Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Help Me Fight Back Against 'Ex-Gay' Lies In Alaska

Dear Friends:

This week, Truth Wins Out has been busy raising awareness about GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's church, which supports so-called "ex-gay ministries." Wasilla Bible Church believes that people can "pray away the gay" and is actively promoting Focus on the Family's Love Won Out conference -- which will be coming to Anchorage this Saturday.

This morning, I board a plane and travel to Anchorage to fight back against the ex-gay lies that have harmed so many gay and lesbian people. I will be joining the Metropolitan Community Church and other local organizations to help young GLBT people understand that they are not broken and in need of fixing. They are not sick and in need of healing.

These young people are fine just the way they are and we will make sure they know it.

Truth Wins Out likes to be on the ground where the action is. It is not enough for us to sit in the comfortable confines of New York City and send out press releases over a fax machine. We travel where vulnerable people in conservative areas need to hear our messages of love, hope and acceptance.

But, our work takes money and we need your help to continue our outreach. Help me fight back in Alaska by giving what you can today. If you can generously give $1,000, please consider doing so. If what you are able to offer right now is $10, we can use your help. Join the fight to educate America and help GLBT teenagers find the self-acceptance they deserve.

Make a tax-deductible contribution to TWO

57 Comments:

Thank God Almighty that Wayne will be in Alaska to tell these young, vulnerable gay men and women that it is people like Sarah Palin and her ilk, and not themselves, that truly suffer from the deepest of perversions, and that gay people are a truly wonderful creation! We are as deserving of love and liberty as much as any citizen is.

This woman is a disgrace for so many reasons. We are getting more of this "Iraq is a conflict ordained by God" idiocy from her as well as the idea that if an eleven-year old girl is raped by her uncle, she MUST have the baby.

She supports banning books and even fired a librarian who refused to remove titles that offended her. Are we back to "book burning" now? Such is Sarah Palin's America. Wake up folks.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 12:14 PM

She is a total douchebag, but just to keep the record straight (unlike the rightwing liars), she never fired a librarian. She asked about how she would go about getting books banned from the library, that she found personally offensive, and when the librarian resisted, she threatened to fire her, but as far as I know, it didnt go any further than that. The 'christian love' just oozes out of every orifice of these people---like puss!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 2:23 PM

Wayne, I hope you have a safe trip to Alaska and back.

Chris, some of what you have written is factually incorrect. Governor Palin did not demand that books be banned and/or burned from the Wasilla library:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

But speaking of banning books from libraries, I did read and interesting post today:

http://www.waynebesen.com/2008/09/ex-gays-want-bogus-books-in-libraries.html#comments
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 2:27 PM

The story about her banning books does indeed appear to be in question. Thank you for the tip.

Also, I have stated in my post that banning ex-gay books is not acceptable by me. It must not happen.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/09/2008 3:37 PM

I think its true, she did not actually ban any books, but there is a list of books that she wanted banned. Palin, under pressure, was compelled to call the librarian back to work. Here's the list.

http://mikecane2008.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/stop-sarah-palin-the-books-she-wanted-banned/
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 8:02 AM

I know the rightwingers love to smear and spread lies, but we're above that. I just found out that this list of books that Palin wanted to ban is bogus. She inquired about banning books (bad enough!), but she never made a laundry list of titles that she would like to see tossed into the nazi bonfire. Check it out on http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/08/palin_books/index.html

Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 9:43 AM

Gary, do you know which books she wanted banned? Maybe the fired librarian could throw some light on that.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 10:28 AM

Hi Robert
to the best of my knowledge, she had only asked about how to go about having books banned, she hadn't made up a list yet. I've heard that she was mostly concerned about 'inappropriate language', though I'm sure Harry Potter, anything about the occult or anything that was pro-GLBT would have been on her burn list. When the librarian resisted, Palin threatened to fire her. There was a public outcry about it, so Palin dropped the matter.
Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 11:39 AM

Gary, thanks. The fact that her intent to ban certain books is enough for me. Personally, I think this woman is only going to futher polarize the GOP far more to the right and will be McCain's undoing. With all her experience as governor and by the way, they're only in session in Alaska for 60 days in any year, so altogether she's had about 120 days of experience in that position, why aren't the Dems asking that given her experience, why does McCain not allow her to field questions from the press? It only goes to show that not only was she a huge blunder for McCain but lacks the credibility and experience to be VP. Wait till the debates happen. She'll have no teleprompter to feed off. My only hope is Biden asks her some really tough, complex foreign policy questions that will have evaded Karl Rove who I'm sure has his fingerprints all over her speech and subsequent answers she will provide during the debate. Also, I want to see Obama and Biden ask McCain and Palin their stand on gay rights/equality as well as DADT. The neocons used it as a wedge issue in the last election, now its our turn to give it back to them. It will be a golden opportunity for both Obama and Biden to pose those questions to them further demonstrating just how nothing will change if the GOP wins the White House. Wouldn't you just enjoy seeing them squirm, trying to wriggle out of it let alone embarrass themselves before the Log Cabiners as opportunists and total frauds. Evangelicals don't even want civil unions or any legal recognition of our relationships, although McCain doesn't oppose certain rights. He needs to be taken to task on that very issue during the debate to expose him for what he is.

Palin should also be asked if she would accept her daughter dying if giving birth proved to be a risk to her life. I've no doubt she would say..."if its god's will, so be it." If that's the kind of VP people want in the White House, so be it, they'll get what they deserve....NO CHANGE!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 11:58 AM

Hey Robert. You obviously can think anything you want, but the report has no truth whatsoever. It's a completely bogus smear.

Take a look at the list that's being floated and you'll find books Governor Palin supposedly tried to ban...that hadn't even been published yet! The people who sadly continue to circulate the list failed to do a simple Google search, which would have showed them that the bogus "Sarah Palin Banned Book List" is almost an exact copy-and-paste reproduction of a generic list of "Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States" that has been floating around the Internet for years.

