Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, January 22, 2009

Prayer in Kan. House decries abortion

January 22, 2009, 12:30 p.m. Updated January 22, 2009, 4:23 p.m.

Advertisement

— A guest chaplain upset some Kansas House members Thursday with a prayer remembering millions of children that he said were "legally exterminated" by abortion and decrying a national "culture of death."

The Rev. Brian Schieber, pastor at Most Pure Heart of Mary Catholic Church, gave his prayer on the 36th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion across the nation.

"We remember the over 53 million beautiful, innocent unborn children who have been legally exterminated in our land," he said in his prayer. "By Your grace, guide us to transform this culture of death into a culture of life and a civilization of love."

Legislators who support abortion rights complained afterward, saying the prayer opening the 125-member House's daily session is supposed to be nonpolitical.

"Prayers ought to be more ecumenical," said Rep. Tom Sawyer, a Wichita Democrat. "It's supposed to be a prayer that all 125 people will feel comfortable praying."

But not all legislators were upset.

"It's always like music when you hear the truth," said Sen. Mary Pilcher Cook, an anti-abortion Republican from Shawnee who was in the House gallery.

Schieber acknowledged he wasn't surprised that his prayer caused a stir among some House members. He said he wasn't judging or condemning policy makers but hoping to "stir hearts to conversion."

"The Gospel should rattle us out of our complacency," he said. "We're not supposed to preach what people want to hear. We're supposed to preach the fullness of the Word."

The House's chaplain, the Rev. Eunice Brubaker, associate pastor of the Fairlawn Nazarene Church in Topeka, invited Schieber to give the prayer because she had a scheduling conflict.

Schieber said initially he resisted then, "I thought, 'This may be a very providential moment that God has given me.'"

But Rep. Mike Slattery, a Mission Democrat, said Schieber could have communicated a similar message without being as "startling."

"That prayer was a little more abrasive than necessary," he said.

House Speaker Mike O'Neal, a Hutchinson Republican who opposes abortion, said he didn't know beforehand what Schieber's message would be.

O'Neal said guest pastors usually receive a letter with some guidance but that Schieber apparently didn't because he was invited on short notice. O'Neal said he would review that guidance.

"It was a prayer that caused some concern, and I'm sorry about that," O'Neal said.

Schieber's prayer recalled another given to the House in January 1996 by a guest chaplain, the Rev. Joe Wright, now retired as senior pastor at Wichita's Central Christian Church.

Wright asked God to forgive Kansas for a list of sins that included abortion and endorsing "perversion" as "an alternative lifestyle." His prayer is still circulating over the Internet.

Each year, the Roe anniversary draws hundreds of people to the Statehouse and events staged near it.

Hundreds of abortion opponents packed a noon Mass at the Assumption Catholic Church, across the street from the Capitol, which Schieber helped celebrate. A dozen abortion rights supporters were briefly outside, holding signs, drawing a few honks of support from passing motorists.

Comments

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

It was non-political, he was talking about transforming the culture, not one particular party or group. He was speaking of love and life. If you ask a minister to say a prayer you have to expect it to be someone spiritual.The Kansas House must have had a lot of trouble with all the prayers and church services that were part of the inauguration ceremonies.

Ragingbear 5 years, 11 months ago

How about using that entire "separation of church and state" thing and banning prayer and religion from government altogether?

Luxor 5 years, 11 months ago

Prayer in gov. buildings shoudln't be "non-political," it should be NON EXISTENT.

stephenj 5 years, 11 months ago

Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries, heh.I agree with Ragingbear and Luxor.

Jim Williamson 5 years, 11 months ago

A Catholic priest condemning abortion? What are the odds???

Raider 5 years, 11 months ago

This was a very political "prayer" and very inappropriate. You can't tell me this preacher wasn't there to push his political agenda. I love how the KS Legislature lets the church dictate its policies. This happens every year. Remember the preachers down in Wichita that forced the same-sex marriage ammendment on us? They'll try and do the same thing with abortion laws. Watch out, it's coming.

