Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Friday, October 06, 2006

Significant Problem

In competitive debate there are four "stock issues" that need to be proven in order to win. The first of these is the issue of significance. The question here is whether or not the problem is really a problem.

When it comes to the argument over whether or not an exception ought to exist for rape or incest in restricting abortion, the pro-abortion side has a serious significance problem. I have heard no one on the pro-life side bring up this argument, but it is the largest weakness with the crowd screaming against RL6.

Let's look at a few numbers. According to US crime statistics, South Dakota has about 350 rapes (this number includes incest) per year (there are actually less reported, but there is an adjustment for those assumed not reported). Many estimates of pregnancies due to rape put the number as high as 5%, but in reality the number is closer to .5% (the 5% number is taken from the chances of getting pregnant from a one time occurrence of unprotected sex, but the fact is, many rapes do not provide even the possibility of pregnancy, so this number is a gross exaggeration when applied to rape). From this, we can arrive at about 1.75 pregnancies per year, or about 18 over a 10 year period. Out of these 18 women, statistics show that about 10 of them will decide to give birth to the baby. That leaves, over a 10 year period, 8 abortions due to rape, or about .8 per year.

Many pro-abortionists would brush off the fact that this is a very low number with the charge that "ruining" the lives of 8 women by making them carry the child still makes this law cold and heartless. To that I would respond that we need to look at how many lives would be truly ruined by a false charge of rape from a woman who simply wants to escape her real choice by having an abortion. I guarantee that if a rape charge is the only means of escaping the responsibility for getting pregnant, there would be a great deal more than .8 false charges, and possible convictions, per year.

The whole argument in favor of this exception crumbles of its own weight. The fact that RL6 does, in fact, offer the "morning after pill" as an option makes their case even weaker. Occasionally we need to step out of our emotional fervency (not that fervency is unwarranted in this case) and use simple logic to make our point. In this debate, the decision definitely goes for the pro-life side.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Ideology-Driven OB-GYN Group Blasts Abortion Ban

From the Rapid City Journal today:

The organization is particularly critical of the lack of exceptions for victims of rape and incest
So why is a medical group upset over the "lack of exceptions" for rape/incest victims? Their purview should be the medical. Perhaps they're letting a little ideology slip through, hm?

The article does quote one of their ideologically-driven doctors on the subject of medicine itself, their area of purview:
"This bill permits abortions only when intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. The problem is, medicine is never black and white."
So is that a black and white statement that nothing is black and white, or is it only sometimes that everything is black and white, or is nothing ever sometimes black and white (?) ?

Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician, has no trouble seeing through the haze of liberal ideology to understand the sacred duty of doctors to preserve life, not end it:
Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician and board member of the VoteYesForLife.com coalition, said his concern on this issue is that ACOG has "lost its moral compass and succumbed to the pressures of society" rather than trying to protect the lives of both patients involved in a pregnancy.

"Obstetricians have always taken responsibility for two patients: mother and unborn child," Oliver said. "And their duty was to protect the lives of both. This is a sacred duty that they ought to adhere to."

Abortion is rarely performed for medical reasons or because of a lethal birth defect, Oliver said. Even when a seriously impaired child is born dead or dies shortly after birth, most parents find something in the experience to cherish, he said.

And other children with birth defects may go on to live meaningful lives, he said.

"I've spent a lifetime caring for infants with some of these types of defects and other less severe ones," Oliver said. "In none of these cases have I ever come across a mother who didn't treasure something in their child's life."

Regarding rape and incest, Oliver said Plan B emergency contraception is more readily available than opponents of the ban will admit, even in Catholic hospitals throughout the state. About one in 300 rapes results in pregnancy, and studies show that most rape victims don't have an abortion and are happy with their decision, Oliver said.

"Many of those who have one regret it later," he said.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

More Informatin is "Dangerous"...to Pro-Abortionists

I have a post at the VoteYesForLife.com blog today about a wacky new report from pro-abortionists in England who think 3D ultrasound is "dangerous."

If radical pro-abortionists consider brain power a prerequisit for deserving life, what does that bode for ultra-Leftists who couldn't form a logically coherent thought if they had to?

Todd Epp Blog Post Full of Lies and Deception

Todd Epp is stating or repeating lies about Amendment C.

The post seems to imply that Jon Hoadley, who is leading the effort to derail South Dakota's marriage protection amendment, isn't a homosexual. I guess I don't know for sure that he is, but consider the following:

- He has founded several chapters of Stonewall Democrats, a homosexual organization

- He makes reference to "thousands of gay and lesbian citizens across the state" and how "we are coming together"

- In another piece, he says "we hear the voices of those in our group...the gay, white, upper class, traditionally gendered men can now be out at work...Yep. We've made it." He also says " the drag queens...paved the way for our sexual freedom. If it weren't for the people that couldn't hide their gender, we never would have had the option of openly seeking same-gender relationships...Now if you'd excuse me, I see a pair of gold eyelashes with my name all over them"

- He was guest speaker at a "Queer Guide to Political Activity" event in 2005

His "lifestyle" seem to be little in question to me. If Hoadley is indeed a modern homosexual, he would normally be proud of the fact, so I don't understand why Epp would want to imply that Hoadley isn't.

Epp also implies the homosexual lifestyle is completely "normal, natural and healthy," even though the evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is a practice riven with health hazards (STDs, AIDS, injuries common to doing things with your body that it was never meant to do, depression, substance abuse, suicide).

