's conversion on social issues. Almost. He's nearly convinced me. If he successfully convinces me, then he is my candidate.

I don't give a rat's you-know-what about his Mormon faith. So his theology is a little bit different than mine - big deal! It's not as different from mine as a Jewish person's, and I'd have no problem voting for a Jewish person. I think the anti-Mormon conservatives will come around, too. I honestly don't think a conservative would vote for Hillary Clinton just because Romney is Mormon. That's silly!

Carrie,

I'm signing off for the night (have to go prepare for my trip to see my friend tomorrow), but thank you for sharing your experiences with me. You and I can be the “introvert team” and lift each other up since it’s not natural for us to put ourselves in that type of situation.

God bless you and thank you for your kind words.

Keep it up!

be carful Rae...

Gary Bauer gave an excellent speech

I'm just curious, don't read anything into this at all, I'm simply just wondering:

If you had to choose between the two following candidates for President, who would you choose?

CANDIDATE #1: Pro-life, atheist who was pro-gay marriage, pro-healthcare reform (not universal health care), opposed to the war in Iraq but did not believe in a set schedule for pulling the troops out, pro-gun control.

CANDIDATE #2: Pro-choice, Christian who was anti-gay marriage, anti-healthcare reform (both universal healthcare and otherwise), opposed to the war in Iraq and wanted a set a schedule to get the troops out of Iraq and anti-gun control.

Who would you chose and why?

"Oh Ben Stein...

What he says on science is basically irrelevant to me."

But very True..

Ben Stein!

@Jasper: Ben Stein isn't a scientist. He is not an expert on evolutionary theory.

However, I'm not really sure how evolution is necessarily against God. How do we know that evolution is not the "how" humans came to be, and God is the answer to "why"? God works through natural law, correct? So why wouldn't God work through evolution?

Well Rae,

Those candidates doesn't exist....but I'd chose #1 because he respects human life.

Rae;

Candidate 1 for me all the way. the only thing we disagree on is the war, but thats complicated, so i would go with Number 1.

Rae, I would choose the pro-lifer, but only if he intended to nominate anti-Roe judges and actively push for the end of abortion.

Pro-life is the most important issue. 4,000 innocents are killed every day. We have a 9/11 every single day. There is no issue, not even terrorism, which is of equal importance.

"Ben Stein isn't a scientist. He is not an expert on evolutionary theory."

he never claimed to be. His point was; why are all these scientist so afraid of the un-answered (by scientists) of where we came from. and why do they demonize the people who ask the question.

"So why wouldn't God work through evolution?"

maybe so...but let's keep our minds open to questions

Just to be clear, Rae - I am strongly against gay marriage. I am also strongly against socialistic economic programs. Yet both of those issues are less important than pro-life, so that's why I'd vote for the pro-life atheist.

@Jasper: I do keep my mind open to questions. That's why I hate it when people say "religious people are idiots". It's not true. Yeah, I don't think God created the world 10,000 years ago or whatever in 7 days. I don't think that's true at all.

Also, just because a question cannot be answered now, does not mean it can't be answered later. For all you know, 20-odd years from now (or sooner) we could know where we came from.

And I know those candidates don't exist. That's why they were hypothetical. :)

@John L: Why do you consider health-care reform socialist? I distinctly said Candidate 1 is not in favor of socialized/universal health care.

So let me ask you this: What would you do if and when abortion is made illegal? What will you do after that happens? What will you advocate against or in favor of next?

Rae; he already said he is against GGay Marriage.

Personally, i dont think it hurts anyone to let to gays marry

Rae, I'm telling you that I don't care what the candidate's health care plan is. If he's pro-life and the only alternative isn't, I'll vote for him.

If abortion and euthanasia are ever actually defeated and done away with, I will stop being a political activist.

"For all you know, 20-odd years from now (or sooner) we could know where we came from."

It won't be from randomness..

Liam, I am indeed strongly against gay marriage, but not enough to spend my life fighting it as I am prepared to do with abortion. Mockery of the family hurts society, sure, but it is nothing compared to abortion.

