The "Loving Choice": My Discussions on Abortion

We women know when it is or is not the right time to bring a child into the world...We act out of compassion when we wait to have a child until the time when we can give it the kind of life every child deserves. We act out of love when we consider what we would be taking away from the child or children we already have if we brought another child into our family now...We women know the truth: That given certain circumstances, abortion is the most morally responsible and loving choice we can make."

-Jean Stewart Berg and Anne Baker

This quote in a nutshell represents the great majority of the pro-choice arguments I have encountered. It is designed to engender sympathetic feelings for women considering abortion, and take our minds off the fact that the "loving choice" is to end a human life.

The following are excerpts from various discussions I have had recently about abortion. It represents the exact reason I blog: to exchange ideas and learn through hearing others and having to ponder and defend my opinions. Through these discussions my conviction that abortion is unjust has been strengthened.

Almost immediately after writing "A Philisophical Study of Abortion" I stumbled onto another abortion debate. Jen's Green Journal had just begun a series of posts discussing abortion, and I came in midstream:

Once again alienated, you miss the point. You are defining the beginning of life on your religious view points. Do you have any non-religious proof that shows clearly that a fully developed nervous system, fully developed brain and a "soul" are all present at the point of conception or during the early stages of clump of cells or embryo?

If you cannot without a doubt prove this without religious arguments, than how can you compare a clump of cells to my life as a fully developed human being,with a fully developed nervous system and brain with emotions, memories, relationships? You can't without religion and you know it. There fore you are using YOUR religion to deny MY rights.

Jen had been in a back-and-forth with someone calling himself "alienated wannabe" when she wrote this. Notice her use of the term "fully developed". It will be a recurring theme, and one I try to address with her later on with mixed results. Alienated hadn't responded to her "religion challenge", so I did:

This website (http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week1) might prove helpful in the "religious inquiry". Is it only religion that teaches the baby is a human? Jen has argued that most abortions occur in the first trimester, so this pregnancy tracker website shows the development that occurs during this time. It's pretty amazing.

Gender is determined at conception. Human DNA is present at conception. I particularly like this quote, "The genetic makeup (the characteristics that make this new individual different from anyone else in the world) is determined at the moment of fertilization."

During the first couple of weeks a heart and circulatory system are formed. The foundation of the nervous system is formed. By week five blood is pumping, all four chambers of the heart are functioning, and the brain and lungs appear. At week six there's a pancreas, nostrils, and intestines. At week seven teeth actually form beneath the gums. The baby continues to develop rapidly in the next couple of weeks, gaining bones, a tongue, joints, fingerprints, hair, fingernails, and will curve her fingers around an object placed in the palm of her hand.

Clearly the baby is more than just a "clump of cells." She is a human.

Also notice that no response is given when the demanded scientific evidence is actually provided. That too is a recurring theme.

On a new thread Jen posts the following quote and question, which I then answer.:

"Pro-life advocates claim they want the fetus to be treated as if it were a born person. Well, even if the fetus were a person, and even if the fetus had a right to life, the fetus has no right of access to a woman's body or liberty, because no born person has such a right.
* Once born, for example, no child has a right to even a pint of blood from a parent-- much less to more invasive donations, such as bone marrow. Thus, although parents have a duty to care for their children, this duty does not extend to the requirement that parents donate parts of their body to their children, even if the lives of their children are dependent upon those donations.
* What is more, if someone coercively took a pint of blood from a parent to give to the child, the government would protect the parent from such nonconsensual bodily intrusion, not the child. If we were to treat the fetus as if it were a born person, therefore, the government would protect the woman, not the fetus, when the fetus intrudes without consent upon a woman's body and liberty.
Consent added to choice, therefore, strengthens abortion rights. Even if a woman consents to sex, she retains her right to bodily integrity and liberty. This means she retains the right to consent to the condition of pregnancy resulting from the fetus. If a woman does not consent to pregnancy, she is similarly situated with others who are the victims of non-consensual intrusion of their bodies and liberty."

So being a life support system for a child you created only applies before the child is born? Why doesn't it apply after? If we are to apply law consistently in the event of eliminated legal abortion, then all parents should be forced to give blood, kidney, bone marrow or what have you to the child in the event he/she needs one to survive. Right now they are not forced to, as women are not forced to have their bodies used as life-support systems for a fetus if she chooses not to.

If you don't agree with making it consistent, what changed to make the child less important after birth than before?

Is there a raging epidemic of dying children in need of bone marrow with parents unwilling to give? When that epidemic reaches upwards of 45 million children, perhaps we could discuss some legislative action.

But in a more realistic sense, yes, our laws are currently designed to force parents to care for their children. If the parents do not want the child, they may give her to someone else to raise. If the parents are neglectful of their duties, our laws authorize the state to forcibly take the child away and give her to someone else.

The point is that the government does not force any parent to act as a life support system after they are born, when they can feel pain and process the fear of death. It is therefore inconsistent to demand that any parent act as a life-support system against their will before the nervous system, fully functioning brain and (for religious folks) before "ensoulment" occurs -- in other words before they are a fully formed human.

There's that "fully functioning" again.

Jen's quote argues that consent of the mother is required for the fetus to have a right to remain in the womb. This is exactly what Judith Thomson argues in her paper. I covered the problems with that here, as well as in my discussion with Democracy Lover here.

Jen made a couple of posts revolving around unsourced statistics. Here is one:

I just found out today that 66% of abortions are sought by women that are already mothers. This is a strong indication to me that many of the women are making the best choices they can for the children they already have.

It kind of meshes with a few stories I've heard the past couple of weeks as I conversed with people over this ridiculous abortion ban bill (HB235 S1).

There were two stories I heard this week about women who were married with children but at the end of their capabilities when they found out they were pregnant unexpectedly -- I think at least one was failed birth control. They got abortions and were happy with their decision.

I heard another story this week about a woman who had raised most of her 8 kids to adulthood when she found out she was pregnant near 50 years old. She had the child because this was pre-Roe v. Wade. She apparently went a little nuts (no indication if child raising was the reason, but if I had to raise 8 kids and was just about done and found out that I had to start all over again at 50 I would go insane myself -- heck, it would take a lot fewer kids to drive me insane) and his mother's emotional state while raising him had a very negative affect on that 9th child.

Another story I heard this week: a friend told me that her mother-in-law admitted to her that if she had been a young woman these days rather than her own, she would not have had children; she said that even though she loved her children, she never enjoyed being a mom.

These stories are hard to hear -- we want to picture mothers as unconditionally loving and self-sacrificing. Many women have a difficult time coming out of the "I don't like being a mommy" closet because they do love their kids and it's a taboo in our society for a woman, much less a mother, not to be a "kid person".

Just because we are all born with the physical equipment to have children and sexual drives, doesn't mean we are all meant to be mothers.

There were a number of comments to this post previous to mine, and they all fall under the "loving choice" umbrella. I thought some additional statistics would prove helpful, but they did not convince Jen:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

4-8% of abortions are performed because the mother "has enough children already."

0.2% are done because the life of the mother is at risk.

1% are done because the physical health of the mother is at risk.

0.33% are done because the mother was forced to be pregnant. ie rape or incest.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

About 80% of abortions are performed on unmarried women.

45% of women getting an abortion have never given birth.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/age.asp

68.9% of abortions are done on women between the ages of 20 and 34."
"

About 80% of abortions are performed on unmarried women.'

The 66% of women who are already mothers may not be married -- you don't have to be married to be a mother -- in fact, are you Repubs the ones that criticize women for continuing to produce children without a husband? Oh I forgot -- women should be celebate until menopause unless they can permenantly catch a man.

"68.9% of abortions are done on women between the ages of 20 and 34." -great statistic, yes it's true that the prime fertile years are 20 -34 years old. Fertility declines in the late 30s and menopause can happen as early as the early 40s. Men also decline in fertility as they age, and it's still not very common to see a lot of randy older women having unprotected sex with young guys, which is still kind of a rarity, there won't be as many unplanned pregnancies in the older category.

Then an anonymous poster wrote this, followed by Jen's response:

I think the real issue is this: when is a baby a baby? My wife is pregnant with our first child. At 12 weeks, we saw an ultrasound of our baby. It has arms, legs, a beating heart, and even fingernails (though you couldn't see the fingernails, I've read that they're there). It has brain waves, too. What else does it need to be considered life rather than just "potential life"?

And at 12 weeks, we could legally abort the baby that's in my wife's womb, and that thought disgusts me.

Nice Spin Job part 2
"It has arms, legs, a beating heart, and even fingernails (though you couldn't see the fingernails"

People who aren't alive also have fingernails, arms and legs.

Scientists can make a heart beat in a petrie dish.

I'd need to see more information on the brain waves, as without a fully function nervous system it seems unlikely to mean much.

"So if you don't want unwanted babies, don't choose to have sex."

