Live blogging from FRC's Washington Briefing - Day 1

vote%20values1.jpg8:05p 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.

gary2.jpg

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.

phyllis2.jpg

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....

romney2.jpg

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....

    star%203.jpg

    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.

    hunter.jpg1:19p: 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.


    Comments:

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

    Posted by: PL Laura at October 19, 2007 12:47 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Theresa at October 19, 2007 1:34 PM


    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


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 1:52 PM


    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!

    Posted by: PL Laura at October 19, 2007 2:19 PM


    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.

    Posted by: carder at October 19, 2007 2:47 PM


    "...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...

    Posted by: carder at October 19, 2007 2:50 PM


    "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!).

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 19, 2007 2:51 PM


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

    I always wanted to bugger him.

    Him, and Dan Quayle.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 3:03 PM


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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 3:06 PM


    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.

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:24 PM


    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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 3:26 PM


    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.

    Posted by: life lynx at October 19, 2007 3:29 PM


    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

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:31 PM


    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.

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:34 PM


    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

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:36 PM



    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!

    Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 3:39 PM


    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.

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:40 PM


    "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


    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

    Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 3:42 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:47 PM


    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


    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


    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.

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:52 PM


    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.

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


    It's not worth it, MK...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 19, 2007 3:55 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 3:59 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: TexasRed at October 19, 2007 3:59 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 19, 2007 4:00 PM


    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...

    Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 4:03 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 19, 2007 4:04 PM


    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.

    Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 4:05 PM


    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...

    Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 4:07 PM


    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!

    Posted by: Kristi at October 19, 2007 4:17 PM


    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!

    Posted by: Theresa at October 19, 2007 4:18 PM


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

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 19, 2007 4:22 PM


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

    How hard can that be?

    Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 4:23 PM


    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 at October 19, 2007 4:24 PM


    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).

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 4:26 PM


    I SO love Keith Olbermann...

    Posted by: Laura at October 19, 2007 4:26 PM


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

    Posted by: PL Laura at October 19, 2007 4:27 PM


    Laura, me too!

    Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 4:28 PM


    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!

    Posted by: Kristi at October 19, 2007 4:28 PM


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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 4:31 PM


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

    Posted by: PL Laura at October 19, 2007 4:32 PM


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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 4:37 PM


    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!

    Posted by: Jacqueline at October 19, 2007 4:38 PM


    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.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 5:27 PM


    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?

    Posted by: Kristen at October 19, 2007 5:31 PM


    "I SO love Keith Olbermann..."

    ..he should be sent to gitmo with his buddies

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


    "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.

    Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 6:25 PM


    "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.

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


    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...?)

    Posted by: Laura at October 19, 2007 6:39 PM


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

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 6:43 PM


    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.


    Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 6:43 PM


    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!

    Posted by: Theresa at October 19, 2007 6:49 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 6:51 PM


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

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


    "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.

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 6:58 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 6:58 PM


    Liam, you are being way too rational.

    Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 7:00 PM


    @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*

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:00 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 7:05 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:11 PM


    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?

    Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 7:11 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Hal at October 19, 2007 7:17 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:17 PM


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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 7:20 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 7:20 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 19, 2007 7:23 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 7:24 PM


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

    Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 7:27 PM


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

    Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 7:31 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 7:33 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:33 PM


    Liam, no problem.

    Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 7:35 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 7:38 PM


    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?"

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:38 PM


    @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?

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:42 PM


    Phyllis Schlafly talks like Dame Edith Evans.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 7:42 PM


    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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:44 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:44 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Theresa at October 19, 2007 7:44 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 7:46 PM


    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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:47 PM


    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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:49 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 7:50 PM


    (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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:51 PM


    Gary Bauer, what a greasy little gnome.

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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 19, 2007 7:53 PM


    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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:53 PM


    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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:57 PM


    ,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

    Posted by: Doug at October 19, 2007 7:58 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 8:07 PM


    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


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

    Posted by: Carrie at October 19, 2007 8:40 PM


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

    It goes both ways though. :)

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 8:43 PM


    “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.)

    Posted by: Theresa at October 19, 2007 9:04 PM


    *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. ^_^

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 9:15 PM


    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


    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!

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 9:37 PM


    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!

    Posted by: Theresa at October 19, 2007 9:39 PM


    be carful Rae...

    Gary Bauer gave an excellent speech

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 9:56 PM


    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?

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 10:00 PM


    "Oh Ben Stein...

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

    But very True..

    Ben Stein!

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 10:00 PM


    @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?

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 10:04 PM


    Well Rae,

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

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 10:05 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 10:06 PM


    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.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 10:09 PM


    "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

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 10:10 PM


    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.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 10:13 PM


    @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. :)

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 10:14 PM


    @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?

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 10:20 PM


    Rae; he already said he is against GGay Marriage.

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

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 10:25 PM


    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.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 10:26 PM


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

    It won't be from randomness..

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 10:27 PM


    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.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 10:29 PM


    Rae,

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

    Posted by: mk at October 19, 2007 10:30 PM


    Rae,

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

    Posted by: jasper at October 19, 2007 10:32 PM


    @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.

    Posted by: Rae at October 19, 2007 10:34 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Liam at October 19, 2007 10:36 PM


    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.

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 19, 2007 11:06 PM


    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

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:50 AM


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

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:50 AM


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

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:51 AM


    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.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:53 AM


    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.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:56 AM


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

    Posted by: Carrie at October 20, 2007 5:48 AM


    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.

    Posted by: mk at October 20, 2007 7:46 AM


    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.

    Posted by: jasper at October 20, 2007 8:08 AM


    ...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

    Posted by: Erin at October 20, 2007 8:41 AM


    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.

    Posted by: jasper at October 20, 2007 8:59 AM


    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

    Posted by: Liam at October 20, 2007 9:47 AM


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

    what is your religion?

    Posted by: jasper at October 20, 2007 10:23 AM


    Jasper; I am a Muslim.

    Posted by: Liam at October 20, 2007 10:27 AM


    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.

    Posted by: Kristen at October 20, 2007 11:24 AM


    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.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2007 11:54 AM


    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

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2007 11:59 AM


    Thanks, Anon.

    Posted by: Carrie at October 20, 2007 12:02 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: jasper at October 20, 2007 12:09 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:13 PM


    Nice generalization, jasper

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 12:16 PM


    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?

    Posted by: mk at October 20, 2007 1:03 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 1:05 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Laura at October 20, 2007 1:09 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 2:36 PM


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

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 2:40 PM


    testable*

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 20, 2007 2:41 PM


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

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2007 2:42 PM


    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


    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)

    Posted by: Liam at October 20, 2007 3:09 PM


    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).

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


    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.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2007 3:30 PM


    That anon was me

    Hippie

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2007 3:31 PM


    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?

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 3:37 PM


    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.

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


    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


    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


    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.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2007 3:50 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 3:59 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 4:13 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 4:17 PM


    Waffling on what?

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 4:19 PM


    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.

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


    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


    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

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 4:33 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 4:40 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 4:44 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 4:55 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 5:07 PM


    "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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 5:18 PM


    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.

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


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 5:30 PM


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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 5:31 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 5:35 PM


    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.


    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 5:37 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 5:42 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 5:51 PM


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

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 5:54 PM


    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

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 6:02 PM


    Somg,

    I have to go to a party.

    Have a nice evening.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 6:05 PM


    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.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 20, 2007 6:56 PM


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

    Except for atheism:

    http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/

    Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 20, 2007 9:32 PM


    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.

    Posted by: hippie at October 20, 2007 11:19 PM


    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.

    Posted by: Sally at October 20, 2007 11:27 PM


    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.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 1:26 AM


    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 base them on "faith." They must be equal, and I demand we have this theory taught right alongside the theory of gravity.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 1:32 AM


    also, hippie,

    If you are interested in evolution I would love to give you a list of books to get you started.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 1:44 AM


    Haha, you know what, I'm tired of the scientific method too. Screw it. I propose a new one. It's called 'bookmarking.' It is where we rely on a combination of bible verses and public opinion to create science.

    "When it comes to understanding the universe, the Beaker Brigade won't shut up about its method of inquiry, The Scientific Method.
    This process consists of several basic steps, including but not limited to-I"m sorry, I blacked out there. Suffice it to say, there are a bunch of steps. Put on a pot of coffee. This might take a while.