Even the Huffington Post is acknowledging this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-camp-responds-to-f_n_124947.html

Here's what did happen:

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

Apparently in 1996, then newly-elected mayor Sarah Palin asked the Wasilla city librarian if she would censor library books IF SHE WAS ASKED TO DO SO BY CITIZENS OR GROUPS. Palin personally had no intention, demonstrated no personal intention, of ever trying to ban books. The librarian (rightly) said she wouldn't. Months later the librarian got a letter from then-Mayor Palin informing her she was gonna be fired. The censorship "issue" was NOT mentioned as a reason for the firing. There was then an expression of public support for the librarian, and Palin never fired the librarian.

So, did Palin actually ban books at the Wasilla Public Library? No.

Were any books censored or banned? No. June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked and came up with nothing. Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with the Wasilla librarian about the issue back then, who was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 12:07 PM

The intent to ban is enough for me. Imagine this woman with the power of the FBI!

It is a scary thought.
posted by Wayne Besen, at 9/10/2008 12:34 PM

But Mr. Besen, there was no intent to ban. None. No evidence of any intent to ban.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 12:54 PM

Ethan, you are being purposely disingenuous. There was "no intent to ban"?? Wouldn't you agree that repeatedly inquiring as to how books could be removed from the shelves, and firing a librarian (even if only for a day) constitutes intent, even if that intent never materialized?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 1:49 PM

Chris, I don't think I'm being disingenuous at all. There simply was no attempt to ban any books on the part of Governor Palin. That's what the evidence demonstrates. It appears you have your facts wrong related to both Palin's questions to Wasilla's librarian and the issue of that librarian's firing.

The facts, based on all the available evidence at this time, are that (1) Palin never asked that books be banned, (2) no books were actually banned, and (3) many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication. What Palin did was ask the librarian a series of hypothetical, general questions during a meeting - where there were several eyewitnesses - concerning how and when a librarian would ban a book. To take from these questions an intention to ban books on the part of Sarah Palin would itself be disingenuous Chris.

Governor Palin simply did not attempt to ban any library books. There isn't any evidence to go beyond that, unless one is looking for a reason to ascribe intention.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 2:07 PM

Ethan, I do not have the facts wrong because I took them from the very link that you posted as being indicative of the truth. That link, which was provided by you, was:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

So, your own sourcing material proves you wrong. She expressed interest in banning books and fired a librarian who was admittedly rehired the next day. We were not debating any "attempt" by her, but her "intent" as also illustrated by your last post in which you said:

"...But Mr. Besen, there was no intent to ban. None. No evidence of any intent to ban..."

So maybe we can agree that yes, Governor Palin expressed an interest in the process of removing offending books from the shelves (which signals intent), but did not attempt to do so after making initial inquiries about the same.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 2:44 PM

Hey Chris, I'm thankful you're at least looking at the facts and attempting to draw a fair conclusion from the facts. Our point of departure deals with "intention," an admittedly tricky concept to anyone who's ever attended law school.

Based on the facts you and I apparently both agree to, Governor Palin didn't express an intention to ban books. Her hypothetical question dealt with procedure. Now, she may have had an intention to attempt to ban books in the future. She may not have. We simply can't make that determination from the facts in evidence at this time.

I will add that in my business I ask procedural hypothetical questions to my managers (and lawyers) constantly. Why? Because they know the procedures better than I do! That doesn't necessarily mean I have an intention to do something or not do something. I may just want to know what a particular procedure is - possibly to prepare to do something, or to prepare to keep another party from doing something.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:43 PM

two thoughts come to mind when I think of the work of Wayne Besen

"Shall we make a new rule of life from tonight: always to try to be a little kinder than is necessary?" JM Barrie

I find Wayne Besen's determination to challenge those who seek to oppress a truly wonderful thing.

and from another favorite:

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Suess

Lively discussions help to develop our minds, stimulate compassion in our hearts, and nuture our souls.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:47 PM

Ethan, I have to disagree somewhat. With all the tasks that a governor must undertake, having inquired about the process of banning books is incredibly telling. What could her consciousness of thought have been? Did a question about banning books simply pop into her mind? And why did it happen in rural Alaska? Why aren't such inquiries made to New York libraries, or libraries in Los Angeles? Clearly, she showed the intent to ban books by inquiring as to the nature of how to do so.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 3:59 PM

Chris, you have the facts wrong again. This incident took place when Sarah Palin was a newly-elected mayor, not governor.

Now, you ask, "Did a question about banning books simply pop into her mind?" Apparently not. One portion of her hypothetical questions dealt with how the librarian would deal with protestors outside of the town's library who wished to ban a certain book. Then-Mayor Palin wanted to know how the librarian would deal with that. Again, what was the procedure?

You also ask, "Why aren't such inquiries made to New York libraries, or libraries in Los Angeles?" Chris, please. That is so myopic. Much more goes on in rural America that you may be aware of. It may be "Flyover Country" to you and others, but I would remind you that such an attitude doesn't help Senator Obama one bit.

You state that Palin "[c]learly...showed the intent to ban books by inquiring as to the nature of how to do so." That's simply not clear at all. Unless you're willing to establish a standard that any hypothetical question necessarily establishes evidence of intent.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 4:27 PM

If you're saying that a small-town Pentecostal mayor of Alaska merely inquired about banning books out of mere curiosity regarding what the obscure procedure for doing so was, we'd have to agree to disagree on whether that constitutes intent. Again, from your own source, factcheck.org, the librarian stated that:

"...Palin was asking me how I would deal with HER (emphasis mine) saying a book can't be in the library. (Librarian) Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library." Are you saying that the good Pentecostal leader was asking this question so that she could protect "Heather Has Two Mommies" in the event that locals protested outside the library? If so, it is you who do not understand what goes on in rural America.

The librarian was rehired the next day and Palin said that she was assured of that librarian's "support". Support about what? Why would a Governor need to be assured of a small-town librarian's "support"? Surely, firing the librian wouldn't change her personal vote, so the "support" in question is more likely about doing Palin's will.

Regarding the midwest and south, their culture is indeed notably and demonstrably different from that of New York and Los Angeles, where book banning is simply unheard of. Book banning incidents and attempts do not occur infrequently in the midwest and south, and it is those portions of America which have declared that we are engaged in a culture war.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 4:47 PM

UMM ETHAN. . .

a little tidbit from the Stevens case in Washington

Government lawyers also defended the health of their star witness, VECO founder Bill Allen, who suffered a head injury in a motorcycle accident in 2001.