Some studies have found that homosexuality takes at least 20 years off your lifespan. The lifespan of the average practicing homosexual is somewhere in the low 40s.

Epp also says

As Jon pointed out, domestic partners have lost health care coverage in Michigan under a similar law and single people have lost domestic abuse protections under a similar Ohio law.
But this is yet another lie being put forward by those who want to scare people who would otherwise have the good sense to vote to protect marriage from homosexual activists and activist judges.

The truth is, after Michigan passed their marriage protection amendment, their was a legal case to determine whether government employees (i.e. those paid by the taxpayers) could receive domestic partner benefits. A Michigan judge ruled last year that domestic partner benefits are "benefits of employment, not benefits of marriage."

The Ohio case is also a red herring. Ohio, where the laws are different than in South Dakota, has two cases dealing with the marriage protection amendment and domestic violence laws. One has been upheld that the marriage protection amendment in no way effects domestic violence protection, and the other is still in the appeal process. And even if they did lose domestic violence law protection, simple assault is still illegal, and restraining orders are available to anyone, regardless of domestic status or lack thereof.

In any case, South Dakota's law regarding domestic violence, SDCL 25-10-1 is different than that of Ohio. It is very broad, only requiring that at some point the victim and perpetrator have "lived together." No requirement for actual marriage is stated anywhere in the law.

Amendment C will have no effect whatsoever on existing laws, rights or privilieges. It will only preserve and maintain the definition of marriage as it has always been.

How pathetic that the Left feels it has to resort to lies and deception just to have a hope of winning at the ballot box.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Divisiveness in the Eye of the Beholder

Ramesh Ponnuru's National Review piece makes an astute observation of how the Left views Christian participation in the public square as he examines John Danforth's objection to "divisiveness:"

Are Christian conservatives guilty of divisiveness for campaigning to get Roe v. Wade overturned? Or are they responding legitimately to liberals' divisive campaign to get the courts to impose an extreme version of the abortion policy they favor? Danforth tends to divide the American political world into "Christian conservatives" and "moderates" (liberals barely appear in his book), with the former portrayed as divisive and the latter as reconcilers. But that set of categories is itself divisive, as categories tend to be.
This is a common, historical-revisionist claim from the Left these days. When people work to maintain or restore traditional values in South Dakota or the U.S., the Left charges we are being "divisive." Actually, it is they who are being divisive, as they are trying to subvert the moral foundations of our great country, trying to change what has worked well and made us a great civilization in exchange for some crazy new Marxist social engineering scheme.
Danforth's own policy views put him in a quandary. He was an anti-abortion senator, and he remains opposed to same-sex marriage. But he favors research that kills human embryos, opposes a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, and disdains public displays of religion. He wants to cast the people to his right as theocratic.
Another position of the Left is that, if you must have these primitive religious convictions in the first place, at least keep them to yourself so that they are completely irrelevant to real life. Their position is that religious values should have no bearing on what we do in the "real world." And if you should happen to proffer both faith-based rationale AND "real-world" scientific reasons for a particular position, well, anything scientific you might have to say is automatically invalidated because you're a "Bible thumper." In other words, the Left advocates that only the end of your nose should guide you in public.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

In Many Public Schools, the Paddle Is No Relic

I was pleasantly surprised to learn this morning that corporal punishment is still in use in some schools across the country.

A New York Times story tells of Principal Anthony Price reinstating the paddle at his school in Fort Worth, TX.

“I’m a big fan,” Mr. Price said. “I know it can be abused. But if used properly, along with other punishments, a few pops can help turn a school around. It’s had a huge effect here.”

He goes on to discuss how it's used and why:
Mr. Price said he definitely believed there was a “cultural factor” behind the persistence of corporal punishment in some parts of the country after it has disappeared elsewhere.

“You hear people say, Well, you know, it’s in the Bible, don’t spare the rod and spoil the child,” he said.

He uses it, he said, because he believes it works.

“The rule is, never hit in anger,” Mr. Price said. “We always talk to the child before the punishment, make sure they understand why it’s happening, and then talk to them again afterward. None of it is cold or harsh. We try to treat the kids like they’re our own.”
I had the paddle used on me a few times when I was in school (and yes, it was after we landed on the moon), and it didn't wound me for life. It did motivate me to behave better, I'll tell you that!

If we had more serious punishment for bad behavior, both at home and in school, there'd be a lot less drug use, mouthing off to teachers, kids shooting and knifing each other in school and such as that. And I dare say there'd be a lot more learning going on, too, instead of such a zoo-like atmosphere they have now where teachers are afraid to discipline unruly kids lest their parents sue them.

Dangerous Ignorance

The Gideons who give away free Bibles have not only been banished from our schools, but banished even from sidewalks near our schools

From the Illinois Herald News:

"They were a little too close to impressionable children," said Patricia Cross, principal at Jefferson. "(Gideons representatives) quoted freedom of speech, but I also told them there's separation of church and state."
The funny thing is, you can point to the former in the U.S. Constitution, but you'll never find the latter there.

I find it hard to express how sad--and how frightening--it is that the people of the United States have become not only so ignorant of their Christian heritage, but so ignorant of their own freedoms and their own Constitution that they'd liken handing out a Bible to handing out porn.

George Washington said in his farewell address of 1796
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens...Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Are people going to rise up and condemn this rabid secularism before it's too late?

Clicky Web Analytics