    Step 1: Observation. "Mankind has a pretty nice relationship with God."
    Step 2: Hypothesis. "I bet people would start to doubt the existence of god if I claimed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, instead of the other way around like the Bible says."
    Step 3: Experiment. "I will publish my heretical beliefs and see how the Church reacts."
    Step 4: Conclusion. "I recant! Please stop torturing me!!!"

    A Better way.

    It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is one THEORY about how best to understand it. We live in a democracy, which means that we should treat every theory equally.
    So here's an alternative two-step method for understanding the universe:
    Step 1. Remember: Six thousand years ago, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
    Step 2. Repeat as necessary."

    Man I can't help quoting it wherever I go.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 1:54 AM


    PiP,

    My interest is in trends in counter culture.

    Evolution is part of popular culture and is supported by many who do not understand it.

    My assertion that some people believe evolution on faith, neither supports nor refutes evolution.

    Modern scientists who support ID or creationism are, in my view part of a counter culture.

    My friend invited me to attend a brief lecture by such a scientist who cited a couple of instances that were not sufficiently explained by evoulution.

    One was the blood clotting mechanism. His basic point was that it is very complex and that even a small defect in the system causes complete failure to clot aka hemophelia. His questioned how such a system evolved by small incremental changes when the smallest change in the system causes it to fail.

    His argument reminds me of the process by which one can disprove something in math by finding an instance in which the condition is false.

    I don't have an answer to his question, and neither do many others.

    My point is not that evolution is false. My point is that most people believe it on faith.

    Those who challenge it are part of a counter culture.
    They do not embrace the popular notion of evolution.

    Some reject it based on their understanding of their religion.

    Some reject it based on questions such as the biology professor did.

    The ID scientist point is that any scientific theory must stand on its own.
    No one owes allegiance to any theory just because it is popular.

    I find counter culture very interesting.

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 7:48 AM



    ...people, what you are seeing with PIP is a good example of what the public school system can do to your children.

    #####
    The official position of the government operated school system is that God and the Bible are NOT to be promoted. Perhaps you think that this is good because it separates religion from state. Or does it? Is not evolution the religion of humanism? Yes, it most certainly is! "Humanism" teaches that mankind is inherently good and that we are our own gods. Though most humanists would deny this, the fact that they look to humanity to solve all their problems proves it. Humanism excludes God.

    A child by nature believes in a supreme being Who created all things (Romans 1:21). It's not until their faith in God is shaken by some godless teacher that they start doubting. Where do all the atheists and heathen philosophers come from? They come out of heathen schools and universities! One atheist begets another atheist. That's fine if an adult wants to go be brainwashed in a godless school, but why force those beliefs upon innocent children?

    #######

    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 7:49 AM


    I'm sending my kids to public school, just like my Methodist Dad and Catholic Mom sent me to public school and how my Methodist Grandmother and Dutch Reformed Grandfather sent my Dad to school and how my Catholic Grandmother and Converted-Catholic Grandfather sent my Mom to school. Why did we all go to public schools? Because they're cheap and do a decent job preparing children (unless it's a crap-funded inner-city school) for further education and work.

    Jasper, it is not the school's job to teach religion and morality, that is the parent's job. The school's job is to prepare you for working and college.

    And for the record Jasper, the "godless" school system didn't make me question my Catholic upbringing, most of my friends were devout cradle-Catholics and Lutherans who went to church every Sunday and bible-study every Wednesday. In fact they would try to make ME go to classes with them when I flat-out stated I thought it was crap.

    I came to my own conclusions on my own. When you're as lonely as I was/am, you think about things a lot more.

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 9:20 AM


    Jasper;

    And which religion should we force on Children? Evolution is not taught to babes, but to teens, with brains of their own to decide what to believe. But Scientific knowledge applies equally to everyone. But i sure as hell dont want my son having to write essays on "My Savior Jesus" when that directly conflicts with the religious values *I*, as his FATHER, am trying to teach him.

    Would you like me to teach your son all about Islam? and how The only way into heaven is to accept that There is NO God, But God, and Mohammad his messenger?

    Posted by: Liam at October 21, 2007 9:39 AM


    I went to public school until I ended up in an open concept school in 4th grade. It had no walls. 800 little folks eyes, ears and minds a wandering.

    I spent the second half of 4th and all of 5th in a catholic school because it was available. I am not catholic.

    I have worked in public education and the general idea of not judging anyone or anything is somewhat of an undercurrent of thought that the students pick up on.

    About half of the teachers in public schools are the finest people you could ever know. The other half, well, probably should be working in another field.

    The truth is public school is a source of secular indoctrination.
    There is no way to keep from indoctrinating people when they are your captives 35 hours a week for 12 years of their most formative years. No matter how hard you try to be fair to everyone, your opinion has so much control over them that they just absorb it.

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 10:17 AM


    Open concept schools are icky...the school my little brother went to in Aberdeen, South Dakota used to be one and they were trying to 'remodel' it to make it not-so-open anymore.

    I was looking into the Montessori programs for schooling...and I like what I'm seeing. From what I've seen of it, I think that philosophy of teaching should be expanded and more wide-spread.

    Hippie, what is so wrong with "secular indoctrination" (though I think the word "indoctrination" is a heavily loaded term). I think it is important, even if you are devoutly religious to at least get some semblance of understanding of our society which is secular.

    I am by no means saying religion needs to stay out of schools, but if you want your kids to have a truly non-secular schooling experience, send them to a religious school of your choice and stop whining. Because again: schools aren't there to teach your kids morality and moral responsibility, that is the parent's job, not the teacher's.

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:00 AM


    "Because again: schools aren't there to teach your kids morality and moral responsibility"


    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 11:08 AM


    Jasper, they aren't.

    That is the parent's job. Parents need to take responsibility and teach their kids morals. Schools were never meant to do that in the first place.

    Jiminy Crickets.

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:13 AM


    "Would you like me to teach your son all about Islam? and how The only way into heaven is to accept that There is NO God, But God, and Mohammad his messenger?"

    Islam is not the same as Christianity, this country was founded on Christian values and morals. Your son can look the other way during prayer time. Just because you don't approve doesn't mean you have to ruin it for everbody else. I spent time in the far east, I didn't mind if they prayed to budda, I just looked the other way.

    Islam teaches hatred and violence (as in the madrasses) and should have no part in american schools.

    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 11:16 AM


    *shakes head*

    I'm not even going to argue that particular comment with you again Jasper...

    Though I go to school with hundreds of Somali Muslims. I have at least one Somali Muslim in every class I've taken this year. I haven't been blown to bits yet, nor have any of them screeched, "DEATH TO AMERICA!" yet.

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:19 AM


    Rae,

    Should the schools be neutral on murder and child molestation? If a child asks a teacher; "Mrs Jones, is it ok if I murder or steal from somebody if I dislike them?" ...should the teacher say:"We'll Johnny, we not suppose to mention morality at school, you'll have to decide for yourself"

    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 11:20 AM


    @Jasper: That's law. What I mean by "morality" that is the parent's job to teach are things like sexual morality and religious morality.

    Though laws are based on morals accepted by society as a whole.

    And no, I don't think the teacher should say, "Decide for yourself."

    But whatever Jasper. Just so you know, I spent 5 hours last night defending Christianity and religion in general against atheists who were trying to make the argument that religions are the cause of all the major wars and death in the world and that all religious people are dumb.

    I succeeded too.

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:26 AM


    "But whatever Jasper. Just so you know, I spent 5 hours last night defending Christianity and religion in general against atheists who were trying to make the argument that religions are the cause of all the major wars and death in the world and that all religious people are dumb.

    I succeeded too."


    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 11:32 AM


    "What I mean by "morality" that is the parent's job to teach are things like sexual morality"

    ##
    "Mrs Jones, would it ok If I had sex with 3 boys tonight?"

    "we'll Susie, thats entirely up to you, you'll have to decide for yourself."

    ##

    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 11:35 AM


    And do you want to know how I did it?

    Basically I pointed out that each and every war is almost always over economics and that so-called "religious wars" were actually wars over economics that used religious pretense in order to whip up support and to galvanize righteous indignation among the followers/soldiers. It wasn't the religion itself that caused the wars, but the manipulation and abuse of faith that lead to so-called "religious" wars.

    I also pointed out that stuff like Stalinism and Maoism (aka fake Communism) were atheistic in nature and yet they still had mass-killings even though religion played no part (the Stalinists and Maoists did not kill religious folk because they were religious, they killed religious leaders to prevent covert gatherings in which uprisings could form).

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:39 AM


    No Jasper. If parents actually took the time to teach their kids sexual morality and what not, students wouldn't have to ask their teachers.