How very archaic. Straight out of the dark ages.

You must be exausted from all the funerals
1/4 of all fertized eggs get washed out in the monthly period. And that doesn't even address the embryos that are further developed that go with the period as well and unbeknownst to the mother. All those poor babies that will never get a chance at life! That's a lot of dead fully living babies.

By this time I admit I had become frustrated and a little exasperated with her snide remarks and avoidance of factual discussion. So I tried to get right to the point:

Sarcasm and contempt don't become you. Nor does it help this discussion.

You tried to paint a picture of abortion as women simply already having too many kids to care for. The facts show that that is the case in as few as 4% of the abortions performed in this country.

You have argued that abortion is necessary for the sake of the mother's health or even life. The facts show that that is the case in as few as 1% of the abortions in the US.

You have attempted to show that abortion is for the slight chance that contraceptives don't work. The facts show that 46% of abortions are the result of not using contraceptives.

You argue that it is Talibanish to expect people to control their desires, when the truth is that our society demands that all the time, in many circumstances.

You (and others) argue that the real problem is that we need additional awareness and use of contraceptives, but the facts show that 17% of abortions are the result of failed contraceptives.

Some argue that it is our young girls that need abortions, but the fact is that 68% of abortions are for women 20-34 years old.

You have tried to argue that science proves that life does not begin before birth, but the facts show that a fetus has many of the physical characterstics you do, has unique human DNA as you do, and is responsive to its environment as you are.

It is clear that a pregnant woman has a human life inside of her. An important philosopher stated: "if you are conceived by human parents, you are human." To argue otherwise is to deny humanity from many who are obviously human beings.

At this point I was pretty much the only one left still challenging Jen. Here is how it unfolded:

Authoritarian patriarical control doesn't become you, dear anon.

I question your statistics because I've seen far different statistics -- we could probably both find statistics that contradict the others.

"fetus has many of the physical characterstics you do, has unique human DNA "

Ever single skin cell that sheds and becomes dust has DNA -- this is not sarcasm, I'm not buying the DNA prsent means there's a fully formed life -- DNA does not prove there is a soul, fully functioning nervous system, fully developed brain -- there is only the potential for these things until a certain point in the pregnancy, after which a fetus is protected under Roe v. Wade .

Oh good, more name calling. Why is it that if I disagree with you I must be "authoritarian" and "patriarical"?

I gave you the sources of my statistics. They are based on the CDC and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is the research branch of Planned Parenthood. Feel free to share your statistics with their sources so we can better understand any discrepancies that may exist.

A dead skin cell is far different biologically than a fertilized egg. My source for that is my old high school biology textbook.

DNA does not prove there is a fully functioning brain. It does not even prove there are fully functioning limbs. But the lack of those things doesn't deny humanity to my uncle, who was born with many impairments that prevent him from ever walking, seeing, fully communicating, or using the left side of his body.

So far your arguments in favor of abortion also advocate giving my grandparents the "choice" to terminate his life.

Cameron--

You have probably received the brunt of my frustration as you are the umpteenth person to use the same arguments against choice that I've heard ad nauseum, which I have had to argue as to why you have no right to dictate laws about by body. I'm getting very tired of the debate.

I'm getting very tired of being told that I shouldn't have sex unless I'm married and fully prepared to raise a child for 20 years in exchange for the 20 minutes or so of fun. I'm tired of being told that I'm selfish because I don't fit some outdated idealized version of womanhood circa 1950.

You picture a sweet little baby being murdered, I picture women's and children's lives destroyed, poverty and long-term suffering. Our life experiences have given us completely different ways to view the same thing.

I'm not sure why you want to continue this debate -- you are so very sure that life begins at conception; I'm very sure that I won't cede my rights over my body and life to religious/superstitious beliefs that I don't share. Neither of us will convince the other.

Your comments on The World According to me:

"But let's be clear as to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stance is on abortion:

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline. "

Having spent the first 19 years of my life as an active Mormon, I'm well aware how difficult it is to convince them of anything different than what the "church" says. They drill into your head every week that you belong to the only true church (and several times on fast Sunday). If you belong to the only true church, then the logic follows that anything said by the leaders of the only true church is the ultimate truth of the Universe. I don't have the debating skills to compete with your certainty based on this -- which having had it once myself, I've come to realize takes a lot of different life experiences to wake you up.

Since your religion believes that gender is an eternal experience and that the ultimate destiny for women who make it to the top of the Celestial Kingdom and the production of spirit babies, it would come as no surprise that one who follows your religion would believe that women who don't want "God's plan" for them would be unnatural and "selfish". This would further be confirmed if most of the women you know really enjoyed their roles as mothers, as many -- but far from all -- women do. And how many would dare "come out of the not-wanting-to-center-life-around-children closet" if they don't with such beliefs?

When I try to view what I've said about abortion from my 19 year-old active-Mormon perspective, I'm aware that I'm wasting my time in arguing. And while you are not me at 19, you probably see it close enough to that perspective to make all this considerable time I'm spending on this one subject a waste.

So lets agree to disagree, shall we?

I have continued this debate because I enjoy rational exchange of ideas, and I find that exchange to be valuable. I can empathize with your frustration at responding to various commentors on various posts. However, I think you'll find that I have not used any of the arguments you've listed as being so frustrating to you. I have structured my arguments factually, cited my sources, and responded to each of your arguments.

Your final response to me implies that I am "just" a Mormon, and so cannot think for myself. You say that you used to be a Mormon, but that your life experience, including raising two children at a young age, is what caused you to "wake up."

Though I have yet to awaken from my Mormon-induced stupor, I will share some of my own life experiences with you. My wife and I had three children before our 28th birthday, two of whom were conceived despite our use of birth control (so much for sex education). During this time I worked full time, went to University full time, and never made more than $10 an hour. At one point I was waking up at 5am so I could catch the train at 6, and didn't return home until 8 that night, only to have to do homework once I got there. It was hard. My own life experiences have taught me quite well what it means to raise a child at a young age. In fact, I raised three.

That being said, I think most of the excuses for wanting an abortion depend on one very important thing: is the fetus a human. No matter how hard to raise or how inconvenient the baby may be, abortion is still not an option if she is indeed a human. My positive argument is borrowed from John Noonan: If you are conceived by human parents, you are human. I wrote a quite extensive post on this not too long ago.

In reading through all of your posts on the subject, your argument seems to grant humanity only to those with a "fully developed brain and fully developed nervous system." My complaint with that definition of humanity is that it denies personhood to many born people lacking those things, including my uncle who was born with many handicaps, such as blindness, inability to walk or say more than a few words, and a complete lack of use of the left side of his body. His brain is far from being fully developed, and while he lives it never will be. He does not even possess the "potential" to be fully developed.

Although there are a few people out there that disagree, I don't think that terminating the lives of premies, newborns, the elderly, or people like my uncle is justified.


"premies, newborns, the elderly, or people like my uncle is justified."

This is about embryos and fetuses, 90% of which are at 12 weeks gestation or less. This is not about premies, newborns, the elderly or people like your uncle. Abortion is not allowed under Roe v. Wade after a fetus becomes viable -- which eliminates all those that you mention above from being "terminated".

The "just a Mormon" thing: I have been fortunate to get to know a lot of Mormons who are liberal on a lot of subjects in the last few years, which has been a surprise to me because I certainly didn't know any during my days as a Mormon, and some of it contradicts what I know of Mormonism from all those years of sunday school, primary, young women's plus the 4 years of seminary I had. I'm aware that not all Mormons believe alike.

From the quote that you posted on "The World According To Me" from your church leaders:

"Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline. "

I bolded the parts which I think apply to our arguments here which show a religious bias to the discussion. How can you have a rational debate with me when I, according to your leaders, am "using deceptive arguments?" If you believe this quote there can be no rational debate -- I will always be using "deceptive arguments". My experience as a Mormon had given me an insight into how hard it is to break through that kind of moral certainty with anything that contradicts it.

Thank you for sharing your story with me. I'm glad that you and your partner made the choice that best fit you.

I have shared some of my story of raising my first daughter as a single parent. I was one of the lucky ones -- I did get a lot of support from friends and a little from family, but even as one of the lucky ones I wouldn't wish some of the hell that I experienced on anyone. Had I been forced to into that and not chosen it for myself, it would have been far worse for both my daughter and myself.

I actually wrote a couple of replies to this, but didn't post any of them. Since she didn't really address any of my arguments, all of the replies I drafted seemed like a rerun.