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

Nobody claimed that there was no difference between abortion and the death penalty. Obviously one prevents a potential life while the other ends an actual and tangible life. You can't count your chickens before they hatch. I'm surprised the Catholic church didn't blame condoms for the so called "deaths" of BlLLIONS of lives as well.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04 Your interpretation is either incredibly naive or intentionally misleading.--------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you! I won a bet! When I posted this morning I said, I bet that someone is going to call me naive.I stand by what I said. Father was praying that we become a culture of life and love.I am assuming that the posters were appalled by the church services and the prayers on Inauguration Day and the day after.Perhaps you would like to get rid of the Senate chaplain?

Luxor 5 years, 11 months ago

I'd love to see the senate chaplain go. There's no place for religion in government. Look at Afghanistan if you think I'm full of it.

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

For empirical evidence of the Catholic church's success, please reference the insanely high population of drunk and promiscuous teenagers attending every Catholic high school in America.

calvin 5 years, 11 months ago

First of all, seperation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state. Secondly, it was not a political statement. I did not know being for living people was political, I thought that was just normal.

Charles L Bloss Jr 5 years, 11 months ago

He won't be asked back, ya think? Thank you, Lynn

BigDog 5 years, 11 months ago

For those who continuously spout the "seperation of church and state" line ...... maybe you should take the time to actually reading the US Constitution. And show me where that statement is in the Constitution.The First Amendment reads .. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Kyle Reed 5 years, 11 months ago

The father would be better off focusing on...oh I dunno...how about priests having sex with young boys! Clean your own house before you tell your neighbor what a slob he is.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

If the man was going to pray about every problem we have in the world he would still be praying.Obviously, the minister was invited by the Kansas House to speak to them. Why not write them and tell them to stop inviting ministers.All Catholic priests are not liable for what some others have done. The postings here are sheer prejudice and nothing else. I am not going to assume the majority of people in Lawrence feel that way.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"The mind-numbing question though is, what would we look like with these 53,000,000 plus their offspring on top of the already 300,000,000?"How is that mind-numbing? It's a ludicrously easy question. We'd be a hell of a lot worse than we are now. That is pretty much exactly why those abortions were done in the first place.

feeble 5 years, 11 months ago

To answer Mr. Shewmon's rhetorical question, "well, we'd all probably be a bit thinner", due to an increase in commodities and food prices. Of course, 53 million is actually the number of abortions worldwide, according to data provided by the World Health Organization, with most (~85%) coming from Asia and developing countries. China alone accounts for more than 20% of all abortions, worldwide. The US sees about 1.5 million abortions annually, or about 21 per 1000 population. The US birth rate is around 14.8 per 1000.Based on world statistics provided by the WHO, the number of abortions, in aggregate, in countries where abortion is illegal is not significantly different from countries where it is legal. My take away from this finding is that legal status does not really affect people's drive to get an abortion or not, rather something else does, such economic concerns, since the vast majority of abortions occur in countries with greater levels of poverty. But by all means, please feel free to resume the hyperbole-ladened discussion, rather than objectively looking at the problem.

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

Tom: Where are your numbers for miscarriages? Should we add in pregnancies prevented by condom use? What # of those 53m would have actually become children? Again, you can't count your chickens before they hatch. Your argument might be compelling if it didn't require such a huge logical fallacy.

Haiku_Cuckoo 5 years, 11 months ago

Would Jesus have said prayers in Caesar's court? No way. Do as Jesus would do and keep religion out of politics.

Confrontation 5 years, 11 months ago

I wonder how many children the Rev., and the anti-woman posters on here, have adopted? You're the same ones who want to cut welfare and medical cards once the child is born.

Jim Phillips 5 years, 11 months ago

"Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says… Would Jesus have said prayers in Caesar's court? No way. Do as Jesus would do and keep religion out of politics."My nomination for the most rediculous post of the day.

purplesage 5 years, 11 months ago

Thank the Lord for a Catholic with convictions and that he is willing to state them however unpopular. Where's the outcry over Rev. Lowry's racist bendiction at the inauguration?

Jim Phillips 5 years, 11 months ago

purplesage,Apparently only the whites thought the speech was racist. I'm just trying to "embrace what is right", whatever that is. I'm sure I'll be told in due course.

deec 5 years, 11 months ago

You gents who are opposed to women's freedom of choice should keep it in your pants, With the zipper up.