    There is also the fact that students never respect their teachers, so if said teacher were to spout off, "No, you heathen ingrate, it is NEVER okay to sleep with 3 boys! Save it till marriage!" do you really think they'd listen? Doubtful.

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:41 AM


    And besides, students never ask their teachers questions like that. When I was in school we never discussed "hot-button" topics like that. We never discussed morality. Not even during sex ed (which was pathetic...).

    And that I went to school in Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York (upstate), and South Dakota and never once did any student ever ask the teacher, "Is it okay that I screw 3 boys tonight when my parents aren't home?"

    Posted by: Rae at October 21, 2007 11:43 AM


    No kid in their right mind would ask their teacher that question in the first place. Secondly, if one did they would be sent to the counselor's office.

    The point is if you want your children to have Christian values, it is your job as a parent to instill those values in your children, not the public school's. If you want your children to pray everyday you can lead them in prayer and teach to them the importance of prayer, not rely on the school system to do it, filled with people who might not pray or believe in prayer. If you want your children to wait until marriage to have sex, then it should be you teaching them why you believe that is important, or the best way to go, instead of relying on a person to teach them sex ed that may or may not have kept their virginity for marriage.

    Believe it or not, you have to take an active interest in your child's well being, even after they have been born.

    Posted by: JKeller at October 21, 2007 11:54 AM


    "His basic point was that it is very complex and that even a small defect in the system causes complete failure to clot aka hemophelia. His questioned how such a system evolved by small incremental changes when the smallest change in the system causes it to fail."

    Well, evolution is also very complex, and as I said there are a few things that we haven't figured out. I don't think this is a novel idea. It's kind of the basis of scientific inquiry. That we have things to inquire about. Nobody said, "we know everything about how everything evolved." But that doesn't mean it's false. That's quite a leap of logic--something that is pretty obvious to me and others. What I'm trying to say is evidence AGAINST evolution would be direct evidence that lead to a different mechanism. "We don't know how this works yet" is not a valid criticism.
    Besides, a general way of looking at something like that would be like building an arch out of blocks. One by one you add something that makes a functional structure, but when you take away one block, it falls apart.

    "The ID scientist point is that any scientific theory must stand on its own.
    No one owes allegiance to any theory just because it is popular."
    Here, this is my point. Evolution is supported because it DOES stand on its own. Not because its popular. Why don't you look at the thousands of scientific articles and try to find an alternate theory it supports and get back to me. Or by popular do you mean that a lot of people think its true? In that case, gravity and every other scientific theory is still nothing but a popularity contest.
    ID is a religious movement. It is unscientific in principle. I think that alternate theories are welcome, if they have evidence to support it. ID is no "theory" and completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and unobservable. The belief in an invisible being that mysteriously designed everything is not science. Sorry, play again.

    "...people, what you are seeing with PIP is a good example of what the public school system can do to your children."

    Jasper, I know you have that bad habit of making assumptions, but I suggest you actually try to learn something before you put your feet in your mouth.

    I was never taught evolution in my high school education. The only thing that was ever remotely discussed was a disclaimer statement by my freshman biology teacher: "You may or may not believe in evolution, the only thing you need to know is that men and women have the same amount of ribs." Neither was it that a lot of people around me did, most were creationists. I did my own research with an open mind and (surprisingly) that's where the evidence leads. If you need some guidence feel free to let me know and I will give you a list of books to start with.
    If theology is what is holding you back, I know where you can start: The Vatican.

    "The official position of the government operated school system is that God and the Bible are NOT to be promoted."
    In a philosophy or religion class sure, the Bible can be studied. We also did that in English to study allusions. No, it should not be there in a science classroom. Guess why? It's NOT science!

    "Perhaps you think that this is good because it separates religion from state. Or does it?"
    Well I think not actively PROMOTING it is just fair. Would you like people "promoting" the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? How about any eastern religious texts?

    "Is not evolution the religion of humanism? Yes, it most certainly is!"
    Why don't you back that up first? I'll start. The vast majority of scientists are religious. Your turn.


    ""Humanism" teaches that mankind is inherently good and that we are our own gods. Though most humanists would deny this, the fact that they look to humanity to solve all their problems proves it. Humanism excludes God."
    What are you blathering about again?


    "Where do all the atheists and heathen philosophers come from?"
    From their own developed philosophies? Honestly jasper, before you start getting worse, please actually look logically at what you are saying. Oh wait, logic isn't allowed here. Perhaps logic leads to athiesm, so let's replace any sort of logical thought with "God did it" courses. Faith and reason? Screw that, jasper, I'm right there with you.

    "They come out of heathen schools and universities!"
    Oh, that evil education. Haha, seriously, jasper this is the funniest thing you've ever said.

    "One atheist begets another atheist."
    Doesn't one Christian beget another? Unless you'd rather not allow any sort of dialogue in which case I only have to say, "it's your loss."

    "That's fine if an adult wants to go be brainwashed in a godless school, but why force those beliefs upon innocent children?"
    Time to back up your beliefs jasper. I know this is so hard for you that you have never done it, but before you talk about "brainwashing" why don't you actually use some sort of proof? Like, when are opinions not allowed?

    "The truth is public school is a source of secular indoctrination."
    Then any education is indoctrination. What is homeschooling? Ever see Jesus Camp?

    "Islam is not the same as Christianity, this country was founded on Christian values and morals."
    You are right. The Christian values forcibly imposed on this country were established years ago and should be taught about its greatness. Also Islam is evil and all other religions are false. I think they should teach this in public schools. I also think that the Founding Fathers were full of sh*t, how about you?

    "No Jasper. If parents actually took the time to teach their kids sexual morality and what not, students wouldn't have to ask their teachers."
    applause.


    I think we should all sit here and take jasper's crazy (yet all too common) comments with a grain of salt.
    He only demonstrates that he objects to evolution on theological and philosophical ground rather than science. Sure, he can do that, but saying that his objection is scientific is dishonest. He just proved my entire point.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 12:50 PM



    Jasper you wrote.

    Should the schools be neutral on murder and child molestation? If a child asks a teacher; "Mrs Jones, is it ok if I murder or steal from somebody if I dislike them?" ...should the teacher say:"We'll Johnny, we not suppose to mention morality at school, you'll have to decide for yourself"

    Posted by: jasper at October 21, 2007 11:20 AM

    Let me give you a real life example of a real child reading a real story.

    A nine year old boy read a story from the popular Encyclopedia Brown series.

    In the story, there is a girl who gets on a boys baseball team by pretending to be a boy. She is found out by a player who reports it. So she is off the team. The mystery is which player told. Through the clues we discover it is the lefty pitcher. She goes over and punches him giving him a bloody nose. End of story.

    The implict message is that one shouldn't tell on the girl who is cheating the system. She broke the rules and someone told the truth and that someone was punished.

    This is a form of indoctrination. Subtle and sophisticated.

    It took a lot of discussion for the nine year old to discover and refute the values expressed in that story.

    Kids all over this country are influenced in this fashion.

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 1:31 PM


    Hippie,

    Are you serious?

    1. I never thought that those stories were intended to present a moral, just a detective story. So she ends up punching the guy. She's probably pissed off!

    2. It took a lot of discussion for the nine year old to discover the values expressed in the story? Perhaps because it is a mystery story?

    3. You know, I think Harry Potter is nothing but subtle and sophisticated indoctrination, because snape is a selfish prig. But he ends up saving Harry's life. I guess it might take a 9 year old a while of "discussion" to "discover" that this is really a secret command to teach them that being an a**hole is okay as long as they don't not save someone from dying.

    4. Are you a conspiracy theorist?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 2:04 PM


    PiP,

    I can basically agree with your points.

    I do feel that some of the other theories of science hold under severe scrutiny.

    While neither ID or evolution account for all the unknowns in biology, evolution is very popular and ID is not.

    Once an idea like evolution or public education catches on, it gains inertia, gains tacit support simply by existing.

    Until someone comes along and insists on some answers.

    Consider Louis Pasteur and the hygenic movement that fought an uphill battle just to get physicians to wash their hands.

    I think science is made stronger by those who run counter to what is popular and demand evidence based science.

    I don't know if you got to look at the article I mentioned to you a while back from the January 2006 issue of Scientific American which discussed the improvements in toxicology tests that have emerged by not using animals as models. Improvements such as these are the result of counter culture groups insisting on evidence based science as well as animal welfare folks.

    Everyone in science knows that evidence is not proof.