The discussion I had with Jen showed me some things. When I present a detailed, sourced, factual argument it is generally met with silence. Here are a few more examples of this from various posts over at NeonPrimeTime's blog:

To come to an a priori decision about the beginning of life is to ignore the simple fact that life begins at birth. Our technology assists those born before 38-40 weeks of gestation to survive, but that simply because we have the techinical ability to assist premies in their post-natal development does not mean we can move the whole life-clock backwards. On the other hand, I think it safe to say that those premies who are born and are assisted through development are indeed as alive as achild who gestates the full term.
I agree with Democracy Lover that real, actual life is always to take precedent over the potential life of the fetus, even a fetus past30-32 weeks of of gestation, because it is still not actually alive in any meaningful sense. There is a real distinction, a substantive distinction, between something that is potential, and something actual. 20 years ago I was a potential concert pianist. Today, I am not actually a concert pianist, because that is not that path I chose. I have the potential to do all sorts of things today, but only some of them will become actual. You see, potential things do not exist, any more than the independent life of the fetus.

"Life begins at birth"

Why? The difference between my children the day before they were born and the day after is basically nil, except for location. Even the most famous and influential abortion advocate, Judith Jarvis Thomson, stated in her "A Defense of Abortion" that life probably starts while the baby is still in the womb.

When my wife was pregant with our oldest daughter our doctor was going out of the country just before my wife's due date. So the doctor advised us to induce labor. So we scheduled the birth. We went in Saturday morning, they gave my wife the medication to induce, monitored everything, gave her some pain medication, and a few hours later we had a baby girl. But it wasn't a "natural" birth. My wife's body didn't decide on its own that the baby was ready to come out. But surely it was still alive and human.

Geoffrey, I read your argument to mean that location is the biggest indicator of human life. You argue that life begins at birth, and that just because we have the technology to assist prematurely born babies to survive and thrive doesn't necessarily mean that life begins at that "premature" date in the womb. But then you argue that these very same premies are indeed alive.

The only difference I can see between a prematurely born baby and one that just hasn't been born yet is location.

This was met with silence.

I'm not sure who Cameron knows that has no self-awareness and cannot cherish or even be aware of life, perhaps he can provide examples.

How about any number of sick and afflicted people in the world. Does a person afflicted with Alzheimers have an awareness of others? Does a person born into this world without the ability to feel pain not get personhood rights in DL's view? Are they not completely human?

What of a man I know who was born with severe complications. His brain is irreversibly damaged and does not function properly. The left side of his body is malformed and stunted. He cannot walk. He cannot see. He can say only a few words. What of him? Though I see him often, he does not know who I am. Is he not human? Does he not deserve protection?

Or perhaps less extreme is the case of a newborn baby. She is not self aware. For some time she thinks her mother is herself. Her body is not fully formed, though is progressing rapidly. She is completely dependent upon others for survival. She does not "cherish" life. Geoffrey has already eloquently stated how children "cannot distinguish between the outside world and their own desires." Do they not deserve protection because of that?

More silence.

cnn link

Miami - A premature baby that doctors say spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant is scheduled for release from a South Florida hospital Tuesday.

Amillia Sonja Taylor was just 9 1/2 inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was born Oct. 24. She was delivered after just under 22 weeks of pregnancy; full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks.

The baby has experienced respiratory problems, a very mild brain hemorrhage and some digestive problems, but none of the health concerns are expected to pose long-term problems, her doctors said.

Is it not true that because of science, the dynamics of the Abortion debate continue to change? We now have a live and well baby after just 22 weeks?

Democracy Lover said...
I don't see that this changes the debate at all. It all depends on what you are arguing. If you are arguing that abortion is evil because the fetus is a potential human life, then this will perhaps bolster your case, but since that view is not shared by the pro-choice side anyway, it won't be much help.

Cameron said...
It changes things because Roe v Wade is based on viability, which at the time was about 24 weeks.

And this isn't something new either. Sandra Day O'Connor has said that Roe was on a "collision course with itself" because of its reliance on viability. This baby is proof of that.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...
Actually, it changes nothing. The artificial sustenance of life, either before viability or after viability, is not an argument, but an assertion that technology has altered certain natural facts. In truth, most babies "born" at 22 weeks are called miscarriages. Luck and a whole lot of machinery are involved here. A single instance does not discount any kind of theory.

neonprimetime said...
Can you truly have it both ways though? Can you continue preaching science and allowing us to probably someday have a child born at 22 weeks or even 20 weeks and be perfectly healthy? If you continue preaching that science, then to me you're being hypocritcal by then turning around and saying that a fetus is not alive yet, when the very science you love is saying that yes the baby is alive.

Cameron said...
Geoffrey misses the point that abortion was legalized in this country based on viability, even if the 24 week old needed medical attention in order to survive.

That is what our Supreme Court ruled was the basis for "life", which is why Sandra Day O'Connor said what she did, and why this newborn baby is a big deal. According to Roe's 24 week standard, she's not even a person yet.

Yep, nothing.

I think the biggest problem with the abortion debate in the US is apathy. The majority of Americans don't have a strong opinion either way and so the ones left to fight over it are the folks with the "baby killer" signs outside of Planned Parenthood and the folks with the "I had an abortion and there's nothing you can do about it you backwards hillbilly" t-shirts. These people only succeed in yelling and ticking each other off. This just drives the rest of america away from the discussion.

Frankly, that's the problem with politics in general.

Democracy Lover said...
If you guys really want to reduce abortions, then we should start by understanding why they happen in the first place. There's a study on this of course. Here are the top 3 reasons in order:

1. Having a baby would dramatically change my life (interfere with education, job, or care of other children). 74%
2. Can't afford a baby. 73%
3. Don't want to be a mother or in a bad relationship (abusive, about to break up, etc.) 48%

The best way to reduce 1 and 3 is to insure that all women (and men) have access to high quality contraceptives.

Reason #2 has to do with our lack of services for young mothers. If a young woman knew that she would not pay anything for the health care related to her delivery or for the herself or the baby later, and if there were high quality day care available at low cost, many of these women might make a different choice.

We could also make the 'morning after' pill widely available over the counter, and provide good sex education in our schools - all of these would reduce abortion without interfering with anyone's rights, or involving big government in private medical decisions.

Think about it.

Cameron said...
DL,

17% of abortions are performed because of failed contraceptives.

Canada, with its "free" healthcare, has the same abortion rate as the US.

US abortion rates have fallen since 1981, despite our lack of "free" healthcare.

This is an interesting analysis of the falling abortion rates since 2000, despite President Bush's hateful policies towards the poor. (just a tinge of sarcasm there)

This analysis also tackles some of DL's reasons for women getting an abortion. It shows how DL's numbers in the 70% range are a little misleading because, "these percentages include women each giving multiple reasons, it would be erroneous to select a single reason as decisive in these decisions to obtain abortions. In the 1988 AGI survey, only 21% cited economics as the most important reason, and only 13% cited issues with the mate as the most important reason."

This page has many interesting analyses. Scroll down a little and you'll find some graphs examining the role of unemployment, marriage prospects, minimum wage, and income in abortion numbers. The data shows that there is little to no correlation. In fact, there is more correlation to abortion in areas with higher per capita income and higher education spending than there is to poverty and unemployment rates.

Another tidbit in regards to DL's argument for socialized medicine is that many countries that already have this healthcare method have similar abortion rates to the US. Two countries though have markedly lower rates. The difference between Belgium and the Netherlands abortion rate and other countries' with socialized healthcare is that those two countries also have mandatory waiting periods for abortion.

Again, more silence. Now I will grant that not everyone will always go back to check for comments after they've said their peice. But I do see a recurring theme.

Nevertheless, these discussions have given me much food for thought, and an opportunity to really explore my own beliefs. I spent alot of time and effort researching, pondering, and writing my "study of abortion", and it seemed that as soon as I had it posted, the abortion topic sprung up all around me. In addition to the preceding posts, I also had an interesting conversation on the online version of the Times-News, and there is a spirited discussion going on over at the Agora as well.

For Holly

TDIH: The Birth of the Republican Party

Feb. 28, 1854:


About 50 slavery opponents met in Ripon, Wis., to call for creation of a new political group, which became the Republican Party.

Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband- Banjo Boy

Jane's Back: The Effect of War Protests

In January 2007 there was a war protest and march in Washington DC. Speakers at the rally included the usual politicians and Hollywood luminaries. One name stuck out at me though: Jane Fonda, otherwise known as Hanoi Jane. Ms. Fonda is infamous for her Vietnam War era outspokenness, when she spoke at college campuses extolling the virtues of communism, called herself a socialist, and told students we should all "pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist." She also called returning POWs "hypocrites and liars" for saying they had been tortured despite Fonda's claims the previous year that US POWs were treated well. Perhaps most infamous is her trip to North Vietnam during the war. On this trip she made ten radio addresses propogandizing about the goodness of North Vietnam and how US soldiers were "war criminals". She was even photographed laughing with enemy soldiers while sitting in the very same anti-aircraft guns that were used to shoot down US planes and ended in the pilots' torture and death.