KLATTU 5 years, 11 months ago

They should show more burnt corpses of Iraqi, Palestinian, and Afghan children on TV. Maybe we could get some of this concern for all life for everyone no matter which invisible man in the sky they believe in.

bondmen 5 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

hujiko 5 years, 11 months ago

Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

For the last time, the minister was invited to speak, get that, invited. We Catholics are used to others making fun of us and calling us names. Chris Matthews on MSNBC said that the election of Obama was to blacks as the election of Kennedy was to Catholics. Before we were made to think we were second hand citizens. Now one of us was president.We were told in RCIA (Roman Catholic Initiation for Adults) that we would be subject to mockery and of course never ending remarks about the priest scandal. Well, we joined up anyway and I am still joyous and proud to be RC.

staff04 5 years, 11 months ago

"if you don't want kids - keep your legs closed!""Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?"Maybe the fact that "God" made sex feel good is his blunder...

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

The abortion controversy isn't the first time the definition of a "person" (who is entitled to rights) excluded a one group (unborn) for the benefit of another (mother). This also occured with slavery. Slaves were excluded from the definition of a person and therefore not entitled to rights for the benefit of slave owners.

staff04 5 years, 11 months ago

I wonder how long Kevin will last this time before he implodes and "exposer"s his obsession with Clinton...

Richard Smith 5 years, 11 months ago

duplenty says… Cleo, that's great. But as an ex-Catholic, I have every right to deride the Catholic Church - As for the speaker being invited…um, with all due respect, so what? He wasn't invited to speak at a gathering of Catholics, but a non-denominational political meeting.Why do we seem to keep needing/wanting to mix our politics with religion?RichardS: Perhaps it is also the State that is meddling in the things of religion. Don't try to tell us that murder has nothing to do with morality and nothing to do with politics. It has to do with both and it is nothing more than a deception to say otherwise. As long as things are moral issues, the things of God will have to be stated. But then again, everything is a moral issue. Once again we come back full circle to the point that there is no true morality apart from God. We must also note that a prayer is to God and not to politicians. If we pray to please politicians, then we are praying to men and it is no longer true prayer. It would appear that most of those who "pray" at these political events are praying to politicians rather than God. It is better to offend politicians than it is to offend God.

Richard Smith 5 years, 11 months ago

hujiko (Anonymous) says… Is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's blunders?RichardS: Neither, but the question is a blunder. God created man and did not blunder. Nothing human beings do takes Him by surprise and it all works for the greater good.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"We may have murdered a person that would have harnessed cold fussion, or some other efficient energy source. Murdered a person that would have found the cure for cancer, unlocked the secrets of DNA, etc, etc."The resources that would have created those people are still in existence, for others to pick up. But you could just as easily have said that maybe we have murdered the next Hitler or domestic Terrorist. Why didn't you say that? Or the next undereducated urban poor, unwanted with few opportunities outside of crime. That last I think could be supported factually, unlike the rest."I don't believe it is “ludicrously easy”, it is morally bankrupt." You are free to believe that, I won't try and stop you. I don't think that it's true, but that's okay too.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

“Abortion is the Libs answer to solving a problem caused by lack of personal responsibility. jonas_opines states “that is pretty much exactly why those abortions were done in the first place” Too bad you were missed jonas!”Is that you, bugpoo? Anyway, if I had been aborted, there would have been someone else similar enough to fill my place in society, and I would never have existed in any concious form, so no bothers. Kind of an irrellevant thought-line at this point.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“A horrible analogy.”For some reason you have yet to be able to grasp the difference between an example and an analogy. When you can’t refute an argument you use the lame tactic of claiming there is a difference between the argument I have made and an example I have provided. I give examples because if I only gave arguments they would fly over most people’s heads, so I provide examples to help illustrate my point. I did not say denying slaves the status of a person is the exact same as denying the unborn the status of a person. If you want to try refuting the argument I actually made, rather than making a strawman argument then I am happy to oblige.

hujiko 5 years, 11 months ago

RichardS: Neither, but the question is a blunder. God created man and did not blunder. Nothing human beings do takes Him by surprise and it all works for the greater good.Okay, so can your omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god change the future he already created? No. God isn't real, you will die alone. Enjoy.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

hujiko..."Okay, so can your omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god change the future he already created?"Maybe you should look more into paradoxes to answer your question. According to most deists, God has paradoxical powers and knowledge.