Rae,

I emailed you twice now...are you getting them?

Rae,

Do you have an internet connection in your apartment yet. I'm surprized they don't have DSL or a wireless service...

@MK: Yes, I am getting your emails. Danke shoen. :)

@Jasper: No, I don't have an internet connection in the apartment. I can't afford it. I'm at home (my parent's house) this weekend to take care of the dog while my family is in Rapid City visiting my brother.

John; i am curious, which do you consider more of a "mockery" of the family:

Two men completely in love wanted to get married and share a life together.

OR

People marrying for money/power/political gain.....etc.

Liam, both are a mockery of the family. I'm not one to make the argument that because heterosexuals have screwed up marriage, we might as well smash it to pieces.

The creators of the Ben Stein movie were dishonest.
I hate this link rule but I'll still have to spread them out. A Blogger interviewed for it was lied to in order to get his interview.

1. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/expelled_producer_seems_to_be.php

3. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/expelled_comes_to_the_ny_times.php

Let's stop focusing on marriage and more on civil unions. Marriage shouldn't have legal standing if it is a religious covenant. Legality makes it a contract. Therefore let civil unions do the legal business for everyone and you guys can keep your version of marriage. I'm not sure why this isn't a solution.

Also, the Catholic church is pretty clear about how Evolution is perfectly compatible (indeed complementary) to Christian and biblical teachings. The Catholics here should have no problem with current scientific discoveries.

Laura, I expect something a little more creative from you. Aren't you supposed to be funny?

Doug,

It does take a dishonest fool to pretend that the RCC covering up for pedophiles has been a source of embarrassment and shame.
*
Bobby - whoa - I'm surprised you said that.

Why does that surprise you Doug?

The fact that it does reveals more about you than Bobby.

How many times have you heard us say that we judge something by it fruits. If the fruits are rotten, then the tree is probably diseased.

How many times have you heard us say that we seek the Truth. How could we claim that, and then turn a blind eye to blatantly obvious Truth, glaring us in the face?

We defend the church yes. We oppose like crazy, anything that threatens her. That means outside forces, yes. But it also means that we fight enemies from within.

Satan doesn't bother with Hindus, because from where he's standin', they are already "taken care of". Same thing with pagans. Let them do what they're doin'. No need to interfere. They'll hang themselves.

But Catholics in good standing. To satan, this is the ultimate enemy. These must be taken down at all costs. To do this, he must work from within.
He must destroy the very heart of the Church.

So he attacks what is most sacred. The Eucharist, Our Lady. (he hates all humans, but mostly Her, because she, a mere mortal and a woman to boot, is favored over the greatest of all God's creations, the highest angel, satan himself, and was used to bring about satans demise, in the form of another "human", Jesus. Talk about insult to injury). Our Lady represents purity, chastity and virginity. So the best way to get to her (or Him, through her) is to attack these three virtues. Why do you think immorality in sexual matters is so rampant? It's a direct affront by satan, to the Our Lords mother.

Then he attacks the family. The family is a mini-representation of the trinity. It is a reflection of God's relationship to us, to the church and to Himself. It must be brought to it's knees. To do so, he must make the familial relationship "unsacred". He must turn it into the mundane. He must destroy it, by destroying it's sacramental quality. Change the definition of marriage! 70% of black youth brought up without a father. Divorce. All of these things destroy the foundation of family.

And finally, the priests. Our leaders. Corrupt them, and people will leave the church in droves.

We would be remiss in our duties as Catholics to, as you so often put it, pretend, that all is well within our church, when clearly, it is not.

I always thought that you were being tongue in cheek when you say that we "pretend" and believe in myths. If this were true, then it would make sense that we would deny that which is obvious to everyone else.

But we do not seek fantasy, we seek Truth. And that includes unpleasant truths as well.

I'm surprised that you don't get that.

PIP,

why are you and other liberals so threathened by the notion of intelligent design?