Many have accused Jane Fonda of treason. They say she aided the enemy during a time of war. This is what came to mind as I read that she had spoken at the anti-war rally- the first time she has publicly protested the Iraq War. It is interesting to note the juxtaposition of her actions 35 years ago with the current round of protests. It seems most have learned a few lessons from Vietnam, as no one calls soldiers baby killers, war criminals, or "hypocrites and liars" this time around. In fact, these protestors take great pains to pledge their support to the troops.

However, despite these self-imposed limitations on their rhetoric, are the protestors aiding the enemy? This is a charge vehemently denied and one that will earn the accusor swift condemnation. But I wonder if it is true?

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Bui Tin in 1995. He was the North Vietnamese officer that forced the South's surrender. He said that the anti-war movement in the US, including the protests and statements made by Jane Fonda and others, were "essential to our strategy" and that North Vietnamese leadership listened to the US news reports "to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement." He further stated that "through dissent and protest (the US) lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." The North Vietnamese strategy became one of holding on long enough for the protestors to win the war for them. Eventually the protests forced the US to withdraw from Vietnam, leading to the Communist takeover of the entire country. This communist government, the one that Jane Fonda told us to pray for, went on to kill an estimated 2 million people in the years immediately following the war.

How does this apply to Iraq? If anything, the battle for public opinion has become even more important since Vietnam. In February 2004 CNN reported on a letter written by al Zarqawi and intended for al-Queda leaders in Afghanistan. The letter details Zarqawi's concern over American resolve, and explains the next steps the terrorists would take. In order to make things worse in Iraq and test US resolve, Zarqawi pledged to incite sectarian violence by singling out Iraqi targets to bomb. Less than a year later the Samarra mosque was destroyed and sectarian violence became a daily occurence. Now, one year after that terrorist designed bombing, US public opinion has been swayed, Jane Fonda is again marching in protest, and our Congress is passing "non-binding" resolutions denouncing the war. Are we due for a repeat of history? What will be the death toll this time as we abandon another country to chaos? Will Iraqi terrorists consolidate their power to the tune of 2 million murders, just as Communist North Vietnam did? I hope we won't have to find out.

Our New Minimum Wage

As promised, during the House of Representatives' first 100 (working) hours the federal minimum wage was raised. Immediately after its passage questions were raised as to why American Samoa was exempted from the wage increase. Some representatives pointed to the fact that one of the largest employers in American Samoa, Del Monte, is headquartered in San Francisco, which just happens to be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home district. These representatives waxed indignant at Speaker Pelosi's hypocrisy, especially considering her vocal proclamations of presiding over the most ethical Congress in history. Congressional leadership initially defended American Samoa's exemption, saying that the US territory had always been exempted from the federal wage standard. However, within days these leaders promised to change the bill to include American Samoa.

Despite the public brouhaha, I don't think anything unethical happened here, unless you count giving in to political pressure in order to save face as being unethical. For you "follow the money" folks, the Washington Times reported that Del Monte has not given a penny to any Democrat in the last five years. What I do think happened is that Speaker Pelosi and other House leaders listened to American Samoa's non-voting representative, Eni Faleomavaega, when he said that the minimum wage could "devastate the local economy". Or perhaps they read Del Monte VP Melissa Murphy Brown's warning that the wage hike would "severely cripple the local economy."

Interestingly, the sponsor of the bill, Representative George Miller, argued that American Samoa doesn't need to be covered by the minimum wage because a Labor Department committee reviews the island's minimum wage every two years. It would seem that this committee has historically agreed with Rep. Faleomavaega and VP Brown and allowed the current wages of $2.70 per hour to remain. It is instructional to note that listening to local elected officials, local business leaders, and providing some federal oversite and auditing functions has for the past 50 years settled on a local minimum wage far different than the one Congress has arbitrarily set. Unfortunately, because of its inevitable passage, the new federal minimum wage has put many American Samoans in danger of losing their job.

Sulejman Talovic

The following was printed in the Times-News Sunday, February 18, 2007:

Sulejman Talovic was a Bosnian Muslim refugee. His formative years were spent in hiding, traveling from village to village to escape the genocide that killed 200,000 people, including his grandfather. At seven he lived near Srebrenica, where over 8,000 men and boys were killed. For a time they lived in a house with no water, no electricity, and a dirt floor. His father worked for a couple of dollars a day. They often went hungry.

In 1998 they made it to America. They lived in a poor, run-down part of Salt Lake City. Family members say that Sulejman's father "works all the time", and Sulejman himself dropped out of school at 16 to start working. He started a new job last December at an industrial laundry facility, and worked his regular 8-5 shift the day he caused so much pain.

Many point to Islam as the source of the problem, though the FBI immediately ruled out terrorist ties. I suppose it's possible that word will come out that he had some connection to extremist Muslim groups, but I think the problem is deeper than that.

I have worked side by side with some of Twin Falls' Bosnian refugees. One man told me he was a chef and had owned a restaurant back home. Then he showed me the bullet wound in his shoulder.

I am saddened by the loss suffered by everyone involved in the shootings. I praise and admire those refugees that survived the destruction of their way of life and work to begin anew. You are a benefit to the Magic Valley, and an example to the world.

A Philosophical Study of Abortion

The abortion controversy is just that- controversial. For some, lines have been drawn, slogans have been made, labels have been given, and heated arguments, or worse, have ensued. For others, the answer is intuitive and obvious. For still others, there is uncertainty. Arguments from both sides are reasonable, so how does one reconcile them?

In my study of abortion I have chosen two prominent philosophical arguments- one that argues for abortion, and one that argues against.

The first paper was written by John T. Noonan Jr., titled “An Almost Absolute Value in History.” He argues that a fetus is a person and his thesis is that if you are conceived by human parents, you are human. He tests the thesis by analyzing the major arguments against fetal personhood. Without fail, each argument collapses.

Noonan covers what he calls “the most popular” argument first: viability. Here’s how it goes. A fetus is not a person until it is viable; that is until it is no longer dependent upon its mother to survive.

Noonan shows how viability cannot be the criteria for personhood because as medicine progresses, the age that a fetus becomes viable gets lower and lower. Also, Noonan says, “there is considerable elasticity to the idea of viability. Mere length of life is not an exact measure.” Each fetus progresses at different rates. Even the racial group to which the fetus belongs affects when it is viable. According to Noonan, “If viability is the norm, the standard would vary with race and with many individual circumstances.”

However, the most important argument against using a viability test for personhood is based on what viability really means- that the fetus is dependent upon the mother for survival.

“Dependence is not ended by viability. The fetus is still absolutely dependent on someone’s care in order to continue existence; indeed a child of one or three or even five years of age is absolutely dependent on another’s care for existence; uncared for, the older fetus or the younger child will die as surely as the early fetus detached from the mother. The unsubstantial lessening in dependence at viability does not seem to signify any special acquisition of humanity.”

Therefore the “easy” argument of viability does not work. Viability cannot be the standard for the permissibility of abortion. The other common arguments are experience, the sentiments and sensations of parents, and social visibility. As Noonan puts it, “by force of the argument from the consequences,” these personhood distinctions are rejected.

I would like to try and briefly summarize Noonan’s coverage of the social visibility argument. I think it very instructive of the dangerous ground on which pro-abortionists tread as they try to rationalize abortion by denying the fetus personhood.

The argument goes like this: Since the fetus is not perceived socially by others, it is not human. It is not a member of society, and “excluded from the society of men, the fetus is excluded from the humanity of men.” What is the problem with this argument? In Noonan’s words,

“If humanity depends on social recognition, individuals or whole groups may be dehumanized by being denied any status in their society….the failure of society to recognize the prisoner, the alien, the heterodox as human has led to the destruction of human beings…Any attempt to limit humanity to exclude some groups runs the risk of furnishing authority and precedent for excluding other groups in the name of the consciousness or perception of the controlling group in the society.”

After reading Noonan’s arguments, the difficulty pro-abortionists face becomes obvious. By withholding personhood from a fetus, they inadvertently deny personhood to groups that are without a doubt human. Indeed, this dilemma has forced the hand of many abortion apologists, making them deny personhood to the elderly, the handicapped, and the newly born.

One apologist chose another route. This route allowed her to avoid the pitfalls of redefining personhood. In “A Defense of Abortion” Judith Jarvis Thomson allows for a fetus to be a person, even at the moment of conception. Not because she believes it- she obviously does not. No, she does it so that she can argue that it doesn’t matter. She challenges the traditional pro-life argument that since a fetus is a human, abortion is murder and therefore unallowable under any circumstance by using the following thought experiment:

“…..Let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you-we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, ad can safely be unplugged from you.”