Allen is cooperating with federal investigators and has pleaded guilty to bribery and corruption charges, admitting that a VECO program to encourage political contributions from the company's employees violated federal tax laws. The program spread campaign money to Stevens and other Alaska politicians, including $4,500 to Sarah Palin when she ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. Palin is the running mate of GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hKRLMJ5kALpjyP4o6IvHjkrA3vowD9343IG80

Will be interesting to see what else comes out about Gov Palin.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 6:19 PM

Couple of things Chris. First, you labeled Governor Palin a "Pentecostal." On what basis do you make this claim? I've looked over Wasilla Bible Church's "Statement of Faith," and I see nothing specific that would place them in the Pentecostal camp. If I'm missing something, please refer me to it. Also, what type of church was Barack Obama's former church?

Second, you are again demonstrating a lack of command of the facts in the alleged banning situation. The librarian was told she was going to be fired months after the meeting where the hypothetical questions were raised. Furthermore, the librarian wasn't the only official told they were going to be fired.

Support for what, you ask? Political support, I assume. This is standard operating procedure in rural America Chris, as it is in New York, LA, and - of course - Washington, D.C.

Banning books is unheard of in New York? In Brooklyn?

http://www.waynebesen.com/2008/09/ex-gays-want-bogus-books-in-libraries.html

Not sure about that Chris...
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 6:36 PM

Her initial church, which she attended for many years, was an Assembly of God church, a Pentecostal denomination. I should know, because I attended an Assemblies church as a misguided teenager. "Barack's" church was the United Church of Christ.

As for political support, what kind of political support can a librarian of a small town offer? Firing the town librarian is NOT how things go across the country, and certainly not in New York or Los Angeles!

As for Wayne, he is not leading a crusade to ban books, but he can speak for himself on that issue, as have I.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 7:12 PM

Thanks Chris. It does seem you are more concerned about Governor Palin's current-evangelicalism and former-Pentecostalism that you are about the black liberation theology adhered to at the church Senator Obama attended. If true, why?

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "political support." The Anchorage Daily News reported that then-Mayor Palin delivered letters to Police Chief Irl Stambaugh and City Librarian Mary Ellen Emmons on Jan. 30, 1997, saying their employment with the city would end. Palin took the action because she felt the two did not fully support the changes that she wanted to make as the newly elected mayor. Both Stambaugh and Emmons had publicly supported Palin's political opponent, incumbent mayor John Stein, in the 1996 mayoral campaign, the reports noted. The day after notifying them of their dismissals, however, Palin changed her mind about the city librarian and allowed her to stay.

She did not change her mind about Stambaugh. He decided to sue the city in federal court for wrongful termination. Stambaugh's lawsuit was not successful, as expected, because the court found Palin had the right to terminate Stambaugh for any reason she wished.

Finally, I wasn't asking you to speak on the issue of Mr. Besen's call for the banning of certain books from public libraries. You have spoken out against that, and I obviously agree with you.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/10/2008 8:01 PM

I am not at all concerned about Sarah Palin's Pentecostalism. Instead, I am concerned about her willingness to inject those personal beliefs into public policy. Here are a few examples:

(1) She is against sex-education, (the consequences of which have been visited upon her own daughter);

(2) She believes that the Iraq war is "ordained by God";

(3) She believes that the Adam and Eve myth should be taught alongside science in the classroom;

(4) She believes that if a 10-year old girl is raped by her Uncle, the girl must carry the rapist's baby to term;

I have provided you with four examples of where she injects her personal religious beliefs into public policy. I challenge you to name half that; just two instances in which Barack Obama has formed public policy based upon the supposed "Black Liberation Theology" of his former church.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 11:22 AM

There's been ample discussion of late about Sarah Palin being sequestered, away from the media, because the McCain campaign isn't confident in her ability to answer questions about, well, much of anything. . ."Well, you say you're sure she has the experience, but again, I'm just asking for an example," Caldwell said. "What experience does she have in the field of national security?" McCain responded:

"Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She's a governor of a state where 20% of America's energy supply comes from there. And we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending $700 billion of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue."And, uh, she also happens to represent, be governor of a state that's right next to Russia. She understands Russia."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/animal/main4440080.shtml

Since the first major discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968, the extent of the state's reliance on oil has become evident:

-- Taxes and royalties from oil production now account for 87 percent of revenues to the state's general fund, paying for everything from schools to roads.

-- Oil production brings in more revenue for Alaska than all of its other major industries -- fishing, mining, timber, tourism and air cargo -- combined.

-- Oil revenues allow Alaskans to pay no state income tax, and every man, woman and child who lives there collects an annual Permanent Fund dividend check based on oil royalties, which last year totaled $919.84.

-- Oil companies are the state's largest corporate donors to charities, funding everything from college scholarships, Boys and Girls Clubs, United Way programs, and performances of the Nutcracker ballet in Anchorage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/29/MNGLGEEKSF1.DTL

Gov Palin is very gifted when it comes to energy. Again, that is one of the primary reasons why she was selected to run as the VP candidate. How long will she be kept away from Scripted Media events. Will be interesting to see Palin's chat with Gibson
posted by Anonymous, at 9/11/2008 4:08 PM

Chris, Governor Palin is not against sex-education. Furthermore, if any type of sex education is to blame for Bristol Palin's pregnancy, wouldn't it be the type of education she received in school (comprehensive sex education)?

Concerning Iraq, she competently addressed that in her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, even though Gibson misquoted her and completely misstated Palin's statements and beliefs, as you do Chris. Also, I'm in the process of gathering all the Democratic references to God during times of war. Very interesting...

She does not believe that Biblical Creationism should be taught in government schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Concerning abortion, Governor Palin believes that life begins at conception. I realize that Senator Obama thinks that answering such questions as when life begins and when a baby should have their human rights recognized is "above his pay grade," but the findings of scientists and the evidence they provide us has put the issue to rest. Life begins at conception.

Now, if your dad goes out and he rapes somebody and we convict him of that rape, do you think it would be right for us to then say, "OK, because your dad is guilty of rape, we're going to kill you Chris"? No? Why not?