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Conservatives: Ban Abortion then Vote against SCHIP. You guys sound like a bunch of hipocrites to me.P.S. Dollars to whatever not one single pro-lifer on here has adopted a needy child. Once again Hipocrites.

hujiko 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical: Maybe you should look more into paradoxes to answer your question. According to most deists, God has paradoxical powers and knowledge.If God does whatever he wants then why do anything at all? Face it, the universe is 13 billion years old, our civilization is 5000. Every saint and sinner has lived and died on Earth, we are nothing but the product of stars. Quit thinking your life has some ultimate meaning, that's just self centered.

kugrad 5 years, 11 months ago

No amount of rationalization can make such a prayer non-political. That is nonsense.I think it was Sinclair who said, "When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."Keep church and state seperate, very seperate.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rooster…I totally agree. I mean, one time someone saved my life by taking a bullet for me, and then I asked him to financially support me for the rest of my life. And can you believe that hypocrite, he wouldn’t do it! I mean, what a jerk! All I asked for was a free house, education, car, clothes, food, and spending money for as long as I wanted it with no strings attached. I agree, if you have any morals towards preserving life means you should then be completely responsible for that life.

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Cleopatra: You are such a martyr for all of the verbal abuse you take for being an RC. Now you and DER FUEHRER Pope Benedict can live forever in heaven. Would you like a prize?

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Hujiko…So you decided not to look into paradoxes I see….------------------“If God does whatever he wants then why do anything at all?” – hujikoI do whatever I want, so maybe you shouldn’t do anything at all. Did you have a point to this comment? If so state it more explicitly.----------------“Quit thinking your life has some ultimate meaning, that's just self centered.” – hujikoYeah, totally, I mean if anyone wants to find meaning in life, they are just self centered. I am alo outraged by the hubris of someone thinking that they can make a difference! Especially if that meaning in life is to help others. How can people be so narcissistic?

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"Freedom of religion, not Freedom from religion."BS. "If the Democrats controlled the house I'm sure Republicans would be in an uproar if Gov. Sebilius assisted Dr. Tiller in the conduct of an abortion to open a session."Errr. . . . what? Did you not get enough sleep last night?"The religion of death, no hope, no moral foundation, yes, I'm describing neo-socialism in America."Actually, you're probably describing something that only exists in your own head.

Connacht 5 years, 11 months ago

So, I wonder if the Republicans would be okay with a preacher coming in and offering a prayer for all the Iraqi children, mercilessly slaughtered over the last few years. Or perhaps closer to home, a prayer decrying the terrible wealth and opportunity inequalities made worse by the avarice and greed of the wealthy who would rather sacrifice a child's future than miss a trip to the Oak Park Mall? Or better yet, a prayer chiding Christians for their complete disregard of Jesus' explicit commandment to pray in isolation. Of course, such a thing would be paradoxical, but that's Christianity for you. The solution to this problem is rather obvious. Stop giving Christianity special treatment, and just do away entirely with religious invocations altogether in government. What our representatives choose to do in private regarding religion is their own business and right, but forcing it on others crosses a line, both legally and morally.

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical: Too bad for you it didn't really happen. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda.Truth is Conservatives say one thing and do another. HAGEE DRUGS/GAY, CRAIG GAY, LIMBAUGH DRUGS, i COULD GO ON ALL DAY. http://slate.com/features/2007/scandal_guide/scandalmap.html

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

rooster..."Too bad for you it didn't really happen."How do you know what happened to me? Looks like you are trying to dodge my complete and total refutation of your ridiculous claim by using the familiar tactic of attacking the messenger. Nice try, but you are still wrong.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 11 months ago

Anti-choice advocates had eight years of Bush in the White House, a republican congress for most of that time, and a right--wing majority on the Supreme Court. Roe vs. Wade still stands.If Roe vs. Wade was not overturned in these conditions, when will it be?

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical:I don't see how saving someone's life can be compared to forcing them to have a baby???Once again a hipocrate as you didn't respond to the statement I posted regarding Adoption but then expect a reply to all of your statements. Go back to reading your Ann Coulter Book.