"Let's stop focusing on marriage and more on civil unions. Marriage shouldn't have legal standing if it is a religious covenant. Legality makes it a contract. Therefore let civil unions do the legal business for everyone and you guys can keep your version of marriage. I'm not sure why this isn't a solution."

No way Jose.

we must prevent it from being redefined by liberal judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an "evolving paradigm" . We will not let marriage be distorted. Gays already recieve domestic partnership benefits.

...but marriage is an evolving paradigm. It's not like your lovely little church invented marriage, jasper. It was around for thousands of years before Christianity and will continue for years after Christianity is dead. Sorry to pop your bubble :-P

Erin,

You just proved why it's very important not to let your side gain any power. Debauchery, hedonism and destruction is your sides path.

Jasper;

Just because someone is not a Christian does not mean they support "Debauchery, hedonism and destruction".

Personally, i believe more in a Utilitarian idea of Ethics and Laws. Greatest good and Least harm. Gay marriage grants legal rights to people whereas keeping it illegal only makes bigots happy. Thus, granting rights > Bigots happiness.

Same Goes for religion. If it brings people together, helps more then it hurts, i believe it is a good thing.

But it doesnt. Even my own religion lately has been perverted and have become as evil as the rest. We have become what we hated about the west. We are butchers in the eyes of the world. and for that reason alone, i believe we have lost our way. Christians are no better, having butchered millions in there time, as have the Jews (OT God kills/orders killed 32.7 MILLION people).

Religion, once made to unite people, has been corrupted, twisted from its lofty ideals, and turned into a Cattle Prod to force people into separate Boxes. and it needs to be abandoned.

Liam

"Even my own religion lately has been perverted and have become as evil as the rest"

what is your religion?

Jasper; I am a Muslim.

Erin, while it's true the church didn't "invent" marriage. It was a ritual even for pagans. It was a "religious" ritual LONG before it became a "legal" one.

Laura,

I pray infront mills twice a week-one PP and one not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your god doesn't hear you when you pray at home?

Maybe you enjoy the abuse...

Posted by: Laura at October 19, 2007 9:22 PM

Maybe people pray outside of abortion clinics so that clients can see that at least one real person cares about them and their baby enough to take time to go down there and pray for them when they need a prayer. Also, sometimes clients get a referral to a no-kill center from the person who is there praying for them.

Rae,

I would vote for

CANDIDATE #1: Pro-life, atheist who was pro-gay marriage, pro-healthcare reform (not universal health care), opposed to the war in Iraq but did not believe in a set schedule for pulling the troops out, pro-gun control.

PRO-LIFE is LIFE

The rest is just details

Thanks, Anon.

"Christians are no better, having butchered millions in there time, as have the Jews (OT God kills/orders killed 32.7 MILLION people)."

You're clueless. My religion is one of love and compassion thru our lord Jesus Christ.

Your religon is one of hatred and violence.

when we see mulsim people die, we mourn. when your people see christians or jews die, they celebrate.

"why are you and other liberals so threathened by the notion of intelligent design?"

No, jasper, we aren't threatened at all. In fact the movement itself is really no threat. Evolution is so factually and experimentally supported and therefore accepted by the scientific community, and it's so obvious that ID is just creationism in disguise, that it poses little threat to science.
On a personal note, I also am not threatened. I am saddened though that people turn to ID because they feel evolution contradicts religion, which it certainly does not. So I do try to help convince people it is true. Creationists and ID people don't reject evolution because of science; in fact if they demand as much evidence from their own side as they do from evolution they would be defeated in a heartbeat. They simply reject it on theological grounds. Because this is the case, it would be nice if creationists would just be honest: they made up the notion of ID; ID is not science by definition; and that scientific inquiry is not their beef with evolution. It is their religion that causes their rejection. That's all.

"we must prevent it from being redefined by liberal judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an "evolving paradigm" ."
That's just it. A civil union is not a marriage. If you guys are SO adament that marriage is a sacrament, why don't we keep it that way? Why should we pervert it by making the marriage a legal contract?