Senator Obama does adhere to Black Liberation Theology, which I hope you know is radically Marxist in nature. And it can easily be demonstrated that Obama supports all ten planks of The Communist Manifesto of 1848. You asked for two, I gave you ten.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/13/2008 1:05 PM

ABORTION: It may surprise you, Ethan, that I am a gay pro-lifer, but the question of when life begins has NOT been settled. For me, life begins at conception, but our constitution gives rights to the "born," not to the unborn. Even as a pro-life person, I admit that some research shows that even if abortion were completely illegal (an impossibility in the USA), the number of abortions might not decrease whatsoever but would simply move underground.

Yes, Obama responded to the life question by saying that it was "above his pay grade," but you religionists might take a lesson from his unwillingness to pontificate on something that is a deeply personal issue for many people. John McCain has himself once stated that Roe v. Wade shouldn't be overturned because "women would have back-alley abortions", but now that he's running for president, he has flip-flopped on the question.

People like you convince yourselves that you have all the answers, on life's toughest questions no less, and those god-given responses are always couched in the most stunning level of flippancy and total ignorance. The "when does life begin" question is only "settled" within your own mind.

When I was a Pentecostal teenager, I was like that too. Looking back, I can tell you that all the while I was pretending to have all the answers, personally delivered to me by the deity no less, the truth was that I didn't know shit about almost anything at the time, but that certainly didn't stop me from pretending that I did.

CREATIONISM: Students should not be allowed to "debate both sides" of the the evolution question (in science class) because there aren't two sides, scientifically speaking. There is the science, and one may debate which theories constitute valid science, but the Adam and Eve myth is not "science" and there is nothing to debate scientifically. Creationism is a silly, laughable myth that isn't "actually true", Ethan. Please keep your talking-snake mythology out of our kids' classrooms.

However, what Universities, colleges and schools do teach does indeed cause massive cognitive dissonance for the "born again crowd", but that is a problem that you have created for yourselves, by defaulting on your responsibility to know reality as it is. You have purposefully chosen, at some point in your life, to replace reality with the abject idiocy that is Christianity. Do you remember the moment you sold out? Sorry, your religious fables aren't "science" and the only place they should be "debated" is in that place which is outside the classroom.

CHARLIE GIBSON: Oh yes, we now confront the ever-available excuse that the "interviewer" (in this Gibson) misstated Palin's beliefs, and that is the reason for her poor showing. Yes, and Dan Quayle was really a Rhodes scholar. She is clearly, undeniably, WAY in over her head. But even if her positions were misstated, which I don't agree to, why didn't she speak up then and there and correct it? Why is this "pitbull in lipstick" suddenly so quick to wilt at any tough questions? Maybe because she actually thinks that she has "foreign policy experience" because "Alaska is near Russia?"

For the next two months, people like me are going to hear people like you lie outright and insist that Palin is completely ready to be President at a moment's notice. Ethan, folks like you love to loudly claim that you love your country (just like the Pharisees would pray loudly on public street corners), but what you put it through reveals quite the opposite. Elevating a "hockey mom" to within a heartbeat of the Presidency, at such a perilous time, reveals, in fact, that you love your mystical beliefs more than you love this nation.

FINALLY, it must be said that while you introduced yourself to this blog politely and respectfully, Ethan, I was sure that sooner or later, your "inner, frustrated born again lunatic" would shows its ugly, extremist face, and it has in your stating that Barack Obama supports the "The Communist Manifesto of 1848". Have you no decency? Good day to you, sir.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/13/2008 4:10 PM

Glad to know you're pro-life Chris. As the Encyclopedia Britannica notes, "A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg." Even more, the late-Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the world's leading geneticist prior to his death, once testified before the Louisiana House Committee on Criminal Justice and stated that it is a proven scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Science has spoken, and the life of a human being begins at conception.

You correctly note that our Constitution says that only people who have to be "born or naturalized in the United States" to have rights. Since the unborn are, well, not born, they thus have no rights, according to this view.

But clearly the natural right to life is extended to people beyond those who were born or naturalized in the United States. For example, it is not legal to murder a foreign visitor to the United States despite the fact that this person was neither born nor naturalized here.

You go on to say that if abortion is outlawed then women will simply have their abortions performed "underground." Perhaps many would. However, there is a way to protect women against what would be illegal abortions without butchering millions of defenseless children.

The first thing to keep in mind is that pro-lifers don't do abortions. If abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-abortion. In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion - whether it was legal or illegal - was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-abortion. In other words, when the abortion lobby says, "If abortion is made illegal, women will die," what they're actually saying is, "If you stop us from killing babies, we're going to start killing women."

So clearly, the solution to the "underground" abortion problem is for the pro-abortion people to agree not to do them. They could also help pro-lifers pass legislation requiring that people who commit illegal abortions are to be prosecuted under the same homicide statutes that apply to any other hired killer and, that anyone who coerces a woman to have an illegal abortion, or helps to arrange an illegal abortion, is to be charged as an accessory to homicide.

Concerning Charlie Gibson's interview with Governor Palin, he was off-base in his question. While searching for CNN's story on Troopergate, I came across the surprising statement of Palin's quoted by Anderson Cooper - that the war in Iraq was "a task that is from God":

"[Palin] also talked to church members about 'being saved' at the Assembly of God and suggested to them that the war in Iraq is a mission from God. Palin said, 'Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.'"

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/08/ac360%c2%b0-exclusive-palins-former-pastor-speaks/

Wow! CNN caught Palin saying on tape that Iraq was a task from God. Ouch! But then I listended to the clip. Palin actually said:

"Pray for our military. He's [Palin's son Trask] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I find it hard to believe that Anderson Cooper does not understand the difference between praying for something you hope is true and stating that it is true. Is praying for peace throughout the world the same as saying that there is peace throughout the world?

Whether you're an atheist or not Chris, you're certainly not so out of touch that you don't know that Governor Palin was doing what Christians often do - praying that what the country was doing was God's will. It's not strange for a Christian to hope that what you want to do or think is right is indeed God's will.