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical Say's: I agree, if you have any morals towards preserving life means you should then be completely responsible for that life.So what you are saying is that Pro-lifers shouldn't use SCHIP? Great Let's get that bill passed right away.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rooster…I see you are using the age old tactic of demonizing your opponent so you don’t have to refute the argument (probably because you can’t).Your personal attacks are hilarious. Especially since I have not stated my person views.---------- “I don't see how saving someone's life can be compared to forcing them to have a baby???” – roosterLet me make this easy for you by explicitly stating your arguments (because obviously you don’t have the capacity to do so given all your comments thus far): You made the implicit claim that if conservatives cared about the lives of aborted fetuses, they should also care about the lives of children who need to be adopted. i.e. if one supports the preservation of life (unborn) then one is a hypocrite if they do not also support those same lives (children in need of adoption). I rebutted your argument by giving an example to show the absurdity of your claim. Also, I am not sure how many conservatives want to force anyone to have a baby. I am pretty sure they are not advocating for forcing conception of a child, but instead for defending the rights of a life once it is conceived. ----------“Once again a hipocrate as you didn't respond to the statement I posted regarding Adoption but then expect a reply to all of your statements.” - rooster(1)I did reply to your general claim (see above)(2)Learn to spell (hypocrite)

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rooster…“So what you are saying is that Pro-lifers shouldn't use SCHIP? Great Let's get that bill passed right away.”I thought liberals were supposed to be inclusive, but it looks like you are willing to exclude people with whom you don’t agree. That is really sad.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Kugrad…“I think it was Sinclair who said, “When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.””Are you saying Obama is a fascist? Thems fightin’ words round here!

Connacht 5 years, 11 months ago

"If Roe vs. Wade was not overturned in these conditions, when will it be?"As someone who has worked for politicians and in politics, I can tell you that it will never be overturned. It's far too good a rallying point for obtaining votes, sometimes in both parties. Many people may not realize this, but the Kansas Democratic Party has several very prominent pro-lifers in their caucus. One of whom is the new state treasurer and former KS House minority leader, Dennis Mckinney.

KansasPerson 5 years, 11 months ago

duplenty (Anonymous) says…"It's amusing to hear a Catholic priest lecture others on supposedly 'fostering perversion'."Ummmm, duplenty, not to split hairs or anything, but a more careful reading of the article will show you that the "fostering perversion" prayer was offered in 1996 by a pastor of Central Christian Church in Wichita.But why let a few facts stand in the way? Carry on!

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Satirical Says: I see you are using the age old tactic of demonizing your opponent so you don’t have to refute the argument (probably because you can’t).Then Say's: Let me make this easy for you by explicitly stating your arguments (because obviously you don’t have the capacity to do so given all your comments thus far):Hipocrate. Nuff said.

Connacht 5 years, 11 months ago

"I am pretty sure they are not advocating for forcing conception of a child, but instead for defending the rights of a life once it is conceived."What about the right of the mother to decide the fate of her own body? Even if we take away all the potential complications that can result during pregnancy and focus on a normal experience (if such a thing exists), pregnancy radically alters a woman's body. Forever. Often for the worst. A fetus strips away anything and everything it needs to survive and develop, even at the cost of the mother's life. What right does the fetus have to radically alter or kill the mother?

bondmen 5 years, 11 months ago

This recent prayer is tame compared to the barn burner Pastor Joe Wright spoke in the Kansas House on January 23, 1996. What part of Joe Wright's prayer don't you all understand? It seems quite clear to me with every point truly on target. By the way, we are all guilty of some of the charges and some are guilty of all the charges. http://www.eaec.org/desk/joe_wright_prayer.htm

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rooster…“Hipocrate. Nuff said”Using the same tactic again I see.There is a difference from you demonizing and not refuting the argument (thank you for providing another example of this), and me refuting your argument and poking fun. Again, the difference is I still refute the argument, and you don’t (because you can’t).

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“This rendered your argument ineffective, because the basis of comparison was not accurate.”The basis of the comparison was, as you correctly stated: in both slavery and abortion, the definition of “person” was used to exclude rights from a specific group for the benefit of another.Rather than get to the issue at hand, you attack my example, when the sole purpose of stating my example was to illustrate the fact which you have now agreed with. Why attack an example when it is entirely correct for the purpose I have used it? What point is there discussing a difference when I have not claimed otherwise, and is not the purpose of my using the example? So your argument about the difference between slavery and abortion is really about why a fetus doesn’t deserve to be included in the definition, and you are wasting your time discussing the reasons why slaves should be included, and making broad generalizations. If you want to make a counter argument it should go like this: While it is true in both slavery and abortion, the definition of “person” was used to exclude rights from a specific group for the benefit of another, there are genuine and significant differences between a living human being and a fetus which justify excluding a fetus from the definition of a person, such as…(then list the reasons why fetuses should be excluded).Instead you claim I have a failed analogy (when you agree with it for the purposes I have used it).