"We will not let marriage be distorted. Gays already recieve domestic partnership benefits."
I guess if you don't get my point you never will.

Nice generalization, jasper

What has happened to Ireland?

First Jonathan the Gaelic speaking communist and now Liam, the Muslim! (I'm only kidding) Liam is Gaelic for William.

Seriously, Liam,
I find it interesting to see a Muslim speak out against the sins of his faith. Much like I just spoke out about the priest scandals.

Were you born Muslim, or are you a convert? And how do you feel about what is going on in your faith right now?

Also, it is my understanding that Muslims are pro-life as a whole. Am I wrong?

I know muslims from Bosnia whose relatives were murdered by christians, yet don't see all christians as murderers.

There are intelligent caring people from all backgrounds and there are psychos from all backgrounds.

Despots have long twisted many religions to bolster support their aims.

This is just subversion and not a reflection on any of those religions per se.

Jasper: You're clueless. My religion is one of love and compassion thru our lord Jesus Christ.

Your religon is one of hatred and violence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, Jasper, I just look to the Westboro Baptist Church http://www.godhatesfags.com/ The Army of God http://www.armyofgod.com/ or the Christian Identity Movement, Christian Falangists, the Klan, or good'ol Randall Terry for all of my Christian hatred and violence needs.
Christianity has the bloodiest history of any religion on Earth.

Jasper, have you ever heard of Occham's Razor? That's the name for the scientific principle that says, if we have two possible adequate explanations for a phenomenon, we accept the weaker explanation, the simpler explanation, the explanation with the fewest extra implications.

The idea of divine intervention depends on God, which is the strongest of all possible propositions, infinitely complex. Therefore, according to Occham's Razor, it must be rejected.

Not to mention the principle that it science revolves around observable, falsifiable, and testible phenomenon. ID/creationism doesn't conform to any of them.

testable*

Uh, I think that the statement "God did it" is about as simple as you can get.

Somg wrote:

No one knows how many women died from illegal abortion before Roe/Wade.

It was illegal, so it couldn't be monitored.

Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 1:49 PM

Of course it could be monitored. When someone dies of illegal drug overdose, it does not go unreported or unmonitored.

I have seen statistics showing that 36 died from abortion in 1972. and I think like 185 in 1960.

Generally, when someone dies, there is a death certificate with a cause of death on it.

Such records are available to demographers.

If women of childbearing years were mysteriously dying from uterine hemorrhage or other such complications of abortion, the coroner would be able to discover it. It may even have been possible to do a pregnany test on her blood.

The notion that these women would just die and no one would notice seems pretty silly.

I was born a muslim in Britain. My mother was a convert of Irish Descent, i was named after her father.

Christianity has killed millions of people Jasper, look at the which hunts, inquisition, and how they behaved during the Crusades.

MK, i believe most muslim are PL, i am myself, and the core of the qu'ran is to hurt no one.

For Jasper, i will tell you this, those muslim who interpet the Quran as commanding murder, war and Genocide as as right as a christian who says the Bible condones those things (i can show you passages in the Bible where God orders men, women, children killed en mass for not being Jewish)

Hippie, that's stupid. No one suggested a woman would die and her death would go unnoticed, just that it wouldn't be reported as due to abortion.

I have read testimony from physicians before Roe/Wade--some of them would withhold the information that a death was due to an abortion in order to protect the patient's privacy.

You can't monitor the results of an illegal activity, unless the activity is easily detectable by objective means (such as needle marks on a drug-user's arm).

Somg,

you wrote,

I have read testimony from physicians before Roe/Wade--some of them would withhold the information that a death was due to an abortion in order to protect the patient's privacy.

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:23 PM

Withholding this kind of information is called lying and forgery.

Death certificates are not available to the general public.

How much privacy does a dead woman need?

If they lied on a death certificate, they are violating professional codes of conduct and probably some laws in some states.