An obviously Charlie Gibson didn't do his homework as I did. Outrageously, Gibson claimed that Sarah Palin had called the Iraq War "a task...from God." No she didn't! She prayed that it was a task from God. If I had prayed for the press to be fair to Sarah Palin that would not be the same as stating that the press is being fair to Sarah Palin.

The more I look at this, the more it looks intentional. How could Gibson and the staff have blown both quotes?

Finally, please show me one plank of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 that Senator Obama disagrees with substantively.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/13/2008 4:50 PM

While I'm glad that "the late-Dr. Jerome Lejeune once testified before the Louisiana House Committee on Criminal Justice and stated that it is a proven scientific fact that human life begins at conception", that does not constitute proof that life begins at conception.

As for the constitution only protecting the "born", even the far right admits this fact because they have long proposed a pro-life amendment to the constitution, a de facto admittance that the constitution does not now extend rights to the unborn. Ironically, according to the Bible, life begins at birth when a baby draws its first breath.

The worst part of your abortion argument is when you say, "...clearly, the solution to the underground abortion problem is for the pro-abortion people to agree not to do them." I do not have to elaborate on why your argument is fallacious, as it is clear on its face.

As for me personally, I am not an atheist. My position is that no one knows if there is anything whatsoever after human life or that a supernatural realm even exists. No one knows if there is a deity or any other conceivable entity. People should stop pretending to have those answers.

As for my your challenging me to name just ONE of the 10 planks of "the Communist Manifesto of 1848" that Senator Obama disagrees with, fine, I will give you the first three planks:

PLANK #1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Obama AGAINST. In fact, he lives in a one million dollar private home.

PLANK #2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Obama AGAINST. He only supports raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 39%.

PLANK #3: Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Obama AGAINST. Believes in inheritance and wishes, in fact, to raise the tax-exempt limit to approximately eight million dollars.

Even the most cursory examination of the Manifesto reveals that Obama only supports Plank Ten, which mandates public school for all children, something that I assume you and McCain-Palin support as well.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/13/2008 5:38 PM

Of course no statement in itself proves anything, Chris, but it's what Lejeune said during his testimony that I have yet to see a pro-abortion advocate dispute. He explained that the DNA molecule is one meter long and is divided into 23 chromosomes. Each DNA molecule is incredibly thin. If the DNA of all the world's 5 billion people were placed together, it would fit on 2 aspirin tablets.

Dr. Lejeune said that at the moment of fertilization the 23 chromosomes of the male sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes of the female egg, creating the new human being. He said the fertilized egg is the most complex cell in existence. It would take more than five sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica to hold the information contained in the fertilized egg. Each fertilized egg is a new human being - unlike any person who has ever existed before or any who will ever exist again.

As the egg divides, the new cells are highly differentiated. At no time is the human being a blob or a mass of undifferentiated protoplasm; Dr. Lejeune explained that there is an enormous flow of information from generation to generation - through the DNA. In a human being's first cell the information in the DNA is surrounded by matter. But, he said, there is no such thing as "living matter" - there is only matter. It is more correct to say that the information in the DNA animates the matter around it. Over time, the amount of matter will increase. The body of an adult human being contains a great deal of matter. But the information in a person's DNA has not changed since the moment of conception.

Concerning abortion and the Bible, the "breath of life" spoken of exists in the preborn child from the moment of conception. It is the form, not the fact, of oxygen transfer (i.e., breath) that changes at birth. Once again, that's a clear scientific fact Chris.

You appear to persist in stating that abortion should stay legal in order to protect women from underground abortions. Now, if your the motivation for legalized abortion Chris is really to save the lives of women, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then do you also support legalizing rape? After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist to keep her from identifying him to the authorities. Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away that motivation. We could also set up rape clinics where rapists could take their victims. These centers could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception, and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim. We could even issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo routine testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Your argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment. Those dynamics also apply to rape. Keeping rape illegal has not prevented women from being raped, so why not at least try to prevent underground rapes? As ridiculous as this suggestion is, if the goal is saving women's lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.

PLANK #1 - Have you read Senator Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, Chris? In that book, Obama states that the rich believe the money they have earned is "their money" and they deserve to keep every penny of it. But according to Obama, what these rich people don't factor in is all the public investment that lets them live the way they do. I'm sorry, but this is Marxism to the core Chris.

"Capital," Karl Marx wrote, "is therefore not a personal, it is a social power." Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny, yet that's precisely how Senator Obama views private property. On p. 193 of TAOH he writes, "I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success." You may agree with that Chris, but that it's Marxist economic theory can't be disputed.

PLANK #2 - Exactly Chris! You admitted it yourself. Look, Senator Obama favors raising the cap on personal payroll taxes which will affect every worker in the country but claims he wants to ONLY tax the rich in order to play on the vote of the so-called "middle" and "lower classes." The second plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for, "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." This is to create the illusion of "fairness."

Speaking of "fairness"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8&feature=related

Senator Obama concedes that cutting the capital gains tax actually increased revenues, but says that he'd raise it anyway for the sake of "fairness." Because hedge fund mangers make too much money. It's amazing that Obama isn't embarrassed to make such remarks. He concedes that cutting the capital gains tax has increased revenues but then actually manages to suggest that the tax cuts have lost the government money by invoking the specter of borrowed funds from China.

The exchange became laugh-out-loud for me when Charlie Gibson challenged Senator Obama again about the fact that capital gains tax cuts have increased revenue, and Obama tries to change the subject to the housing crisis. And the suggestion by Obama that only rich hedge fund managers pay the capital gains tax is false. Anyone who has seen income from investments has paid the capital gains tax, and with some 80% of Americans invested in the stock market in one way or another that's pretty much all of us.

Plank # 3 - Senator Obama supports the death tax Chris, which abolishes the right of inheritance to at least a portion of one's estate. The higher the death tax percentage, the more the right of inheritance is dissolved.

I will agree that both Senator Obama and Senator McCain support government education, which is unfortunate.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/13/2008 9:51 PM

I did not say that abortion should be legal because women would have underground abortions. I said that even if abortion was made illegal, it is likely that the numbers of abortions would not necessarily go down. There are many ways to reduce abortions, including strong birth control and sex education. The states with the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births and abortions are those states which forbid sex education in schools, and you cannot dispute this. The out-of-wedlock birth rate is highest in anti-sex education states.