    What then is lack of evidence?

    Shall we use the preponderance of evidence as a measure that is good enough, or should we strive for demonstrable evidence in all cases?

    These are not easy questions or tasks.

    In the case of evolution, it seems to be counting the chicks before they have hatched.

    Here is a fun psychology experiment for you.

    Pretend for two weeks to all your classmates, professors, friends and family that you have been entirely converted to the ID camp.

    Tally the reactions of your subjects on a likert scale 1 is indifference, 5 shock and outrage.

    I will give you my prediction, those most invested in evolution will have the strongest reaction, those invested but with less information will react with strong emotion. Few will be indifferent, simply saying, "Okay, you want to go get a latte?"

    I am not arguing for or against evolution.

    I merely point out that folks get emotionally engaged in certain views which further limits objectivity.

    No one is objective. I am not. However, we do need to recognize our emotional connection to some ideas in order to be more objective.

    If we can identify our own bias, we can be more objective.

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 2:05 PM


    PiP

    4. Are you a conspiracy theorist?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 2:04 PM

    I almost fell off my chair laughing. A friend of mine and I have great fun debunking conspiracy theories whenever she comes over. We got started talking about how people can be lead to believe silly things. She shared that her grandma was a super big fan of conspiracy theories. Anyway she shared some of her grandma's favorites and laughed and talked. Finally she got around to telling me about how her grandma was a mathematician and engineer who had worked on the Manhattan project which was how she came to Alabama. I then said, well that must be why your grandma was so into conspiracy theories, because she had participated in one for so long she knew all the ins and outs of how something like that would work.

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 2:17 PM


    PiP,

    you wrote.

    "Are you serious?

    1. I never thought that those stories were intended to present a moral, just a detective story. So she ends up punching the guy. She's probably pissed off!

    2. It took a lot of discussion for the nine year old to discover the values expressed in the story? Perhaps because it is a mystery story?"

    :::::::::::::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

    The writer's values are expressed in the story.

    The writer created the characters. He is not describing actual events. He could have made her remorseful for cheating and lying but he didn't. Instead he made her vindictive. This is not a conspiracy. It is just the reflection of the author in his creation.

    It is just a little literary criticism.

    A writer's values are reflected in his work. I am serious.

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 2:30 PM


    "I do feel that some of the other theories of science hold under severe scrutiny."
    I feel most theories of science hold under sever scrutiny. Hence why they are theories rather than hypotheses.

    "While neither ID or evolution account for all the unknowns in biology, evolution is very popular and ID is not."
    Because evolution is science and has evidence and ID is not and does not. I also believe ID is plenty popular--popular enough to go to trial (and be defeated horribly).

    "Once an idea like evolution or public education catches on, it gains inertia, gains tacit support simply by existing."
    Private education also teaches evolution...because evolution is the primary and leading theory in biology. A university that doesn't teach evolution severly underestimates their view of science.

    "Until someone comes along and insists on some answers."
    Yeah, like scientists? I think most of them also "insist" on answers. It's not like they lay around all day.

    "Consider Louis Pasteur and the hygenic movement that fought an uphill battle just to get physicians to wash their hands."
    A lot of people have fought against the grain. Including our own Charles Darwin. You think he was greeted with a parade?

    "I think science is made stronger by those who run counter to what is popular and demand evidence based science."
    I agree, and am wondering something: if you have no opinion on evolution, why do you assume that there is no evidence for it?

    "I don't know if you got to look at the article I mentioned to you a while back from the January 2006 issue of Scientific American which discussed the improvements in toxicology tests that have emerged by not using animals as models. Improvements such as these are the result of counter culture groups insisting on evidence based science as well as animal welfare folks."
    I don't see how this is relevant. I did make the point that although a good point is made, it is rather limited. What would happen to progress if all we could work with are organisms like e.coli? Unless you want to redefine the definition of "animal" so that it doesn't include useful organisms like Drosphila.

    "Everyone in science knows that evidence is not proof."
    Everyone in science knows that nothing is "proven."

    "What then is lack of evidence?"
    It's lack of evidence!

    "Shall we use the preponderance of evidence as a measure that is good enough, or should we strive for demonstrable evidence in all cases?"
    If you want to make something a scientific theory, it better be very well supported by evidence. Otherwise it would be a hypothesis. ID is AT BEST a hypothesis. How would it be supported? If it is only a fallback mechanism I'd say it's not worth our time. No easy ways out.

    "In the case of evolution, it seems to be counting the chicks before they have hatched."
    How so? You think over 100 years of research didn't do anything?


    "I will give you my prediction, those most invested in evolution will have the strongest reaction, those invested but with less information will react with strong emotion. Few will be indifferent, simply saying, "Okay, you want to go get a latte?""
    I don't understand your thought experiment. If everyone was converted to ID, including the scientific community, there would probably be evidence. If that is the case, and I study it and find that there is sufficient evidence, I would convert too. That is the way it works.

    "I am not arguing for or against evolution."
    Really?

    "I merely point out that folks get emotionally engaged in certain views which further limits objectivity."
    As I said, I don't view ID as even close to a threat. I do get emotionally involved with discussions that involve theology, but again those are discussions that go beyond the scope of science.

    "No one is objective. I am not. However, we do need to recognize our emotional connection to some ideas in order to be more objective."
    I don't think I ever said that humans aren't objective. But we do try to eliminate as much bias as we can by sticking to the method and having other scientists review our findings and see if they agree with our conclusions.

    "If we can identify our own bias, we can be more objective."
    I agree.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 3:13 PM



    "I almost fell off my chair laughing."
    I know it's a funny concept, I just found it odd that you found children's stories to be just ways to indoctrinate horrible morals into our children.
    I just call it a children's story.

    "She shared that her grandma was a super big fan of conspiracy theories."
    My brother is a big fan of conspiracy theories as well. It is a great way to strike of a funny conversation!

    "I then said, well that must be why your grandma was so into conspiracy theories, because she had participated in one for so long she knew all the ins and outs of how something like that would work."
    Yeah, that sounds about right. however my brother has no excuse! Hear that, Sean? lol

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 3:18 PM


    Hippie, the Intelligent Design "movement" is not a counterculture. It's a propaganda effort funded by evangelical churches.

    Posted by: SoMG at October 21, 2007 3:27 PM


    "The writer's values are expressed in the story."
    Maybe you were just too vague in the way it was. The way I saw it, That was something that seemed like a light mystery for the kiddies to solve. Then when they solved it, the girl got mad that she was found out and punched the guy that did it. I don't think it said anything about whether she did the right thing, or even implied it. It's just what happened. There is no need to talk down to kids. They hate that. Going, "now kids, what have we learned? That the girl was wrong and the guy was right. You got it?" seems like a great way to be patronistic.


    "The writer created the characters. He is not describing actual events."
    Neither is Harry Potter, but some characters are still poopieheads.

    "He could have made her remorseful for cheating and lying but he didn't. Instead he made her vindictive."
    Well, in real life what do you think WOULD happen? Would the girl's first reaction be "aw shucks, I guess I was wrong. Will you forgive me?" Or would the girl's first reaction be, "you poopiehead!"?

    "This is not a conspiracy. It is just the reflection of the author in his creation.
    It is just a little literary criticism."
    Sure you can believe that. No offense, I just think it's stupid.

    "A writer's values are reflected in his work. I am serious."

    I just don't think that every book should have to be moral treatises. If so then most of literature falls short. Notice how children love the stories that talk down to them the least?

    Haha but you could blame the 1960's mystery series for the moral downfalls of others and label them as those sly crafty people indoctrinating our children to become athiests. That's your right as an american! :)

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 3:31 PM


    Don't you think evangelicals are counter culture?

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 21, 2007 3:32 PM


    PiP,

    You wrote:

    "I think science is made stronger by those who run counter to what is popular and demand evidence based science."
    I agree, and am wondering something: if you have no opinion on evolution, why do you assume that there is no evidence for it?"

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    I think you misunderstand me. I don't say there is no evidence.

    I said there are those who support it without examining the evidence.

    I call that faith.

    I said I am not super interested in evolution, rather in counter culture.

    Some scientists look at the evidence and write books and influence people to their view. That is a counter culture point of view. It challenges the establishment.

    I find such developments interesting.

    I don't study biology but there are those who do and some of them challenge certain assumptions of evolution. Some challenge the effectiveness of using animal models.

    It makes me say, why.

    Just because someone challenges someone doesn't make them right or wrong.