If they did lie or falsify documents, it was to protect themselves and colleagues from prosecution not to protect the memory of these unfortunate women.

That anon was me

Hippie

In many states a person can sue for wrongful death of a relative.

How would you like it if the doctor lied on the death certificate of one of your relatives to protect their privacy and in so doing eliminated the basis of your wrongful death case?

Or do you not believe anyone should ever be allowed to sue for wrongful death?

Yes, Hippie, it's not that unusual for doctors to violate the law if they feel that it's in their patient's best interests.

The fact is you cannot monitor deaths from illegal activities unless the illegal activities leave unmistakable signs. You just can't know. You never will. The only true answer is "We don't know"! You just have to live with that.

It is well known that not all abortion-related deaths were reported as such, to the CDC or anyone else.

I once had a professor of trauma surgery tell me he thinks he violates some aspect of the law EVERY DAY.

Hippie, you also wrote: "If they [Doctors] did lie or falsify documents, it was to protect themselves and colleagues from prosecution not to protect the memory of these unfortunate women."

You have no evidence for this claim. Even if it were true, how would YOU know?

Somg,

you wrote,

Yes, Hippie, it's not that unusual for doctors to violate the law if they feel that it's in their patient's best interests.

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:38 PM

and

I once had a professor of trauma surgery tell me he thinks he violates some aspect of the law EVERY DAY.

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:39 PM

Two questions

1) when someone fills out the informed consent paper, I think you should be there to apprise them of the above "facts"

2) Why then is it so important for prolife protesters to follow the law, if the doctors they protest don't?

You also said:

"The fact is you cannot monitor deaths from illegal activities unless the illegal activities leave unmistakable signs. You just can't know. You never will. The only true answer is "We don't know"! You just have to live with that."

I am not saying that you can know 100% for sure in every case, but that is not the same as having no idea, nor is it the same as outright concealment or lying.

Somg,

you wrote,

Hippie, you also wrote: "If they [Doctors] did lie or falsify documents, it was to protect themselves and colleagues from prosecution not to protect the memory of these unfortunate women."

You have no evidence for this claim. Even if it were true, how would YOU know?

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:48 PM

Let me clarify, I think that when someone commits a crime or is aware of a crime and then conceals that crime, then it is far more likely that they are doing it to protect themselves or the perpetrator, than that they are doing it to protect the victim.

You have no evidence for this claim. Even if it were true, how would YOU know?

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 3:48 PM

How do you know it is not? Your evidence is their own testimony that they have already lied on an official document.

Now you're waffling. I suppose that's an improvement--you're acknowleging the limitations on your information. Keep it up! The more you waffle, the closer you will come to being right.

Waffling on what?

How would a pathologist or ER doc "protect himself" by concealing that a death was due to an abortion? The pathologist or ER doc is in no danger of being held responsible. And why would he want to protect an illegal abortionist? For that matter, how would concealing that the death was due to an abortion protect the illegal abortionist anyway? There's no motivation for a pathologist or ER doc to conceal an abortion-related death, except for the patient's interest.

Not all deaths are investigated by autopsy. And a woman can bleed to death from a perforation or die of an infection which may not be detectable on autopsy anyway.

If you're an ER doc, and a patient comes in DOA, from bleeding internally on the way to the ER doc, how would you know to look for abortion as the cause? It would conceal itself, unless you knew in advance to look for it.

You're waffling on your claim that "If they [Doctors] did lie or falsify documents, it was to protect themselves and colleagues from prosecution not to protect the memory of these unfortunate women."

Somg,

If you're an ER doc, and a patient comes in DOA, from bleeding internally on the way to the ER doc, how would you know to look for abortion as the cause? It would conceal itself, unless you knew in advance to look for it.

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 4:24 PM

Let me see if I understand you.

If a woman who has not been in an accident and is brought to the ER, dead from internal bleeding and they won't look for a cause. You think no one will wonder what happened. No one will investigate? They will note the absence of vital signs and put DOA on the death cert. no question asked?