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“My point is that comparing the two situations based on that similarity is meaningless because in one, an actual person is being denied “person” status, while in the other, no person is being denied “person” status.” But that is the crux of the matter. The definition of “an actual person” is the issue. In Plessy v. Ferguson I am sure one could advocate “slaves are not actual persons, and so no person is being denied a person status.”

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

But that is the crux of the matter. The definition of “an actual person” is the issue.Well until you get a court ruling to define an actual person as a 1-3 month old fetus. It is still perfectly legal to have an abortion for any reason and there is NOTHING you can do about it. And as for that court ruling don't hold your breath.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“There is no such right”First, I would ask what you think are rights, and where they derive.Second, even if I were pro-choice, I would concede a human life once conceived has rights, but they are inferior to the rights of the mother. (As an example there are derivative rights of society to criminally punish someone who kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach for the purpose of killing the child).

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Multidisciplinary…“How many people do you know to have accomplished truly great deeds that can say….”Answer: President Barack Obama

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rooster….Still can’t refute my arguments I see….“Well until you get a court ruling to define an actual person as a 1-3 month old fetus. It is still perfectly legal to have an abortion for any reason and there is nothing you can do about it.” - roosterSurprise, surprise, rooster doesn’t know the law. Read Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Severe restrictions can be placed on allowing abortions after the point of viability. The tri-mester approach is no longer used. And with the medical advances the point of viability is getting closer and closer to conception. Looks like your goals of genocide may not be as optimistic now that you are informed. Truth hurt?

KansasPerson 5 years, 11 months ago

duplenty:"You are correct, and I missed that. My apologies. The point about Catholics and pedophile priests still stands, however. Carry on."But duplenty, it doesn't seem to me that Fr. Schieber has to answer for all the bad actions of all priests any more than you, as a person, have to answer for every bad act that human beings have done. That's like saying that I, a resident of Lawrence (just to name one group that I belong to), have no right to protest against something wrong when I see it, just because some people in Lawrence have done bad things. The sins of the members of a group that I belong to should not cancel out my right to feel outrage about any evil that I happen to see in the world.I will grant, however, that my own personal bad actions should cancel out any rights I have to protest those same actions in someone else.Sort of thinking out loud after eating lunch; hope this makes sense.

KansasPerson 5 years, 11 months ago

And on another note -- The Kansas House asked a Catholic priest to substitute for their regular chaplain and to say a prayer on the very anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and they were surprised at what he said???

kmat 5 years, 11 months ago

rooster (Anonymous) says… But that is the crux of the matter. The definition of “an actual person” is the issue.Thank you!!!!! The whole issue of abortion comes down to when you believe that blob of cells is a person. That is a religious issue and religion and politics don't mix!!!And regarding religion -or lack of - everyone has different beliefs. Why should someone elses beliefs trump mine? Your beliefs shouldn't dictate how I live my life, unless my beliefs cause you harm. If I have an abortion, it is not harming any other already born citizen.And I am so sick of Christians on here talking about how non-religious people have no morals. I don't believe in any kind of god, so you have to constantly belittle me as being immoral. Doesn't your god tell you to not judge others, but all you do is judge. You have no right to tell me I have no morals - you don't know me in the least bit.And all the numbers being thrown around about how many abortions take place - keep this in mind. If you miscarry and have to have a D&C, it is classed as an abortion. I unfortunately know from experience. The hospitals explain it clearly because you have to sign off on paperwork stating you're having an abortive procedure. I didn't kill the fetus, but it was classed as an abortion. So those of you that keep throwing these numbers in everyone's faces also need to keep in mind that those numbers don't reflect how many were chosen and how many were medically necessary.And on that note - if I was a couple months pregnant and diagnosed with cancer (could easily happen in my family because of past cancer cases), you think you should deny me my life because I shouldn't be allowed to abort the fetus and get treatment so I can live? How can you call yourself moral when I'm supposed to let myself die because of a fetus?