    However, I think psychologically it is possible for us to get so invested in an idea that we lose the ability to change what we think.

    That concept is more interesting to me than the evolution debate.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 21, 2007 3:58 PM


    That anon was me.

    Hippie

    Posted by: hippie at October 21, 2007 3:59 PM


    "I think you misunderstand me. I don't say there is no evidence.
    I said there are those who support it without examining the evidence.
    I call that faith."
    You can say that about anything though. You must accept a lot of things on "faith" if you don't study them, but that just has to be the nature of it I guess. So I don't know where you were going with this then if it was all on account that some people take things they don't study based on faith, or general consensus?

    "I said I am not super interested in evolution, rather in counter culture."
    Yeah, I got that. I do sense from your posts though that you tend to agree with one side more than the other.


    "I don't study biology but there are those who do and some of them challenge certain assumptions of evolution."
    Yes, but often their challenges aren't really a presentation of evidence that leads to a different conclusion, they are just unsatisfied that we don't know everything yet. ID fills all the gaps. Ta da!

    "Just because someone challenges someone doesn't make them right or wrong."
    That's not neccessarily true. If I say, 2+2=4. And that is the general consenseus, and I can demonstrate this. And you say, "uh uh, that is not true." The burden of proof would be on you. If you can't produce it, we should accept mine until you do, because that is where the abundance of evidence points. Just because I go "I challenge thee!" doesn't make me automatically just as right as you are. I have to produce real evidence to support my assertion.

    "However, I think psychologically it is possible for us to get so invested in an idea that we lose the ability to change what we think."
    Even though science is resistant to a lot of novel ideas, with enough evidence the ideas are eventually accepted. So your idea is right to an extent, but beyond that extent, the body of science is still dynamic. So far ID has produced no viable evidence. When it has, come back and talk to me. The argument that we are just "stubborn" can't be made until real evidence is presented that directly supports their theory. This is what I've been saying.

    "That concept is more interesting to me than the evolution debate."
    I can understand that, but when you delve into the "counterculture"/ID part of the debate you are essentially getting into the evolution debate. The ID movement claims to be a scientific one but its claims lack the criteria for scientific inquiry, and turns itself into a conceptual and philosophical one. It is a direct challenge to evolution, hence the controversy. You make the distinction but it's nearly impossible to separate the two. I do understand where are coming from but it's just the nature of the issue.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 5:22 PM


    @Pip,

    your rant about evolution is problematic on two levels - within science there lies a notion that if the theory doesn't explain one/several phenomenon, start looking around for an alternative. Within the scope of evolution please explain how the valve in the trachea could 'evolve'.

    If any solids go to the lungs, we stop breathing and in a very short while (before any procreation), we are dead. Similarly if we focus exclusively on air intake or food, we're dead long before we have been able to pass on any genes.

    The existence of the cell's mitochondria is even more baffling. It is kinda like most germs. ... there are whole books written on the reliance of all biochemical organizations on the presence of is mitochondria but it's very structure, defies crude Darwinian theory.

    Have you ever wondered why most scientist are religious ... perhaps science just can't cut it? A fiend was studying to be an engineer. In his class a lone lily grew. He concluded that applying every bit of science available, he never could create anything remotely as beautiful as that sole lily.

    He was gifted with humility .... it only evades the proud and arrogant.

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 21, 2007 6:09 PM


    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.

    Rae, good grief - people who want to stamp others with their own brand of religion are going to get voted against, bigtime. Because of some people's reloigious beliefs, they would take away the freedom that women have in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies. You bet they're gonna get voted against, same as a Mullah would, arguing just as hard for the "rightness" of female genital mutiliation.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2007 6:10 PM


    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?

    Rae, we know there is evolution, just as we know there is gravity. We don't know all the processes by which they operate, but their existence isn't in any serious doubt.

    Evolution is also not saying that there cannot be a creator, so right on.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2007 6:14 PM


    PiP,

    Thanks for your insights on the evolution situation.

    Do you think if people knew more about evolution, the ID movement would be even smaller? I mean if people understood more about scientific criteria etc.

    Would you see animal welfare movements, or homeschooling movements as counter culture?

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 21, 2007 6:43 PM


    Jasper;

    Firstly, the Founding fathers of this great country were not all Christians, in fact, many were Deists who believed in no FIXED deity.

    And if Christianity is so peaceful, explain: Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, CHRISTIAN terrorist groups in Indonesia, and throught the middle east, Westboro Baptists Church, Army Of God.... I am not saying the followers of my religion are any better, BOTH groups have their extremists.

    Posted by: Liam at October 21, 2007 8:16 PM


    Liam,

    I agree with you that no one has a monopoly on bad behaviour.

    When I was teaching we talked a lot about gang activity and violence from gangs. These are not religious groups but they have that violent mentality. It is a human weakness. Many people of all religions are against violence but unfortunately it still happens. Personally, I think it is a kind of mental illness, but I can't support that with facts.

    Posted by: Anonymous at October 21, 2007 8:30 PM


    Anon;

    i was always taught that too much of anything is bad for you. All things in moderation. The problem we find in these violent groups (both Gangs and religious groups) is that they have good too far. There is no moderation. For instance, Homosexuality is a sin according to Leviticus, so the people who say "god hates Fags" would be correct.... except that Jesus said God loves EVERYONE he hates the sin.... (the whole Love the Sinner, hate the Sin thing)

    they merely take it to the extreme. and even something as good as chocolate can kill you if you have too much.

    Posted by: Liam at October 21, 2007 8:37 PM


    "even something as good as chocolate can kill you if you have too much."

    Say it isn't so...

    Posted by: mk at October 21, 2007 9:13 PM


    "Within the scope of evolution please explain how the valve in the trachea could 'evolve'."
    I haven't studied the specifics of tracheal evolution, but off the top of my head, I'd say it was probably developed through an opening in the surface, the acquiring of cilia, and then got more complex as speciation became more complex. If you want to know more, I could give you the contact information of people on my staff. After a small search in a database, here are some things that can help you out here:

    The Form of the Tracheal Cartilages of Primates, with Remarks on the Supposed Taxonomic Importance. William L. Straus, Jr. Journal of Mammalogy. Vol. 12, No. 3
    Properties, Function, and Origin of the Alveolar Lining Layer. R. E. Pattle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. Vol 148, No 931
    Using Phylogenies to Test Macroevolutionary Hypotheses of Trait Evolution in Cranes (Gruinae)
    Arne O. Mooers, Steven M. Vamosi, Dolph Schluter. The American Naturalist. Vol. 154, No 2.
    On the Difficulties Encountered in the Evolution of Air-Breathing Vertebrates. F. H. Pike. Science. New Series, Vol. 59, No. 1531.

    "If any solids go to the lungs, we stop breathing and in a very short while (before any procreation), we are dead. Similarly if we focus exclusively on air intake or food, we're dead long before we have been able to pass on any genes."
    Well generally the ones propogating the species are the ones that survive to pass on their genes. I really can't claim to be an expert in tracheal evolution, but it makes sense that basic defenses would be acquired before other developments such as size.

    "The existence of the cell's mitochondria is even more baffling. It is kinda like most germs. ... there are whole books written on the reliance of all biochemical organizations on the presence of is mitochondria but it's very structure, defies crude Darwinian theory."
    Actually it doesn't. Prokaryotes do not have mitochondria. All of the research is consistent with the theory that mitochondria evolved from prokaryotic bacteria that were phagocytosed and developed a symbiotic relationship with the eukaryotic organisms. For example, the mitochondria has its own genome. This I think is called endosymbiotic theory, which also explains the presence of chloroplasts. Because this probably happened early, then other mechanisms became dependent on mitochondrial energy.

    "Have you ever wondered why most scientist are religious ... perhaps science just can't cut it?"
    Because religion and science actually complement each other, but religion is not required to answer scientific questions. I never said science=philosophy. Or that science was the only subject that matters in life. If you want to make something a scientific matter though, it's gotta have the criteria to be scientific. If not, it belongs in another field of study. Simple.

    "He concluded that applying every bit of science available, he never could create anything remotely as beautiful as that sole lily."
    Isn't that cool?

    "He was gifted with humility .... it only evades the proud and arrogant."
    So...people who think ID isn't scientific is proud and arrogant? I'm not sure where you are going with this.