This is a quite famous thought experiment, and Thomson is given much credit for abortion’s legalization. Most people would agree that the violinist has no valid claim to be “plugged” into you. Therefore, no crime is committed by unplugging him, even were it to result in his death. Now, astute readers will immediately point out that the violinist was forcibly plugged into you, which is certainly not the case in all pregnancies. Thomson of course knows this, and concedes that this example works best in the case of pregnancy due to rape. But this is just the beginning of her attack on the traditional “abortion is murder” argument. Thomson is arguing against the so called “extreme view” held by many pro-lifers. That is that abortion is murder in every case, even those pregnancies due to rape. This is Thomson’s “foot in the door” maneuver; she believes that proving the extreme view is unreasonable will open the floodgates in her favor.

As Thomson parries every conceivable attack on her violinist argument, she delineates three distinct definitions of “right to life”:

1. Right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life.
2. Right not to be killed by anybody
3. Right not to be killed unjustly.

Thomson fairly handily deflates the first two proposed definitions, and seems to rest her case on the third. Just what constitutes an “unjust killing?” By force of her violinist example, she makes it plain that rape victim abortions do not qualify as unjust. She then jumps on that crack in the pro-life armor by saying,

“this argument would give the unborn person a right to its mother’s body only if her pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance of a pregnancy might result from it.”

To this point in her paper , I find myself warily nodding my head in agreement, a little unsettled by the rationalizations in Thomson’s arguments, and a little unsure of the relevance of some her thought experiments, but overall everything seems quite rational.

However, until now Thomson is playing coy. She has attacked the weakest links in the pro-life “extreme view” argument: Rape and the mother’s own life at risk. But those two very rare circumstances are not the end of her argument. Rather, they are merely a means to an end.

Thomson’s view of abortion is heavily influenced by her perspective of procreation and conception. The flaw in her reasoning is revealed in the following paragraph, written just after Thomson makes her point about unjust killing:

“I suppose we may take it as a datum that in a case of pregnancy due to rape the mother has not given the unborn person a right to the use of her body for food and shelter. Indeed, in what pregnancy could it be supposed that the mother has given the unborn person such a right? It is not as if there were unborn persons drifting about the world, to whom a woman who wants a child says, “I invite you in.”

Hmmm….In what pregnancy? That’s a very good question. In fact, it may well be that Ms. Thomson has stumbled upon the key to the abortion controversy. Interestingly, though she may not have realized it, Thomson has already answered.

Recall that after settling on “the right not to be killed unjustly” as the only acceptable definition for a “right to life,” Thomson explained that unjust killing in the case of abortion occurs if the pregnancy “resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it. That would label as “unjust” every abortion for pregnancies not the result of rape, because certainly consensual sex is a voluntary act. But Thomson is not satisfied with her victory over the “extreme view.” She now attempts to show that an “unwanted” pregnancy is grounds for an abortion-that it is not unjust killing to obtain one- because the mother has not expressly given the baby permission to be there. However, she fails to show how killing a person goes from unjust to just simply because the mother of the person doesn’t want her. Thomson argues that if every precaution is taken to prevent conception, but that a baby is formed anyway, it is no longer unjust to kill her. But Thomson’s’ earlier definition still applies. It is still a “voluntary act undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it.”

Thomson’s efforts to bridge the gap between “voluntary” and “unwanted” fall far short. She variously compares the person created, a person brought into very existence by her mother and father, to “people pollen” and burglars circumventing the very best home-security systems. But the fact that the pregnancy may not have been “voluntary” does not negate the fact that the act of conception irrevocably is.

So what are we left with then? A study of two highly influential scholars on opposite sides of the abortion debate has shown the great difficulty facing all who attempt to deny a fetus personhood. For in so doing living, breathing humans are denied their humanity as well. One scholar tried to show that abortion is acceptable despite granting the fetus full personhood, but only partially succeeded. It is clear, then, that abortion amounts to killing a living human being. With very rare exceptions, these killings are unjust, and therefore should be illegal.

And You Thought Politics Were Rough Now...

Jan. 30, 1798:

On the floor of the House of Representatives, Matthew Lyon of Vermont sharply insults Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut and proceeds to spit in Griswold’s face; two weeks later, Griswold attacks Lyon by beating him over the head and shoulders with a hickory cane.

This Day In History

Jan. 26, 1998: Denying he had an affair with a White House intern, President Bill Clinton tells reporters: “I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

Jan. 27, 1998: First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton appears on NBC’s “Today” show and claims that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” is behind the allegations against her husband.

"Small Sins"

I now turn to milder ways of not offending the devil. Nephi has given us the pattern or formula by which Satan operates:

“And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

“And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.”

C. S. Lewis gave us a keen insight into devilish tactics. In a fictional letter, the master devil, Screwtape, instructs the apprentice devil Wormwood, who is in training to become a more experienced devil:

“You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. … It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. … Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

Society’s oft-labeled “sin laws” exist to counterattack Satan’s so-called small sins of gambling, alcohol use, and drug consumption. Some who wish to appear broad-minded say, under the guise of not imposing religious belief, “I don’t drink or gamble, but I don’t think we ought to have any laws to control others who wish to.” This completely ignores the health and social costs to society of the vices. They foolishly argue that laws cannot control human behavior. My long legal career has led me to conclude that all criminal laws have a moral basis.

Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil
President James E. Faust
Second Counselor in the First Presidency

The Atonement Can Clean, Reclaim, and Sanctify Our Lives

"Is it possible to reclaim a life that through reckless abandon has become so strewn with garbage that it appears that the person is unforgivable? Or what about the one who is making an honest effort but has fallen back into sin so many times that he feels that there is no possible way to break the seemingly endless pattern? Or what about the person who has changed his life but just can't forgive himself? . . .

"The Atonement of Jesus Christ is available to each of us. His Atonement is infinite. It applies to everyone, even you. It can clean, reclaim, and sanctify even you. That is what infinite means--total, complete, all, forever. President Boyd K. Packer has taught: 'There is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the atonement of Christ'.

Shayne M. Bowen,
"The Atonement Can Clean, Reclaim, and Sanctify Our Lives," Ensign, Nov. 2006

The Blogger's Disease

Maybe it's the makeup of bloggers in general. Maybe it's the relative anonymity of blogging that causes it. I'm not really sure, but what I do know is that I am often flabbergasted at what I read on blogs.

For instance, just last week I navigated over to an Idaho left-leaning blog that appears to be pretty widely read in blogger circles: Red State Rebels. It's generally well written, and the author seems sincere. It also has proven to be a good source of Idaho political information. However, even RSR doesn't seem immune from the blogger's disease. Last week she posted about a dairy being proposed in my home county of Jerome. Naturally I was interested. Apparently this dairy is huge, and huge dairy equals huge stink. What makes this an even bigger controversy is that if approved, the dairy will sit too close for comfort from the newly (in 2001) minted Minidoka Internment National Monument. For obvious reasons, alot of groups oppose the dairy. What struck me though from RSR's post was this line,

The group also is protesting that Jerome County Commissioners do not plan to take testimony or even read emails from opponents of the proposed feedlot when they meet February 6 for a long-delayed decision on the application.

That's outrageous, right? Indeed it is. However, it turns out that the source of the opposition's frustration is a county ordinance which stipulates that only comments from those living within a mile of a proposed CAFO (that's code for HUGE dairy) can be heard by county commissioners. Art Brown, the subject of much of RSR and others' ire, is quoted in the Times News,

"I've never had input from outside the one mile before," said Art Brown, administrator for the planning and zoning board. "I've never dealt with this before."

The Times also reported that,

Brown has created two files for the case: one for comments from residents within the one-mile radius and another envelope for comments from parties outside the radius.

The file containing letters from outside the radius will remain sealed at the hearing, essentially muting those parties.

However, the commission will be presented with an index of the comments in the sealed envelope and can choose to examine individual comments if the majority of commissioners chose to do so.

It is clear that parties outside the one-mile radius will not be allowed to testify in person at the hearing, per the ordinance.

Commissioner Diana Obenauer said that's unfair and suggested changing the ordinance to include testimony from anyone willing to offer it - much the same way testimony is heard in neighboring Gooding County.

It doesn't appear that any deep rooted conspiracy is in place, or that the Jerome County Commissioners hate democracy, or any other such nonsense. This is just the way the law was set up and no one has ever complained before. Now that it's an issue, the rule is being looked at.

Also last week I found what to me was an even greater source of blogger disease. We have failed our duty as citizens is based just up the road in Gooding and written by an apparently very vocal and vehement critic of the Iraq War. She posted an argument against the war that included this absurdity,

Who was in charge before the Americans took their country from them? If they hated Sad-Damn so much, why were there never any car bombs, IEDs, suicide bombers, etc., trying to put him out of power?

Year after year, US TV showed his birthday party. He stood on the balcony, waving to the crowd. Vast numbers of men and women stood below, firing automatic rifles in the air, in a Mideastern-style celebration. If they hated him so much, how's come no bullet ever went toward him?