Are you serious?

If that is the case

Somg,

You said we don't know how many died of illegal abortion.

I said I saw 36 in 1972 as a stat.

Then you said that the docs lie and break the law therefore that number is wrong.

So I said the number might not be 100%.

Now you say I am waffling.

Fine, I'll waffle some more.

36 deaths plus or minus the standard 4% for error and lying law breaking docs.

Somg,

you wrote,

You're waffling on your claim that "If they [Doctors] did lie or falsify documents, it was to protect themselves and colleagues from prosecution not to protect the memory of these unfortunate women."

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 4:26 PM

You certainly have not proved that they lied to protect the victims of illegal abortion.

Somg,

you wrote:

"Not all deaths are investigated by autopsy. And a woman can bleed to death from a perforation or die of an infection which may not be detectable on autopsy anyway."

While not all deaths autopsied, suspicious ones are.

One of my closest friends is a pathologist who did autopsies for years and years and they can tell if you died of an infection or hemorhhage etc.

Until Roe/Wade, there was no sytematic effort by government or agency to track abortion-related deaths. The 36 number is meaningless. (Why don't you already know this? Anyone who knows the history of the issue knows this. You need to take a course or something.)

Docs deliberately concealing abortion-related deaths are only a small part of your problem. How would you diagnose sudden death as due to abortion, unless you knew in advance that the patient had had an abortion? Suppose she's unconscious when she comes in. Suppose she's DOA. How many abortion-related deaths were listed as death due to internal bleeding? Blood poisoning? Generalized infection? Kidney failure? Again, theres no way to know and it's very difficult to estimate this number with any confidence. But I bet it's many times more than 36.

Does anyone out there know what percentage of unexplained sudden deaths were investigated by autopsy in the early 1970s?

And again, you can't always tell by autopsy. A small puncture of the uterine artery, made by the tip of a metal coat hanger perhaps, can be easy to miss. Infection that spreads from the uterus to the rest of the body can leave no trace in the uterus specifically.

"How would a pathologist or ER doc "protect himself" by concealing that a death was due to an abortion? The pathologist or ER doc is in no danger of being held responsible. And why would he want to protect an illegal abortionist? For that matter, how would concealing that the death was due to an abortion protect the illegal abortionist anyway? There's no motivation for a pathologist or ER doc to conceal an abortion-related death, except for the patient's interest."

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 4:24 PM

1) What patient's interest? She is dead. She can't feel any invasion of privacy. He isn't going to announce it in the news. It goes on the death cert. which is not available to the public.

2) If the pathologist doesn't live in a hole, he knows the other docs in town and may possibly know the perpetrator. If he puts abortion on the record, it would be at least inconvenient because as a crime, it would be investigated. That would mean questions and possible hassle for him.

3) I don't think that most docs would be motivated to lie just for convenience and even less so to protect the privacy of someone whose privacy is already protected. Especially since lying on an official record is itself an offense.

Therefore, I doubt scores of them were lying. A couple, maybe.

The patient may have told the doc about her abortion and asked him/her to keep it confidential.

If the autopsy is done under the auspices of a family doc, the family may wish the abortion to go unreported.

You don't have to lie. You write the IMMEDIATE cause of death (see above) rather than the proximal cause of death (the abortion).

But I agree with you that deliberate concealement of abortion as cause of death is the smaller part of your problem--you need to approximate how many deaths due to illegal abortion were listed as general infection/blood poisoning, or some other more proximal cause of death. That's a very difficult number to estimate with confidence.

Somg,

You said that no one knows.

I said the stat is 36.

You said the docs lied.

I said if they lied it was for more compelling reason that the patients privacy.

Then you said docs break the law.

Then you said they don't investigate deaths of unknown causes.

Then you said they can't tell the cause of death.

Then I said they can. You say they could be mistaken or unsure.

Then you said well they didn't track abortion specifically.

None of this proves that the number 36 is wrong.