Your comment that allowing abortion is analogous to allowing rape to be legal is ridiculous. Why do you make such arguments? I think your frustrated born again inner child is starting to show its ugly head again. My biggest regret about the pro-life movement is that religious fanatics have taken it over, essentially killing the movement with their foolishness.

To say Obama supports Marxism is absurd. As for taxes, McCain, up until recently, himself was against the Bush tax cuts. McCain currently also supports the death tax. Under your reasoning, John McCain is a Marxist.

On taxes, however, I tend to agree with you. I think the income tax, in fact, is illegal and unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that anyone who supports a 39% marginal top rate is a Marxist. You are making silly arguments and are therefore undermining your credibility.

Finally, you voice regret that we have a public school system. So you don't believe in public schools? I guess that fact that McCain-Palin do makes them a couple of Marxists?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/14/2008 11:41 AM

Chris, could you please point me to the statistics related to your abortion claims. A book, or study, or website. Thanks!

You say that my comments concerning "allowing abortion is analogous to allowing rape to be legal is ridiculous" and that "Obama supports Marxist" is absurd. Why? How? Demonstrate where my logic breaks down. Anyone can say this is absurd or that is ridiculous. OK. Demonstrate it.

Now, I do think you are misunderstanding me a bit. I am not claiming that Senator Obama or Senator McCain are Marxists or claim to be Marxists. However, both clearly support Marxist principles to some extent - with Senator Obama supporting them to a much greater extent.

To answer your final question, I fully support freedom in education. But I am completely opposed to the taxpayer funded "free" education run by the state (i.e., "public" schools; really government schools). The indoctrination of the young by officials of the state is immoral, and it should be illegal. Education - like food, computers, and medicine - should be taken on as a private profit making enterprise, not because education is unimportant, but because it is so important.

I realize Chris that "public" schools are part of our civic religion, the primary evidence people cite to show that our government serves us. And there's also a psychological element. Most people turn their children over to them, so surely government schools must have our best interest at heart!

But they don't. The late-Murray Rothbard's "Education: Free and Compulsory" explains that the true origin and purpose of "public" education is not so much education as we think of it, but indoctrination in the civic religion. This explains why the civic elite of our nation are so suspicious of homeschooling and private schooling - it's not fear of low test scores that is driving this, but the worry that these kids aren't learning the values that the state considers important.

However, if we truly cared about education, we would allow the market for education to operate the same as any other market. Groceries, for example. Where there is a demand, and obviously people demand education for their kids, there is supply. There are large grocery stores, small ones, discount ones, premium ones, and stores for groceries on the run. It is the same for other goods, and it would be the same for education. Again, the customer would rule. In the end, what would emerge is not entirely predictable - the market never is - but whatever happened would be in accord with the wishes of the public.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/14/2008 1:18 PM

I misspoke...it is out-of-wedlock births, not abortions, which are highest in states which do not accept sex-education.

Neither McCain nor Obama embrace the core philosophies of the Communist Manifesto, and that is where you are going wrong. They are both, at their core, free market people.

As for the public schools, there most certainly is choice in this regard. Private schools and parochial schools are fully available for those who wish to choose such an education, as is home-schooling.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/14/2008 2:03 PM

I always find it funny when fundie Christian belief so diverges from Jewish belief regarding the Bible. I mean, after all, we kind of wrote it and studied it for a little while before Christians did. Jews believe life begins at the drawing of the first breath of air. Abortion is considered an option BECAUSE Jews see life as being so sacred, not IN SPITE of it. Among the most Orthodox Jews, Abortion is still acceptable, albeit in fewer situations. Where every single Jew can agree in manners of scripture is where Halacha states that the life of the mother outweighs the life of the unborn, which is given a sort of "half-life" status since it has not yet drawn a breath.

http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?l=A&offset=1
posted by Emily K, at 9/14/2008 4:26 PM

If a parent does not approve of a private school they can remove their children and their money from it, and take both elsewhere. But no such option exists in societies with "public" schools. Whether parents send their children to a "public" school or not, and whether they approve of the ideas taught in those "public" schools or not, they must still pay for "public" education through compulsory taxation. This added burden often makes it impossible for many parents to even afford to send their children to private schools.

And in fact, in America there are no truly private schools, since the government determines the standards, and thus much of the content of both "public" and "private" schools. Today's "private" schools are for the most part only private in name, but are not private in substance.

Now, given the terrible record of "public" education, it's doubtful that any rational individual would voluntarily pay for it. Of all the government interventions into people's lives, I can't think of one that have been as great a failure as the sad spectacle of "public" education? But in truth, "public" education has achieved its real goal perfectly - it has turned a potential free-thinking child that will fight for freedom, into an adult incapable of abstract reasoning who demands to be enslaved by the state. In fact, "public" education has done such a good job at this that most people cannot imagine a society where "public" education does not exist.

If we're serious and truly concerned about education, then we'll help parents and their children escape from the ravages of the inhumane atrocities of a state "education."
posted by Anonymous, at 9/14/2008 5:04 PM

Public schools are not as terrible as you think. Many right-wingers have this idea that public schools are a cesspool of depravity, but it exists only within your own mind. They are a crucial part of our democracy and do much good, for those who want it. Any parent that has a philosophical disagreement with the public schools can home school.

The only point you have made successfully is about Obama's tax policy. His quote on raising the capital gains, even though it would actually decrease government revenues, because of "fairness", is indeed an abomination.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 10:43 AM

The public schools are an invaluable resource. They are not the cesspools of depravity that some on the right imagine them to be. Any parent who doesn't like them has the option of home-schooling.