Yep, apparently everything was just peachy keen under Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people just loved him. Well, except for maybe the ones that he tortured and killed. But if they were really all that upset about the torture, why didn't they do anything about it? I mean, they just let it happen without so much as a single automatic rifle shot his way. Well, if they can't run even one suicide bomber at him, they surely don't deserve our help.

Just stupid.

The Achilles Heel of a Progressive Income Tax

According to the Treasury Department, by way of the IRS, the top 0.1% of US earners make 9.1% of the country's total income. However, they pay 17.4% of the total taxes. The top 1% earn 19% of the total income, but pay 36.9% of the total tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% earn 13.4% of the income and pay only 3.3% of the total tax.

To highlight the "fairness" of the US tax structure, let's compare a US household consisting of a married couple with two kids, making the average wage, with the same household in other countries. In the US, this family would pay 11.9% in taxes. In Iceland and Ireland this family would pay 11% and 8.1%, respectively. If you're Canadian, you pay 21.5%. Move to Japan and you pay 24.9%. England, Germany, and France? Try 27.1%, 35.7%, and 41.7%. So, according to this data, by the world's standards the US middle class is not overtaxed.

Last July, the NY Times ran a piece which showcases the fact that "tax revenues are increasingly dependent on the fortunes of the very rich." The Times also points out that "the top 10% of taxpayers- those with incomes above $100,000- provide about two thirds of income tax revenue."

When looked at in these terms, "tax cuts for the rich" doesn't have the same sting as a campaign slogan. If anything, the NY Times' data suggests the rich are shouldering too much of the nation's tax burden, making it extremely difficult to create accurate budgets. In effect, the US government is beholden to the success or failure of the stock market. Therefore, because of the progressive nature of the US income tax system, Congress is faced with the same budgeting difficulties that any other commission based household has.

Nancy Pelosi on Iraq Withdrawal

Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to talk alot? But that in all that talking not really say anything? Case in point, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation what would happen to Iraq if the US were to follow her plan to withdraw in the next 4-6 months. Her reply used up 443 words by my count, but not one of them answered the question. Mr. Schieffer had to ask and re-ask the same question 4 times, and Speaker Pelosi used 443 words to say absolutely nothing.

Why not, I wonder?

This letter was printed in the Times-News Monday, January 22, 2007

Nancy Pelosi on Taxes: Waste, Fraud and Abuse

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer last Sunday. They spoke about a few things of importance, and I'd like to address one of them here.

Mr Schieffer asked Speaker Pelosi if it would be possible to balance the budget without raising taxes. I thought her answer was pretty good:

I think you can put many thing--everything on the table and start by saying that there's $300 billion in taxes which are not collected in our country each year. Can you imagine that? You can probably start, also, with cutting waste, fraud and abuse. Congressman--well, no, Chairman Henry Waxman has taken the lead on that issue as chairman of the Government Reform Committee. Waste, fraud and abuse, collect taxes that are not collected, close corporate loopholes--you start there, you can find some money to make investments in education, which brings more money back into the Treasury than any initiative that you can name. If the president's willing to join with us in fighting waste, fraud and abuse, collecting the taxes and closing the loopholes, we can start there.

This is certainly better than the last answer she gave to this particular question. However, Mr. Schieffer didn't rest. He then asked the all important direct question, "Are you promising no new taxes for anybody?"

Speaker Pelosi's answer is...interesting.

No, I'm talking about tax cuts for many in the middle class. We've had tax cuts for small businesses to provide health insurance to their workers, R&D, making permanent and modernizing research and development tax credit for small business. We are talking about helping families with the higher education of their children. We're talking about tax credit...

SCHIEFFER: So you're talking about more tax cuts?

Rep. PELOSI: We're talking about tax cuts for the middle class. And as we review what we get from, again, collecting our taxes and reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the Treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money--$500,000 a year--might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children.

SCHIEFFER: So what you're talking about is you may have to raise taxes for some people in the upper income levels in order to cut taxes for some below them?

Rep PELOSI: What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle income families.

Let's be clear that "repealing a tax cut" is the same as a tax increase. So Speaker Pelosi is advocating higher taxes for those that make over $500,000 in order to lower taxes on those that make less than $500,000. I fortunately fall into that "below" category, so that'll be nice. But what does that mean? Isn't that sort of a wealth redistribution scheme? A Robin Hood, steal from the rich to give to the poor kinda deal?

But let's be honest here. All of you other "below" category people out there, take a look at your paycheck for a minute. Look at your withholdings. You'll see state taxes, federal taxes, and then you'll see withholdings for Medicare and Social Security. I'm a poor, single-income father of three, so those first few boxes don't amount to very much. It's the last two that really hit my wallet the hardest, and I can't do anything about it. Speaker Pelosi's plan won't do anything about it either, because those things aren't included when politicians talk about "taxes". That's because in theory you and I will get all that money back when we retire. We'll get our own Social Security income and get to use Medicare for all our health needs. Or at least 80% of our health needs. The rest we'll have to cover ourselves. With our Social Security money. That is, if either one of those programs still exist by then.

My other question is is there enough "waste, fraud and abuse" to not only balance the budget, but to then invest more into education as she proposes? Of course there is! But is anyone in Congress really going to do it? I hope so, and I applaud Ms. Pelosi for at least talking about it.

Boise St Got Hosed

You knew it was coming, and now that I've had a day or two to think it over, here are the final college football rankings:

AP Top 25

1. Florida (64) 13-1 1,624
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,492
3. LSU 11-2 1,452
4. USC 11-2 1,389
5. Boise State (1) 13-0 1,383
6. Louisville 12-1 1,338
7. Wisconsin 12-1 1,288
8. Michigan 11-2 1,145
9. Auburn 11-2 1,112
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,035
11. Oklahoma 11-3 933

USA Today Poll

1. Florida (63) 13-1 1,575
2. Ohio State 12-1 1,435
3. LSU 11-2 1,418
4. USC 11-2 1,345
5. Wisconsin 12-1 1,328
6. Boise State 13-0 1,275
7. Louisville 12-1 1,270
8. Auburn 11-2 1,119
9. Michigan 11-2 1,092
10. West Virginia 11-2 1,012
11. Oklahoma 11-3 849

BCS Standings

1. Ohio State
2. Florida
3. Michigan
4. LSU
5. USC
6. Louisville
7. Wisconsin
8. Boise State
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma

You'll notice that every team on this list but one has at least one loss. Two top 5 teams have two losses. One team has none.

Florida won the "national championship" game, so I understand a vote for them. The rest of the top 5 is a mystery.

Who did Florida lose to? Auburn. Auburn is ranked in the top ten, so it appears to not be that bad of a loss. However, Auburn has two losses, but even more telling is that they played in the Cotton Bowl against an unranked Nebraska team with a 9-5 record and barely won 17-14. Not such a "good" loss anymore.

Ohio St at #2? After Michigan's spanking at the hands of USC I wondered if everyone hadn't overrated the Big Ten just a bit this year, and Ohio St's flop in the championship game proved it. On Ohio St's schedule this year: Northern Illinois, Cincinatti, Bowling Green, and the dregs of the now obviously overrated Big Ten: Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan St, and Minnesota. Their "big win" this year was Michigan. Woopee.

LSU? 2 losses. Didn't even win their own conference. Now, the SEC is probably the best conference in the country, but LSU didn't even win their own division of the conference. They lost to Florida and Auburn. Auburn we've already discussed.

USC? 2 losses. I'm inclined to grant them a mulligan for the regular season ending loss to arch rival UCLA. Even though UCLA wasn't any good this year, funny things can happen in those rivalry games. But still, it's a loss. Now for the fun part. USC lost to Oregon St 33-31. Oregon St finished third in the Pac 10 with a 10-4 record and ranked 21/22 in the polls. They beat Missouri by one point in the Sun Bowl. OSU's four losses? UCLA, Washington St, California, and you guessed it Boise St. They lost 42-14. That Ian Johnson kid? Rushed for 240 yards and 5 touchdowns.

Boise St? Had wins against 3 ranked teams: Hawaii, Oregon St, and Oklahoma. Other quality wins include Utah (creamed them on the road), Wyoming, and Nevada (who lost by 1 point to Miami).

What does all this mean? Boise got hosed.

100 Days- Rep Pelosi Bans Smoking

This is probably a minor thing, but CNN reports that Speaker of the House Pelosi has banned smoking in the Speakers Lobby. I say hurray for Ms. Pelosi. Here is how she justifies the move:

"Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example."

I Am Superman...or maybe Spiderman

You are Superman

Superman 80% Spider-Man 80% Robin 65% Green Lantern 60% The Flash 55% Hulk 50% Supergirl 45% Iron Man 45% Batman 30% Wonder Woman 30% Catwoman 30%

You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the "Which Superhero are you?" quiz...


Just FYI, I answered no to "do you like to wear a cape?"....

The Transformers Are Coming!

Another reason to love youtube:

Dear Sooner Nation

The following was in my inbox this morning...