    "Do you think if people knew more about evolution, the ID movement would be even smaller? I mean if people understood more about scientific criteria etc."
    I really do think so. Often skeptics are put to rest after taking a class or two. There are also some arguments that are easy to believe when you don't hear the opposing or scientific side. And since a lot of the evidence lies in scientific papers often it doesn't even reach the general laymen as easily. I think evolution just needs to be understood. A lot of times the people opposed are generally opposed on philosophical or theological background, in which arguments from a religious point of view are helpful--that's why I find the Vatican documents to be a good place to start. The Catholic Church has no theological qualms with evolution whatsoever--they usually have a point of view called "theological evolution" which I personally believe in.

    "Would you see animal welfare movements, or homeschooling movements as counter culture?"
    I don't know, I guess it depends on their actual viewpoints. A lot of people have no problem with animal welfare or home-schooled children. I think they would become sociological counter culture if the groups promote something that is contrary to social norms. Either way, my own personal opinion of anything is on a case-by-case basis, so I can't really go anywhere from here.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 21, 2007 9:42 PM


    "And if Christianity is so peaceful, explain: Crusades, Inquisitions, "


    The Crudades were started by muslims burning down Christian churches. The Crusades saved Europe from being dominated by the Islam religon (this is a good thing). The Inquisition accusation is blow out of proportion by leftwing historians.

    ###

    PIP, you go-ahead and pray to Charles Darwin and we'll pray to Jesus.

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 9:26 AM


    no one prays to Charles Darwin, he's dead.

    unless you think he rose from the dead to save us from our sins? What would you think of someone who believed that nonsense?

    Posted by: Hal at October 22, 2007 9:41 AM


    Jasper;

    The Crusades where Christians invade muslim lands and killing EVERYONE, including women and children. Look into the fall of Jerusalem, when the christians took it, they killed all the muslims, when WE took it, we let them barter there lives, and NEVER did muslim wipe out entire towns.

    The inquisition and witch hunts killed hundreds of thousands of people, you dont have to blow it out of proportion.

    Posted by: Liam at October 22, 2007 10:48 AM


    jasper,

    Go look at the Vatican documents about this. I love it how the Pope sanctions us to "pray to Charles Darwin." But hey, that's your beef the the Church, not evolution. Good luck on that journey.

    Those who say evolution is a religion--I have decided that they would just rather remain ignorant. I'm telling this in your best interest, jasper, because it makes you look stupid when you say it.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 22, 2007 12:00 PM


    "The inquisition and witch hunts killed hundreds of thousands of people, you dont have to blow it out of proportion."

    No, not at all.

    "and NEVER did muslim wipe out entire towns."

    They try to all of the time, even today, 9-11, see Liam, I don't have to look back a thousand years like you do. I can give you many recent examples.

    again, when muslims die, christians and jews mourn...when christians or jews die, mulsims celebrate.

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 1:26 PM


    Jasper, "when muslims die, christians and jews mourn...when christians or jews die, mulsims celebrate."

    thats not true at all. MANY christians celebrate Muslim deaths. (i already mentioned many groups.) and MANY muslims more when people of any faith die. i was as horrified on Sept. 11th as anyone else.

    Posted by: Liam at October 22, 2007 1:35 PM


    "even something as good as chocolate can kill you if you have too much."

    Say it isn't so...

    Posted by: mk at October 21, 2007 9:13 PM
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Stone the blasphemer!
    He who defiles the sacred name of Chocolate must die!

    Posted by: Laura at October 22, 2007 1:39 PM


    Jasper, the difference between YOUR examples and Liam's is unbelievable simple...

    The HOLY Inquisition, the witch hunts, and the Crusades were DIRECTLY linked to the Church's mainstream opinion, as in, they were APPROVED OF by the highest officials of the Church. They were agreed upon. However, the terrorist attacks on 9/11 performed by certain Muslim individuals are a result of radical sects of Islam that are NOT in agreement with the mainstream opinion of most Muslims. Liam himself has corroborated this information- TRUE Islam is a religion of peace, not violence. I emphasize TRUE because the radical zealots that carried out the terrible 9/11 attacks are as comparable to REAL Muslims as the Westboro Baptist Church members are to REAL Christians.

    And you're just kidding yourself if you don't believe that the point of the witch hunts and the Inquisition was to seek out and destroy possible heresy. Even if the Church didn't kill QUITE as many people as some historians believe, the impetus behind the movement was still bloody and violent. Aren't you the ones who say "it doesn't matter how many fetuses PP kills, it's that they kill any at all that they're culpable. If they only kill one fetus a day, then they're evil."

    So stick to your guns. Either both organizations (PP and the Church at the time of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the witch hunts) are in the wrong for supporting the killing of innocent people, or both are right because of the beliefs of the people that run them (PP officials or high-ranking clergy). Just because one has the supposed "stamp of approval" from Jesus doesn't mean that what it did was right. I could just tell you that what PP does is being blown out of proportion.


    "again, when muslims die, christians and jews mourn...when christians or jews die, mulsims celebrate."

    I don't know what a "mulsim" is, but....
    I don't know any Muslim that would celebrate his or her Christian friend dying. You are unbelievably bigoted to think that you can group every follower of Islam into the same boat. I don't group you, a Christian, into the same boat as the Westboro Baptist lunatics, but you feel compelled to judge an entire group of religious people. Good job. Your entire post was idiotic.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 1:53 PM


    I got this new computer with a new keyboard, so it's taking me even longer to post ...

    Strange as it seems Doug, God did not utilize he principles of evolution, He created them ... this distinction is huge.

    One of the continuing problems I encounter is that people affix evolution in places it does not fit. For instance: did the universe (99.999000% space + 0.000999% inanimate matter) evolve? Is Big Bang theory evolutionary? Many assume animate/life evolved from inanimate/non-living things .... and THIS remains confused. All evolutionary principle CANNOT answer that question & ID makes a feeble stab at it!

    So in the sense that evolution and religion are not juxtaposed, neither are evolution (core theory re. hereditary traits for animate beings) and ID opposed to one another.

    There is a small problem with the trachea thing. Both actions are necessary for life, and if either is missing, then death occurs long before any trait can be passed on .... so the two have to coexist. That's two ... but one cornerstone of evolution is that a single trait is passed on ... not two.

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 22, 2007 2:32 PM


    "That's two ... but one cornerstone of evolution is that a single trait is passed on ... not two."
    Huh? I must have missed that. Since when are genes never linked?

    "Many assume animate/life evolved from inanimate/non-living things .... and THIS remains confused."
    Not neccessarily (I guess this depends on what you mean as confused? Do you mean we don't have a well established explanation? In which case you are right, there are several hypotheses, I am pretty sure that there are no theories surrounding it).
    Strictly speaking, Darwins theory can only go back as far as the first life form, so other vernacular terms of "evolution" do not refer to Darwin's theory.
    Chemical "evolution" is the general term used referring to the hypotheses surrounding how the first life form arised. Life has to been as a continuum. What we define as "life" even now is quite arbitrary--we have a set of characteristics set up but it is obvious that there are varying degrees of everything.
    For example, it has been demonstrated that water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, in the right conditions, creates carbon compounds such as amino acids, sugars, lipids, and some building blocks for nucleic acids. These are all found in life forms; could the combinations of any of these be seen as 1/4 of a life form? (etc). There have been discoveries of amino acids in space. We know some things about the properties of cells. For example, when lipids are put in solution, they automatically form a spheric bilayer that is semi-permeable, like cell membranes.
    Obviously we can't say for certain what happened, but some research has and is aimed at what kind of conditions can at least lead to the molecules and compounds that make up life--and compare it to what appears to most likely be the conditions where the earth was when it was first formed.

    "Is Big Bang theory evolutionary? "
    In what I have learned so far, Big Bang is not attributed at all to evolutionary theory, but it is (like evolution) a scientific theory of (here, universal) origins and has evidence to back it up. Often creationists like to tack on the Big Bang as a bonus point or something but I agree, the distinction needs to be made.

    "neither are evolution (core theory re. hereditary traits for animate beings) and ID opposed to one another"
    To an extent I agree but not totally. If by ID you mean by God's hand in the process, then yes, and the combination would be what is generally termed theistic evolution--the idea that God created the evolutionary process, and most agree that the soul did not evolve, but was placed by God himself. ID in the general sense does challenge evolution though, because it simply identifies a philosophical viewpoint. They want to redefine science to include supernatural explanations so that their "theory" would count as science. Evolution does not need to be explained by supernatural intervention, in fact that is why so many creationists seem to think it is a threat. In general ID is at best pseudoscience; it invokes the supernatural, can't make predictions like true scientific theories must, and is not testable or falsifiable.