That is, not by deliberate deception but just because there was no way to identify that the patient had had an abortion.

You wrote: "None of this proves that the number 36 is wrong."

Similarly, nothing you've said proves that the number 36,000 is wrong.

There's no proof of any number. That's the point.

Somg,

you wrote,

"The patient may have told the doc about her abortion and asked him/her to keep it confidential.

If the autopsy is done under the auspices of a family doc, the family may wish the abortion to go unreported."

Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 5:24 PM

The above situation is a specific illustration of professional misconduct and withholding evidence of a crime which caused a person's death.

Concealing a crime that causes someones death is not the way to protect them.

36,000 would be almost 100 deaths per day.

Mysterious deaths of young women.

No one would notice?

The whole med community wouldn't notice?

I do not believe the medical community and the CDC would not notice a disproportionate number of deaths among healthy young women.

I don't buy it.

In a country of hundreds of millions of people, in the early seventies when computers were not in hospitals, sure, a hundred deaths a day all across the country would not blip on any overarching radar screen.

And they wouldn't be "mysterious". They'd be due to infection, blood poisoning, internal bleeding, kidney failure, or whatever.

They weren't idiots before computers.

There were actuaries and stats people and even docs who noticed trends.

They would notice 100 a day if it continued for any length of time because that would be disproportionate.

The number 36 is wrong. should be 39.

This from the CDC

In 1972, 90 women died as a result of abortion. Of those, 24 (27%) were related to a legally induced abortion and 39 (43%) to an illegal abortion.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00001467.htm

Somg,

I have to go to a party.

Have a nice evening.

Hippie you quoted CDC: "90 women died as a result of abortion. Of those, 24 (27%) were related to a legally induced abortion and 39 (43%) to an illegal abortion. "

Well 24 + 39 = 63, right? What were the other 27 abortions from which women died in 1972? Legal or illegal?

Seriously though, they shouldn't print a number like that without at least acknowledging the difficulties involved in estimating it, and the fact that it is only an estimate.

"Christianity has the bloodiest history of any religion on Earth."

Except for atheism:

http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/

PiP,

Can you honestly say you have read enough about evolution to know that there are no holes in it and that you personally have studied the intricacies of the how and why to defend it against pointed criticisms of particular instances?

If your honest answer is no, then for you personally, it is faith.

Somg wrote:

No one knows how many women died from illegal abortion before Roe/Wade.

It was illegal, so it couldn't be monitored.

Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 1:49 PM

Of course it could be monitored. When someone dies of illegal drug overdose, it does not go unreported or unmonitored.

I have seen statistics showing that 36 died from abortion in 1972. and I think like 185 in 1960.

Generally, when someone dies, there is a death certificate with a cause of death on it.

Such records are available to demographers.

If women of childbearing years were mysteriously dying from uterine hemorrhage or other such complications of abortion, the coroner would be able to discover it. It may even have been possible to do a pregnany test on her blood.

The notion that these women would just die and no one would notice seems pretty silly.

Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 3:07 PM
........................

It was not possible to do a blood pregnancy test on a woman dead or not when abortion was illegal.

hippie-

I am a biology major who has been interested in evolution since sophomore year in high school.
No, I am not a graduate yet, no I'm not in graduate school or anythign like that yet, but I sure know enough about it to assert that it is the central (and leading) theory in biology, and it is a scientific theory capable of explaining our origins.

Don't you think people have been trying to disprove Darwin's theory since it first came out? Don't you wonder why we haven't? Could it be? That the evidence supports it?

Obviously we haven't gotten it all figured out. There is always room to improve the theory, but the more we improve it, the more solid the theory becomes. I dont' know everything about the theory now, but that doesn't mean it's all "faith." That is an extremely ignorant way of looking at it.

I have an idea. Since gravity is only a THEORY, let's conjure up another one called "intelligent falling." Noone can PROVE God's hand isn't dedicated to making sure everythign on earth falls at -9.8 m/s^2. Those who say that their ideas are backed up with math and experiments just bas