Dear Commissioner Weiberg:

To describe the lapses in ordinary playcalling in the Fiesta Bowl
football game on Monday night as constituting an outrageous injustice is
an understatement. Since defensive preparation is a conference
responsibility as opposed to an individual institutional responsibility,
we must look to you to launch a vigorous effort to correct the
situation.

On behalf of the University of Oklahoma, I ask that you as Big 12
Commissioner take the following actions:

- First, seek an apology from Boise State's coaches for running grossly
unusual offensive plays without telling us what they were doing
beforehand.

- Second, since institutions, players, and coaches are held responsible
by conferences and the NCAA for their actions, those who executed the
plays should also be held responsible. At the very least, those found
responsible for lateraling the ball on the hook-and-ladder play and the
guy who hid the ball behind his back on the Statue of Liberty play in
the closing minutes of the game should be suspended from the NFL draft.

- Third, it is my understanding that Boise State has a rule that they
will only use legal plays in games with other teams in bowl games. In
light of what happened Monday, Oklahoma should request that Boise State
change its rule to assure they will only use plays that we know they are
going to use.

- Fourth, the Big 12 should request that the game should not go into the
record books as a win or loss by either team in light of the level of
sneakiness in Boise State's playbook.

- Fifth, the Big 12 should place on the appropriate agendas of NCAA
meetings and meetings of the conference commissioners a discussion of
how such "trick plays" should be executed.

Since the University of Oklahoma is required by conference sportsmanship
rules to limit their comments in situations like this, we must look to
you as the commissioner of the Big 12 Conference to vigorously demand
that our teams not be subjected to such underhanded tomfoolery and
creative chicanery on the gridiron.

It is truly sad and deeply disappointing that members of our football
team should be deprived of the outcome of the game that they deserved
because of an inexcusable breakdown in the Sooners' ability to stop
opponents from such uncalled-for nonsense as lateraling to another
player and hiding the ball behind their backs.

In closing, waaaaaaaaaaaah!

Sincerely,
David L. Boren
President, The University of Oklahoma

The Greatest Game Ever

Did you see it? Here you go:




ESPN
Sports Illustrated

It was a great year for football. I thought we had already seen the best finish to a football game, but BSU's Fiesta Bowl is the most amazing game I have ever witnessed. There were so many ups and downs, I thought the game was over with the interception to put Oklahoma up with a minute to go. Then comes 4th and 18. Hook and ladder. Oklahoma's one possession TD in overtime. BSU's botched trick play. Then 4th and 2 from the 5 yard line, wide reciever direct snap thrown for a touchdown. Go for two instead of the safe conversion kick. The fake throw to the 3 bunched receiver set on the right sideline. Where did the ball go?! Ian Johnson off the left side untouched for the game winner.

Unbelievable.

Hospital Number 6

A couple of weeks ago I came across this article online. The BBC is reporting that hospital number 6 in the Ukraine is being accused of killing newborn babies in order to harvest organs, especially stem cells.

An excerpt:

The BBC has spoken to mothers from the city of Kharkiv who say they gave birth to healthy babies, only to have them taken by maternity staff.

In 2003 the authorities agreed to exhume around 30 bodies of foetuses and full-term babies from a cemetery used by maternity hospital number six.

One campaigner was allowed into the autopsy to gather video evidence. She has given that footage to the BBC and Council of Europe.

In its report, the Council describes a general culture of trafficking of children snatched at birth, and a wall of silence from hospital staff upwards over their fate.

The pictures show organs, including brains, have been stripped - and some bodies dismembered.

Here are some other news sources on the topic.

Obviously this is disgusting. It is horrifying to know that there are people in the world willing to kill newborn babies in order to make money on stem cells. However, it does bring up some interesting discussion points. What if stem cell research were more allowed in this country? Would that availability create less of a market, and therefore less incentive to kill, for stem cells? Does that even matter? Should stem cell research be allowed at all?

BYU 38 Oregon 8

BYU wins the 2006 Las Vegas Bowl and ends the year on a 10 game win streak with a 11-2 season record. Quarterback John Beck finishes his career as BYU's second leading passer alltime, and running back Curtis Brown finishes as the career rushing leader and only player with 2 consecutive 1,000 yard rushing seasons.

Maybe Christmas … perhaps … means a little bit more

Three thousand feet up! Up the side of Mt. Crumpit,
He rode with his load to the tiptop to dump it!
“Pooh-Pooh to the Whos!” he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
“They’re finding out now that no Christmas is coming!
“They’re just waking up! I know just what they’ll do!
“Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
“Then the Whos down in Who-ville will all cry Boo-Hoo!

“That’s a noise, “grinned the Grinch, “That I simply MUST hear!”
So he paused. And the Grinch put his hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow …

But the sound wasn’t sad!
Why, this sound sounded merry!
It couldn’t be so!
But it WAS merry! VERY!

He stared down at Who-ville!
The Grinch popped his eyes!
Then he shook!
What he saw was a shocking surprise!

Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any presents at all!
He HADN‘T stopped Christmas from coming!
IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!

And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: “How could it be so?”
“It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
“It came without packages, boxes or bags!”

And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before!
“Maybe Christmas,” he thought, “doesn’t come from a store.
Maybe Christmas … perhaps … means a little bit more!”

Dr. Suess, How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Dave Barry on Christmas

In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!' ~Dave Barry, "Christmas Shopping: A Survivor's Guide"

Plagiarism

Last year, while still living in Utah, a bill was proposed in the state legislature that would have required a statement to be read in science classes. The statement basically said that evolution is a theory and that there are other theories that attempt to explain the origin of life. The bill created quite a bit of controversy and did not pass.

As I followed the bill during the legislative session I also read quite a bit of the back and forth regarding evolution and intelligent design. The discussions would become quite heated. Often, a court decision in Ohio would be brought up as proof that the bill had no chance of being held up in court. That decision was made by Judge John Jones in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. Judge Jones wrote that Intelligent Design was not science and therefore should not be taught in science class.

However, there is a new report released by the Discovery Institute claiming that Judge Jones's judicial ruling is basically copied straight from a brief given to the judge by the ACLU one month prior to Judge Jones writing his ruling.

I have not seen this reported anywhere else other than by the Discovery Institute itself, which as a very vocal proponent of Intelligent Design across the country, clearly has something to gain by discrediting Judge Jones's ruling. So I will be following this story to check for its validity.

However, if true, I hope that Judge Jones is reprimanded and that the case is heard again.

UPDATE: Here is another analysis of the plagiarized ruling.

Silent Night

One of the all-time great Christams Carols is Silent Night. I've looked a bit into its origins and it seems that many legends have sprung up surrounding its history. However, for the most part the truth has been discovered. The song was written in Austria by Joseph Mohr in 1816, with the music composed at Mohr's request by Franz Gruber on December 24, 1818. It was originally written with guitar accompaniment and the pair sung it at Midnight Mass that night. Silent Night spread fairly quickly from there, as it was picked up by a travelling family singing troup and eventually was sung for royalty.

Silent night Holy night
All is calm all is bright
'Round yon virgin Mother and Child
Holy infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night,
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from heaven afar,
Heav'nly hosts sing Alleluia;
Christ the Savior is born;
Christ the Savior is born.

Silent night, holy night,
Son of God, love's pure light.
Radiant beams from Thy holy face,
With the dawn of redeeming grace,
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth;
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth.

FDR's Pearl Harbor WWII Address

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Pearl Harbor-65 Years

Today is the 65th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Here are a couple of local newspapers with interviews of local veterans that survived the attack:

Times-News

Deseret News

The Christmas House

A Glorious Time of Year

"This is a glorious time of the year, simple in origin, deep in meaning, beautiful in tradition and custom, rich in memories, and charitable in spirit. It has an attraction to which our hearts are readily drawn. This joyful season brings to each of us a measure of happiness that corresponds to the degree in which we have turned our mind, feelings, and actions to the spirit of Christmas."

Thomas S. Monson, "What Is Christmas?" Ensign, Dec. 1998

BYU 33 Utah 31

Check out that finish!

Thou Shalt Thank The Lord Thy God In All Things

There are many great sermons on gratitude and giving thanks. The scriptures also can show us examples of gratitude. Once such example is found in the Book of Mormon, with the stories of Nephi and Laman.

1 Nephi 17 begins with Nephi recounting eight years of travel in the wilderness,

1 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and ^awade through much affliction in the wilderness; and our ^bwomen did bear children in the wilderness.

2 And so great were the ^ablessings of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon ^braw ^cmeat in the wilderness, our women did give plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings.

3 And thus we see that the commandments of God must be fulfilled. And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God he doth nourish them, and ^astrengthen them, and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them; wherefore, he did ^bprovide means for us while we did sojourn in the wilderness.