    In fact the main idea of ID movement is to challenge evolution. In their textbook "Of Pandas and People" they say, "the origins of new organisms can be located in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent" and the book spends most of its time developing arguments to 'discredit' evolutionary theory.

    Another interesting insight is the fact that all the arguments are simply creationist arguments repeated. During the Dover Trials, the scientists revealed how an early publication of the exact same book used the words "creationism" and "creationist." After the ruling about creationism being religion (violating church and state) the use of intelligent design began being used where creationism was. Sure enough, the newer version of Of Pandas and People was the exact same as the earlier; "creationsim" had just been changed to "intelligent design," and "creationist" was replaced by "intelligent design proponent."

    My understanding of the modern ID movement is therefore not to add to evolution, and to fulfill the philosophical counterpart (not discussed in scientific classrooms, but religious and philosophic ones, by churches etc) but to replace evolution with creationist pseudoscience. But there's the rub. Evolution is NOT a philosophy at all! It's only science. Blurring the line is simply unacceptable.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 22, 2007 3:24 PM


    Just a quick note. An argument offered in favor of ID is often that evolution doesn't explain everything and that there are gaps in the fossil record.

    This isn't a particularly strong defense. Simply because something hasn't been explained yet does not mean that it won't be. Maybe we don't have the technology yet or maybe we haven't found the right fossil. Gaps do not mean that an answer cannot be found or that we must turn to a supernatural explanation.

    Additionally, those gaps get smaller as we learn more. Do you really want to get caught in an argument which would have your God's domain getting smaller and smaller?

    Posted by: Enigma at October 22, 2007 5:07 PM


    Lyssie:"I don't know any Muslim that would celebrate his or her Christian friend dying."

    Lyssie: "TRUE Islam is a religion of peace, not violence."

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 5:19 PM


    And your point IS, Jasper? How are my statements remotely funny? Can you actually address my VALID, read it, VALID points with civil discourse, or is your intellect sadly limited to emoticons and dismissive quoting? Until your posts actually REFUTE what I said (I noticed you left out responding to entire swaths of information...oh wait, you didn't respond at all), most on here can just assume that you don't have anything meaningful to add to the discussion except profound, asinine bias.

    Besides, explain how my above quotes are funny to you. I'm DYING to see how your limited intellect handles humor.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 5:30 PM


    Lyssie,

    comparing Islam to Christianity is absurd. Try taking a trip to Saudi-Arabia or Iran and see how women are treated.

    If it wasn't for the crusades you'd be wearing a burka and a bedsheet.

    there are many nice muslim people but many are controlled by the violent extremist

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 5:50 PM


    The wonderful religion of peace:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 6:06 PM


    Jasper, if you'd READ the Q'uran, you'd see that equal treatment of men and women is a founding tenet. JUST because Islamofascists managed to gain a foothold in some Middle-Eastern countries' governments and are SERIOUSLY warping the meaning of THEIR holy book does NOT mean that the mainline religion is inherently woman-hating, Christian-hating, or violent. That's like me taking snippets from the Bible out of context and making it sound like God loves men more. You would be all over me in a heartbeat. And the head veil? Many Muslim women CHOOSE to wear it as a sign of deference to God, much like many Catholic women wear veils to Mass on Sundays. The burqua is a MODERN requirement after the words of Islam's holy book were twisted to justify the subjugation of half the Muslim population in certain countries. If you can use religion to justify the derogatory treatment of half of your people, that's half the population you don't have to worry about controlling. It's a done deal.

    "there are many nice muslim people but many are controlled by the violent extremist"
    I could reply to you with an emoticon laughing hilariously...but I would be stooping. If there are many nice Muslim people, but they are controlled by violent extremist thought...would that make THEM terrorists? Would THEY rejoice in a Christian's death? I'm not understanding...wouldn't your admitting that there ARE many nice Muslims PROVE MY POINT? That there are vast numbers of Muslims who are tolerant towards Christians and don't rejoice over their deaths? Just because their governments are anti-Jew and anti-Christian DOESN'T mean that they are, succinctly proving that what I've been saying is true. It just so happens that the wrong people are in power in the government...it sounds just like the United States, without burquas.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 6:07 PM


    Ok Lyssie, I will take your advice and have an open mind and try not to make generalizations about muslims.... I just watched my fellow citizens jumping to their deaths from the World trade center the other day on YouTube.

    "That there are vast numbers of Muslims who are tolerant towards Christians and don't rejoice over their deaths?"

    Can you give me an example of a muslim country where I could practice my Christian faith openly?

    "It just so happens that the wrong people are in power in the government...it sounds just like the United States, without burquas."

    How dare you compare our government with a government run by radical Islamists?

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 6:28 PM


    Reread my post, Jasper, and try to find where I've EVER said that the governments of predominantly Muslim countries allow non-Muslims to practice their face. The WHOLE POINT is that they have corrupted the tenets of Islam and DON'T allow other faiths. I acknowledge that no, you would not be allowed to practice Catholicism openly. That is because the government, not the people, is corrupt. You are making generalizations about a whole people, not a government. If you were to make a generalization saying that "most, if not all, predominantly Muslim-governed nations are run by radicals", I would be inclined to agree with you, based on what I view of the Middle East at this time. I would, however, disagree if you believe that ALL the common people who practice Islam in these countries believe that Christians should die (even Mohammad wrote that Jews and Christians should be loved and respected). REAL followers of the Islamic faith follow the words of the Q'uran, just as real Christians follow the Bible.

    And my comparison of our government to certain Middle Eastern governments was my opinion that the wrong people are in office, NOT that they are radical, violent fascists or anything of the sort. I made a comment that the WRONG people are in power in those governments, and if it was in the hands of the people, it could change. (Not that I'm forcing democracy or anything....)

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 7:15 PM


    "Ok Lyssie, I will take your advice and have an open mind and try not to make generalizations about muslims.... I just watched my fellow citizens jumping to their deaths from the World trade center the other day on YouTube."

    If that wasn't a snide remark about all Muslims, I don't know what was. If you are at all uncertain about my position, I will clearly delineate it now. Pay attention:

    YES, I AGREE THAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK WAS UNBELIEVABLY AWFUL AND THE PEOPLE THAT ORCHESTRATED IT WERE EVIL BEYOND ALL IMAGINATION. YES, I AGREE IT WAS CARRIED OUT BY VIOLENT ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTATLISTS. BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT FUNDAMENTALISTS. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? DO I HAVE TO MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?

    There are fundamentalists in ALL religions, and not all peaceful. I could make sweeping generalizations about all Christians based on the Westboro Baptist crew. However, I'm open-minded enough to know that the vast majority of Christians are wonderful, peaceful people. Just as I believe the same about Muslims. Period.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 7:24 PM


    Lyssie,

    I wasn't trying to be snide. Comparing the miniscule Westboro baptist crew with the Islamofacism is just ridculous and silly. This is political correctness at it's worst.

    "the vast majority of Christians are wonderful, peaceful people. Just as I believe the same about Muslims. Period."

    nonsense

    Posted by: jasper at October 22, 2007 7:45 PM


    So the vast majority of Christians are not peaceful, Jasper? Along with Muslims? Alright, if you're gonna make sweeping generalizations about ALL religions now...maybe that's more fair. I still wouldn't agree with you, but at least I could feel sorry for you and your obvious mental deficiency. As it is now, I believe you're just being ignorant by choice.

    Political correctness? Bullsh*t, Jasper. You're a bigot. Plain and simple. You just can't accept that MAYBE, just maybe, many Muslim people are peaceful and wish no harm to Christians. Because in your world, that means you wouldn't be allowed to be an "I'm better than you" lowlife with a superiority complex.

    Again, I'm not downplaying the serious problem of Islamofascism. It IS a larger movement than that of Westboro. By far. There are, however, many radical Christian sects that are NOT exemplary of mainstream Christianity (which is something I respect, along with mainstream Islamic belief). But I will not downplay the contribution of many wonderful, peaceful, amicable Muslim people, too. You just cannot get it out of your head that the only people who can be honest, decent, wonderful people are Christians. And that, Jasper, is where you go wrong. Find any Muslim in that office where you work, Jasper, and ask him if he'd be happy to see all Christians die. And actually pay attention to Liam on this site...you MIGHT learn something if you would use your brain once in a while.