The only worthwhile point you've made in this discussion is about Obama's remarks on the capital gains tax rate. Saying that he would raise it to 20% out of "fairness" even though it decreases governmental revenues is indeed, an abomination, and is Marxism.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 11:06 AM

I don't think the irrational nature and abysmal results of government education is a "right wing vs. left wing" issue. Both sides are normally wrong here. We need a capitalistic solution. As an aside, I suggest you watch John Stossel's "Stupid in America" report on YouTube.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 4:09 PM

Life begins at conception. I have no problem with that. In fact as my dad's statmend in jest, "I carried you before your mother did" has some validity to it. Problem is in this real fallen world we live in, we are often put in the position of having to decide when and under what circumstances we will take life; War, death penality, and others. Apart from religious beliefs of various sorts, society in large has decided that the death of a fertilized egg (even a birth control pill can occasionally act as an abortificant) is not the same as butchering babies. We don't have a 100% agreement on this but enough to leave the question to the same group of medievalists who contemplate how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin and the theo/aj/ethans.

For myself, I would like to the first 10 weeks. Let the comprimise begin. I can give and take.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 7:03 PM

Caution reason ahead. Absolutists be warned

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/09/the_ethics_part_one
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 7:04 PM

sorry.I'll clip instad:

In this week’s Dear Science, Golob writes:

If you’re over 35—more or less the point at which the risk of having a child with trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), or another chromosomal abnormality, dramatically increases—prenatal genetic tests are remarkably accurate at detecting such abnormalities. They can be done in the first trimester of pregnancy and pose virtually no risk to the fetus. If the screen comes up positive, you can elect to terminate the pregnancy while still in the first trimester. That’s great! Combining such a screen with the choice of termination, even a woman well into her 40s can make her risk of having a child with trisomy 21 lower than a young woman.
The risk, however, only goes down if the woman has an abortion. If she is like Palin (who was informed of the serious irregularities in her pregnancy but decided not terminate it) then the risk remains high.

Palin had her reason for not aborting, and this reasoning needs to be examined.

When tests made it clear that Palin’s pregnancy, which happened around the age of 43, had chromosomal abnormalities, she did not do the rational and even humane thing: return to nothing that which was still a no-thing. Why? Because of a religious belief. She holds the unverifiable belief that God is against abortions. How she came to this conclusion is for now not worth considering. Let’s instead consider this: The life expectancy of women only increased (and surpassed that of men) when science (not God) significantly reduced the dangers of pregnancy. Without science, women were lucky to see life beyond their mid 30s; with science, they can reasonable bank on seeing life in their 80s. Women (and this is women in developed countries) can also have children at a relatively late age. For example, the women in the above image, Salma Hayek, had a healthy baby in her early 40s. It’s now normal for this sort of thing to happen. But it’s only normal because of science.

In short, the only reason Palin could have a baby in her 40s is because of the achievements in science. There is no other reason. If it was left to God, she would be lucky to reach the age she is in now, the age she gave birth to a mentally deficient baby. But her decision not to abort (an unscientific decision) is based on the belief that pregnancy is entirely God’s business. She lives this one thing, the pregnancy, to God, and the rest of her life—her health, he long life, her sparkling teeth—to science.

This makes no sense. Even if He exists, God has nothing to do with why Palin is having a baby at 43.

To conclude, let’s turn to history. Let’s go back to the wonderful 19th century (the cradle of our productive world) and examine the moment (1853) when Queen Victoria first decided to use chloroform during labor (she would do it again for her next and last, her 9th, delivery). The drug made the hard experience far less painful, and she made it known to the public (or at least the social elite) that anesthetized labor was a wonderful discovery, a great achievement, a sign of progress. But guess who was upset about the success of Queen Victoria’s experiment? The Church. Why? Because painless pregnancy was not a part of God’s plan. Indeed, it negated Eve’s curse. God cursed women, and that curse must remain unchallenged.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 7:05 PM

"When tests made it clear that Palin's pregnancy, which happened around the age of 43, had chromosomal abnormalities, she did not do the rational and even humane thing: return to nothing that which was still a no-thing."

A "no-thing"?!?! Are babies, are people, with disabilities less valuable than those without?

One of the most incredible aspects of the abortion lobby's approach to the disabled is that they try to sell it as compassionate. What is often overlooked in all this is the fact that the "choice" they offer is not between a life with handicaps or one without, but between a life with handicaps or no life at all. When abortion apologists call that "compassion," let's recognize for whom this compassion is being shown. Make no mistake, abortions on the disabled are done for us, not them.

Now, if that is not true, and if we truly believe in this "better--dead-than-disabled" philosophy, why limit our compassion to the unborn? Perhaps, as the following people are suggesting, "the right to choose" should be extended beyond the womb.

If it is compassionate to execute an unborn child who might have a disability, it would be even more compassionate to execute a five-year-old who we know is disabled and who we know is living an unpleasant life. If the underlying principle is sound, why should we stop there? Again, why put arbitrary limits on our "compassion"?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 8:09 PM

Kathy, I hope you can get over the guilt of having "murdered" your baby, but you like have had an abortion and belong to the "all abortions are immorial but mine". Abortion doctors see this all the time. One doctor said that a woman who regularly protested outside his clinic one day showed up in his office for an abortion. when he was through, she stated "you are still a murder". Happens every day. Whas that you Kathy.

But I digress. You see Kathy, words have meanings. A protein is not a cell. A sperm is a cell, but it is not a zygote. A zygote is not a fetus, which is not a baby. One is not the other. A fertilized egg is not a baby by definition. Really look up baby in the dictionary, zygote is not one of the definitions. Words have meanings. As Bill Mayher stated "a fetus is not a baby. A baby is something you take on an airplane."

When you can look at the horror of a baby sucking blood out of a milk dry breast in a third world country and see that this is a tragedy far above and beyond the death of a fertilized egg; then,and only then, do you relly know what it means to value life. So no, aborting an unconcious pea sized fetus is not the same as stabbing to death a living crying feeling baby that is conscious and has developed human contact. You see, the pea is like a blank hard drive with no memory, where as a baby, even one with down syndrome, has many mega bites of memory.

Only when we can put actual living, breathing, scientient beings on a higher level of importance then life in the abstract, can we become caring loving people.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/15/2008 8:50 PM

please watch my video of a touching god blessed home video I made. Here I am counseling my dear daughter.

youtube.com/watch?v=YNdIi4KpXhQ

Kathy
posted by Anonymous, at 9/16/2008 1:12 PM

First, the Anonymous who posted at 9/16/2008 at 1:12 PM was not me. How sad that people on this site have to lie and say they're me when they're not.