4 And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, *even eight years in the wilderness.

Nephi looked at his family's hardships and saw blessings. He saw the hand of the Lord in his people's ability to survive and prosper under those conditions.

His brother Laman, on the other hand, saw nothing but hardship,

20 And thou art like unto our father, led away by the foolish ^aimaginations of his heart; yea, he hath led us out of the land of Jerusalem, and we have wandered in the wilderness for these many years; and our women have toiled, being big with child; and they have borne children in the wilderness and suffered all things, save it were death; and it would have been better that they had died before they came out of Jerusalem than to have suffered these afflictions.

21 Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy.

Two men, both living with the same hardships, having the same experiences, with so very different perspectives. The major difference between them was a sense of gratitude.

Luke 17:12-19 tells the story of the ten lepers healed by the Savior, yet only one returned to give thanks. What of the other nine? While healed of their physical malady, they missed an opportunity for greater happiness and increased personal growth.

Perhaps gratitude has much to do with perspective. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Willie and Martin handcart companies. We have heard their stories, and learned of their tragedies. The inspiration derived from their story comes not only of their perseverance and faith in pressing forward, or of those sent to rescue them, but also, and perhaps most importantly, how they remembered the experience,

“A teacher, conducting a class, said it was unwise ever to attempt, even to permit them [the Martin handcart company] to come across the plains under such conditions.

“[According to a class member,] some sharp criticism of the Church and its leaders was being indulged in for permitting any company of converts to venture across the plains with no more supplies or protection than a handcart caravan afforded.

“An old man in the corner … sat silent and listened as long as he could stand it, then he arose and said things that no person who heard him will ever forget. His face was white with emotion, yet he spoke calmly, deliberately, but with great earnestness and sincerity.

“In substance [he] said, ‘I ask you to stop this criticism. You are discussing a matter you know nothing about. Cold historic facts mean nothing here, for they give no proper interpretation of the questions involved. Mistake to send the Handcart Company out so late in the season? Yes. But I was in that company and my wife was in it and Sister Nellie Unthank whom you have cited was there, too. We suffered beyond anything you can imagine and many died of exposure and starvation, but did you ever hear a survivor of that company utter a word of criticism? Not one of that company ever apostatized or left the Church, because everyone of us came through with the absolute knowledge that God lives for we became acquainted with him in our extremities.

“ ‘I have pulled my handcart when I was so weak and weary from illness and lack of food that I could hardly put one foot ahead of the other. I have looked ahead and seen a patch of sand or a hill slope and I have said, I can go only that far and there I must give up, for I cannot pull the load through it.’ ” He continues: “ ‘I have gone on to that sand and when I reached it, the cart began pushing me. I have looked back many times to see who was pushing my cart, but my eyes saw no one. I knew then that the angels of God were there.

“ ‘Was I sorry that I chose to come by handcart? No. Neither then nor any minute of my life since. The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay, and I am thankful that I was privileged to come in the Martin Handcart Company.’ ”

President Hinckley has said, "May we live worthy of the glorious endowment of light and understanding and eternal truth which has come to us through all the perils of the past. Somehow, among all who have walked the earth, we have been brought forth in this unique and remarkable season. Be grateful, and above all be faithful."

I echo his sentiments. Let us all be grateful.

"Wouldn't the fetus...suffer a demise in seconds anyway?"

The US Supreme Court has begun listening to arguments concerning the partial-birth abortion ban law passed by Congress. Considering the controversial nature of the subject and the current makeup of the Court, this should be an interesting case.

According to Associated Press writer Mark Sherman, the justices had very pointed and graphic questions to ask of the two sides arguing the case. One such question, asked by Justice John Paul Stevens, is the title of this post.

The lines between the two sides have been clearly drawn. Those arguing for the law, including Solicitor General Paul Clement, say that this form of abortion simply goes too far. According to the AP story, 1.25 million abortions are performed each year, of which a few thousand are procedures doctors call "dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation". Opponents call these abortions "partial birth" abortions because they are performed during the middle third of pregnancy and involve "partially extracting an intact fetus from the uterus, then cutting or crushing its skull."

Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood is arguing against the law banning these abortions. Her side argues that this method is sometimes the safest for women. She is quoted by the AP as saying, "What Congress has done here is take away from women the option of what may be the safest procedure for her. This court has never recognized a state interest was sufficient to trump the women's interest in her health."

It seems to me that the sides boil down to the same basic abortion debate: the interest of the fetus versus the interest of the mother. The difference here, though, is the especially graphic nature of this method of abortion.

How I Voted

The following is a list of major candidates and ballot measures that I voted on, as well as the early and in some cases still unofficial results. The candidate or measure I voted for is in bold.

Governor:
D-Jerry Brady 44%
R-Butch Otter 53%

US Representative Dist 2:
D-Jim Hansen 34%
R-Mike Simpson 62%

Lt. Governor:
D-Larry LaRocco 39%
R-Jim Risch 58%

State Controller:
R-Donna Jones 59%
D-Jacki Groves Twilegar 41%

State Treasurer:
R-Ron Crane 64%
D-Howard Faux 36%

Attorney General:
R-Lawrence Wasden 62%
D-Bob Wallace 38%

Superindendant of Public Instruction:
R-Tom Luna 51%
D-Jana Jones 49%

HJR No2:
Yes 63%
No 37%

SSR 107
Yes 58%
No 42%

Proposition One
Yes 45%
No 55%

Proposition Two
Yes 26%
No 74%

Advisory Note
Yes 72%
No 28%

Hussein Sentenced to Death by Hanging

On Sunday, November 5 2006 Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death stemming from the torture and execution of 148 people in the town of Dujail more than two decades ago. Trials for his other atrocities will continue, including the one I recently posted about. The prosecutors have stated they want an official record of Saddam Hussein's actions, and will carry on the trials even if he is put to death before all of them are done.

Here is how the sentencing is being reported:

Washington Post

NY Times

The NY Times also has an interesting editorial by Anne Applebaum about the validity of the trial. As you read through the previously linked articles you'll notice that they are awash in criticism. I think this editorial explains quite well the purpose and success of Saddam Hussein's trial.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Saddam Hussein's trial is not receiving the publicity it deserves. Recently however, Yahoo linked to a couple of articles that covered the trial.

Article One

Article Two

What Saddam Hussein did was murder 180,000 of his own citizens. Here are some excerpts of witness testimony:

It was dark when they brought a group of people (prisoners) in front of the vehicle. The drivers got out of our vehicles and turned on the headlights," he said.

Some prisoners tried to grab an automatic rifle from a guard, but failed because "we were so weak," he said.

Soldiers then opened fire. "I ran and fell into a ditch. It was full of bodies. I fell on a body. It was still alive. It was his last breath," said the witness. "It was really unbelievable, the number of people being killed like this."

Slightly wounded, he stripped off his clothes, thinking he was more likely to blend into the color of the sand if he were naked, the witness said. He then began running again.

"As I was running, I saw many pits, I saw many mounds, and I saw lots of people who had been shot," he said. "The desert was full of mounds that had people buried underneath."

The witness said he took refuge with Kurds living nearby, then traveled north. For the next 15 years he lived in hiding, moving frequently, until Saddam's ouster.

A Kurdish witness — Mutalib Mohammed Salman, 78 — told the court that his wife and 32 relatives disappeared in 1988 after troops overran his village in northern Iraq.

Salman said his wife's body and the remains of two other relatives were found in a mass grave after Saddam's regime was toppled in 2003.

Freedom And Fear At War

From the beginning, our nation's policy in the war on terror has been clear. On September 20, 2001 President Bush stood before Congress and addressed the country. He declared,

"Our war on terror begins with al Queda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."

He then reminded us that the attacks nine days previous were more than an attack on our nation. He said,

"Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time- now depends on us."

A few months later, President Bush again addressed the nation. He spoke of American values of service and freedom; freedom from fear, and freedom to be educated, to practice religion, and to determine one's own destiny. These are the values and rights of mankind. People the world over yearn for these liberties, regardless of race, religion, or nationality.

Then President Bush promised,

"America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror."

What Do The Terrorists Want?

This essay was printed in the Times-News Monday, October 9 2006

In this War on Terror it is interesting to note the demands made by the other side. We know what terrorist want because they have consistently stated their demands and grievances in videos, audio tapes, letters, declarations, and websites.

A consistent theme is their demand that the US stop “meddling” in the Middle East, and to end our support for Israel. The United States' consistent support of a free society in Israel and efforts to give liberty to Iraqis, after decades of brutal dictatorship, stands in the way of the terrorist agenda. Liberty and freedom are the enemies of terrorists.

If we were to end our support of these free nations, as the radicals demand, terrorists will use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

This terrorist victory, and the control of a nation, will, the radicals believe, enable them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region.

The former terrorist leader in Iraq, Al Zarqawi, vowed, “we will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.” Fortunately for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, he achieved only one of his goals.