    But I won't hold my breath.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 8:20 PM


    By the way, one word dismissals are not representative of civil debate...give me facts from sources other than right-wing Muslim-haters and I might believe you.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 22, 2007 8:23 PM


    Lyssie,

    Just stop while you are ahead. You will just get more emotionally invested in someone who doesn't want to listen.

    Trust me.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at October 22, 2007 8:30 PM


    Hi Lyssie & Pip,

    While Jasper's posts do not give a hint about this, nor does any study of comparative religions. These arguments come from WHERE? I can't tell you the number of times the Crusades and the Inquisition are used as 'the justifiable proof - that the church/Vatican is(present tense) corrupt' and is by default wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet these come from a centuries-old problem that are little reflection about the Christian faith. It was not too long back that a child caught stealing an apple, was hanged. It is questionable to call events of the past and judge them under present sensibilities.

    Posted by: John McDonell at October 22, 2007 9:55 PM


    Jasper;
    Turkey is a muslim nation, with MANY christians. So is Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan, and many other nations. All have large christian populations (once AGAIN i will bring up that in Indonesia, it is actually CHRISTIANS killing Muslims.)

    at least i do not make completely ignorant statements about your religion, learn first, speak second.

    Posted by: Liam at October 23, 2007 1:09 AM


    Laura,

    Stone the blasphemer!
    He who defiles the sacred name of Chocolate must die!

    The only time the death penalty is justified!

    Posted by: mk at October 23, 2007 6:22 AM


    PIP: Yes, I probably should realize this. *sigh*

    Liam: Thanks, again.

    John M: I never meant to make it sound like the Vatican today is like the Vatican of yesteryear that ordered the Inquisition. I just used it as an example of mainstream belief in a religion that ok-ed the right to kill innocent people. I don't believe that about the Catholic Church today. What Jasper is trying to say, however, is that the majority of Muslims are for the deaths of Christians, when it is sadly not the case. Any true believer of the Islamic faith will follow the tenets of the Q'uran, just like any true Christian will follow the bible. And true followers of the Q'uran espouse peace. The people that Jasper characterizes are the false Muslims that have twisted the term "jihad" to suit their violent purposes in a warped belief system that no longer even resembles TRUE Islam. Mainstream Muslims do not want Christians to die, because they actually listen to the words of Mohammad.

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 23, 2007 7:52 AM


    MK: 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.

    Okay, MK, and I agree. Thus my surprise at the notion that some of the actions of the Catholic church aren't a source of shame and embarrasment. Yet - in looking at it again, I realize it can be taken at least two ways.

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

    It could be pretending that it's a source or not, or that there was a cover-up or not. Maybe there's some confusion here.
    ......

    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.

    The pretending I usually talk about is acting like unproven things are proven, acting as if opinion equates to external fact.
    ......

    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.

    I get it.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 9:56 AM


    John M: It is questionable to call events of the past and judge them under present sensibilities.

    John, then why all the fuss about Roe versus Wade, from way back in 1973?

    Heh heh heh just kidding.
    .......

    If there would be a dude or dudette that created the universe, then I reckon they would indeed have made the priniciples of evolution.

    Did the universe evolve? Yes, in a way it's evolving all the time. Yet seems to me your question is viewing time as a separate one-dimensional deal, and that is not the reality of the universe. Perhaps animate life came from inanimate stuff - presumably in processes where enough energy is present. Admittedly we are greatly lacking in knowledge about such.

    I don't see the Big Bang theory as "evolutionary." For a while, at least, it was often thought that it would be a repeating cycle, with the universe expanding, then contracting, then expanding, etc., over and over. I don't know what the latest thinking is about it; and it's still viewing time as one-dimensional....
    ......

    So in the sense that evolution and religion are not juxtaposed, neither are evolution (core theory re. hereditary traits for animate beings) and ID opposed to one another.

    I agree that evolution and religion aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, yet we often see people saying evolution is "false" based on religious grounds, and those people are simply wrong. Like gravity, evolution is not in doubt. That doesn't mean we know all about it though, nor that a Creator is impossible.
    ......

    There is a small problem with the trachea thing. Both actions are necessary for life, and if either is missing, then death occurs long before any trait can be passed on .... so the two have to coexist. That's two ... but one cornerstone of evolution is that a single trait is passed on ... not two.

    This is the second time in a short while I've seen the trachea mentioned. I don't know what the deal is.

    Doug

    Posted by: Doug at October 23, 2007 10:14 AM


    -Good job. Your entire post was idiotic
    -You are unbelievably bigoted
    -your limited intellect
    -your obvious mental deficiency
    -you MIGHT learn something if you would use your brain once in a while.


    LOL!

    Posted by: jasper at October 23, 2007 11:04 AM


    At least you can laugh at yourself, Jasper.

    Again, you fail to grasp SIMPLE concepts. AND you fail to even address my points. I attacked you, PERSONALLY, for being a bigot, and I backed up my statements with reasons. I didn't attack Catholics as a whole (notice how I am surprisingly civil with MK, Valerie, and John...they're open-minded). You, for some reason, fail at the skill of being able to separate individuals from a whole. Yes, there are bad "Muslims" who espouse terrorism, while there are also bad Catholics who are bigots. But many from both religions are WONDERFUL people (MK, Valerie, John, my Dad, good Catholics,etc.) Hmm....are you starting to see my point? If you don't get it by now, you're beyond hope.

    Still, unfortunately, you are unable to address any points I make and possess only the ability to take quotes out of context without defending or refuting them. I will now back up my statements- something you fail at horribly.
    -Good job. Your entire post was idiotic
    This should be easy for you to see why it was written. You refuse to stop painting all Muslims with the same brush and prefer to think of all of them as bomb-wielding terrorists. I simply ask you to accept the fact that MANY of them are not. You fail AGAIN to accept the facts of life. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Catholics are bigots. Comprendes?
    -You are unbelievably bigoted
    Refer to above comment. The definition of a bigot is someone who holds a discriminatory bias against a group of people by simple virtue of them BEING that group of people. You hold a discriminatory bias against all Muslims by virtue of them being Muslims. Easy to explain.
    -your limited intellect
    I think this speaks for itself based on your posts...just ask PIP or Rae. Your limited grasp on reality is evident. YES, "Muslim" terrorists orchestrated the 9/11 attacks...but NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS FOR THE UMPTEENTH MILLION TIME. Expand your mind and accept information from all sources, not just ones that bolster your own opinion. Aren't you the one that is always going on about how we are to respect the gifts that God gave us? He also gave you a brain. Use it.
    -your obvious mental deficiency
    This is taking statements out of context at its finest. This statements, of course, was contingent on you ACTUALLY believing sweeping generalizations about all religions, including Catholicism. If you were to actually believe this, I would believe you to have an obvious mental deficiency, as opposed to limited intellect, which is you actively choosing to remain ignorant. There IS a difference...the first would be something you can't help, the second is you choosing to remain in the dark intellectually.
    -you MIGHT learn something if you would use your brain once in a while.
    This, again, refers to your refusal to open your mind and allow information from all sources in. This is you ACTIVELY choosing to maintain ignorance. "MUSLIMS ARE ONLY BAD, VIOLENT TERRORISTS." This is your only outlook which you do not allow to be challenged by factual evidence. You will not accept contrary belief because it takes away your security that you, Jasper, are better than someone else. You will not use your brain, so I was justified in making this statement.

    So, without further ado, I await your one-word dismissal and lack of actual response. If I am correct, you will use a word along the line of "nonsense" and fail to back up the reason, while making yourself look like a bigger idiot by adding the infantile "LOL" to the end of your post. It will lack any merit in the way of debate, and you will be resigned to licking your intellectual wounds and running off with your tail between your legs. Good day. :D

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 23, 2007 4:04 PM


    Ok Lyssie, I see your point, I will try not to generalize about Muslims. During the day, I can't make long comments because I'm at work... I may be a dummy (even though I have an engineering degree and sucessful at my job, etc) but I don't think I'm better than anybody else....and I know evil when I see it, I call an ace an ace, and a spade a spade.

    God-Bless, you're a bright young lady.

    Posted by: jasper at October 23, 2007 6:09 PM


    Jasper, thanks, that's all I asked for. Either way, I do not think you are unintelligent, I just believed that you refused to use your intelligence to let other modes of thought in. I believed your posts unintelligent, while simultaneously believing that you were capable of much more. See the difference? :D

    Thanks. And point taken about being at work. Believe me, you and I agree on a lot more than you think. It's the points of difference, however, that draw out the fangs and the claws. :)

    Posted by: Lyssie at October 23, 2007 6:26 PM