Second, I never had an abortion. I am a happily married woman with a four-year old daughter. So there is no need for any projection or psychobabble.

Third, I agree that words have meaning. Now, when it comes to the choice of abortion we are faced with a fundamental question: Is an innocent person injured? If not, then abortion isn't much different than an appendectomy and government should keep their noses out of what truly is a personal, medical decision. If, however, an innocent party suffers injury or death, then we should be unapologetically opposed to abortion.

So is anyone hurt by abortion? Well, we know that a fetus dies in an abortion. Dr. Warren Hern, a former-director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder, Colorado, is the author of the abortion "how to" manual, Abortion Practice. In it he says an abortionist may, in some second trimester procedures, have to wait to make certain "fetal death has occurred" before continuing with the rest of the abortion process. So we know SOMETHING dies in an abortion. But does SOMEONE die?

That question can only be answered by ascertaining the difference between a thing and a person. What is it that sets a person apart from everything else? Picture Senator Barack Obama. If someone were to question his personhood, how would you prove he truly is a person?

Defining personhood becomes crucial in determining who we value and protect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated as much in Roe v. Wade: "If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [to legalize abortion], of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by [the 14th] amendment." The 14th Amendment says the state shall not deprive any "person" of life without due process of law.

Aside from the fact that killing an innocent person is unconstitutional, it is also morally repugnant. So in order to legitimize abortion it has become necessary to define personhood narrowly enough to exclude fetuses (Latin for "little ones") killed in abortion.

So, what is a person? A person is simply a live human - a living, individual member of the human species. A LIVE human. Unlike a finger or a gall bladder which are parts of a person, a person is an entirely unique individual taking up his or her own space. In terms of the legal right to life, a person must be physically alive. A LIVE human. A person is not a feline, a canine, a bovine or an equine but a human, a member of the species homosapien.

When does life begin? When did you become you? It happened when you became a live human and that occurred at conception. Like an idea which begins when it is conceived, so an individual life begins when he or she is conceived. At conception a father's sperm unites with a mother's ovum and something incredible happens. The union forms a single cell with an ENTIRELY NEW GENETIC CODE. This new cell, a zygote, contains enough information to fill fifty sets of encyclopedias. And all of this information is on a kind of time release. Some is released almost immediately as the zygote divides, grows and becomes an embryo. Other information is released later along the road to maturity, first in utero, then as an infant and on through adulthood.

The problem is it's difficult to think of a single-celled human zygote as a person. Can you really have a one-celled person? Absolutely yes! Let's say the number of cells in your body right now is represented by the value x. At an earlier age, when your cell count was 1/2x or 1/20x or 1/2,000 x, you were just as much the unique and distinct person you are now. You were simply smaller and younger.

The same principle applies when you were made up of 1,000 cells, 100 cells or one cell. You were still you. Remember the size of a human, that is the number of cells in a human body, does not determine personhood. You do not become a human being through cell division. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger.

At the age when you were just a single cell, you were small, immature and difficult to relate to. The same could be said about you when you were a newborn. Some adults can be described as immature and difficult to relate to. That's the point, humans come in all sizes, ages, levels of intelligence and types of personality. Appearance, intelligence, maturity, and desirability are just descriptive terms which show the amazing diversity of the human race.

The bottom line is this: person is synonymous with human being. Every human, every person begins his or her life at the beginning, at conception. When we talk about the choice of abortion we are talking about killing an existing person. Children about to be aborted are, admittedly, quite young, small and helpless. So helpless, in fact, that none of them has any means of defending against his or her own death. But lack of protest by a victim does not justify the victim's destruction.

To be "pro-choice" on abortion, you have to ignore the medical and scientific evidence for personhood. Either that or hold a world view that allows the killing of innocent people.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/17/2008 11:48 AM

Kathy, you are an extremist fanatic. Your opinions, fully developed, as you just done represent about.000000000001% of the population because of course you are against the pill because it can act in rare cases act as an abortion drug.

There is not a single instance when you would consider abortion an option for a woman. You could care a less about human suffering. You are concerned with life in the abstract.

If you really think that a fertilized egg is the same as a human being, then let me ask you this. If you had a still born baby you would name it and bury it? Most people, including me would. But, of course you are aware that women often lose fertilized eggs (humans?) naturally as they often fail to implant. So let me ask you this. Do you regularly collect your menstrual flow and have it microscopically analyzed to search for fertilized eggs? When you find one, do you name it and put it in a microscopic coffin and burry it? If not why not? Is it less of a human then a stillborn? Do you at least say a prayer when you pull the string from your vagina?Or do you just flush it knowing that there may well be a human attach? Sorry for the vulgarity, but I am just being absurd to demonstrate obesedity. You sure dont rale against it much.

Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings.
p.s. Kathy are you also known a AJ/Theo
posted by Anonymous, at 9/17/2008 2:46 PM

The valentine day gift exclusive agency,
specializes in selling the male and female thing, the husbands and wives thing,
the sweetheart bouquet of flowers, the next to the skin clothing
posted by Anonymous, at 11/30/2008 3:13 PM

看房子,買房子,建商自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇, 日式料理 , 台北居酒屋,燒肉,自售,房子,新成屋,豪宅
posted by Anonymous, at 1/14/2009 10:30 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 4/05/2009 9:43 AM

MULTICOLORE POCHETTE PORTE MONNAIE NM
MULTICOLORE WHITE ALMA
Multicolore White Aurelia MM
Multicolore White Berlingot
MULTICOLORE WHITE BOULOGNE
MULTICOLORE WHITE ELIZA
Multicolore White iPod Mini Cover
Multicolore White Keepall 45
Multicolore White Koala Wallet
MULTICOLORE WHITE LEONOR
posted by Anonymous, at 1/06/2010 9:42 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 1/14/2010 7:36 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 6/25/2010 9:39 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 8/12/2011 10:03 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 福爾摩思多益雅思補習班(02) 2365-3288, at 4/04/2015 10:32 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 福爾摩思多益雅思補習班(02) 2365-3288, at 5/25/2015 6:06 PM