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Multi…I think it would be a “great deed” for anybody to be elected as POTUS. Your quote doesn’t reference “society.” And even if it did, one could argue it was still a great deed to changing stereotypes some people had about blacks. Or one could argue it was a great deed to changing blacks’ views towards the government. One could make other arguments concerning what he has already done in office.Obama doesn’t meet all the criteria you posted, but he does fit in the broader category of a person who didn’t get all the benefits in life, his father didn’t want him, his mother died at an early age, and he still succeeded. I think in America one can succeed no matter who ones parent’s are and what circumstances they come from. So I disagree with your argument that children who might have been aborted couldn’t grow up to make major contributions to society.

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

Look Satirical you must have difficulty with comprehension So I will elaborate. rooster (Anonymous) says… Conservatives: Ban Abortion then Vote against SCHIP.You guys sound like a bunch of hipocrites to me.P.S. Dollars to whatever not one single pro-lifer on here has adopted a needy child.Once again Hipocrites.Satirical (Anonymous) says… Rooster…I totally agree. I mean, one time someone saved my life by taking a bullet for me, and then I asked him to financially support me for the rest of my life. And can you believe that hypocrite, he wouldn’t do it! I mean, what a jerk! All I asked for was a free house, education, car, clothes, food, and spending money for as long as I wanted it with no strings attached.I agree, if you have any morals towards preserving life means you should then be completely responsible for that life.I say that conservatives try to force a woman to have a baby, (Banning abortion is forcing someone to complete their pregnancy) Then those same conservatives who are so concerned with the life of the baby deny assistance if it is needed. You try to associate CHILDRENS HEALTHCARE to someone supporting you for life? Are you retarded?What is there to refute??? Healthcare for a child is not anything remotely close to providing "free house, education, car, clothes, food, and spending money" as you stated in your rebuttal. Furthermore concern over a child that is currently in need should take precidence over an unborn fetus. If you are so concerned with life then one scenario has a living, breathing, self sustaining organism and the other is an unborn fetus relying completely on the support of the host to survive. So after your attempts to portray me as not responding to your comments I say the associations you made weren't worth the time it took you to type them. You wasted part of you life with a nonsense comparison.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Kmat…First, you quoted rooster, who was quoting me. (Not that it really matters)“Your beliefs shouldn't dictate how I live my life, unless my beliefs cause you harm. If I have an abortion, it is not harming any other already born citizen.” - kmatSecond, to suggest ethics shouldn’t play a role is being naïve of the issue. Your belief that it is moral acceptable to murder someone is trumped by my belief that it is criminal and punishable. You aren’t murdering me, but you are causing harm to someone, and therefore society has a right to punish you. If you have an abortion it is harming a life, and arguably a person, and therefore society has the right to prevent it, should it choose to do so.You want to draw the line at harming an “already born citizen.” (by the way, what about the morals of harming a non-citizen resident?) Others want to draw the line at harming a person whether born or unborn. Is your line someone amoral? Of course not, your line is based on morals as well. Don’t suggest simply because people disagree on where the line should be drawn that their morals shouldn’t “trump” yours since your want your morals to trump theirs.

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

If on the other hand you were trying to compare adoption to “free house, education, car, clothes, food, and spending money” then you are a worthless human. And it is impossible to believe you have any concern for human life let alone a fetus.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Rooster…“You try to associate childrens healthcare to someone supporting you for life?”I never tried to do so, but the argument is the same. (If you have any morals towards preserving life doesn’t logically means you are required to be responsible for that life) If you think one must support a life one advocates preserving, my question is where do you draw the line? Is it just free healthcare? Why don’t you support a free house, or education, or a car, or clothes, or spending money, respectively? If you don’t support free healthcare and not the others, then you are a hypocrite.--------------“Furthermore concern over a child that is currently in need should take precidence over an unborn fetus.” – roosterWho has argued the opposite? You argue as if these two are mutually exclusive which they are not. One can be concerned about right to life and concerned about helping a child in need simultaneously. Also one can have concern over a child in need and not support every bill you do. The degree of the help is the issue, but for I guess it is just easier for you to label your opponents as evil (which is clearly why you have never even considered any other arguments than your own).

frank mcguinness 5 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…There you go again, you are still hung up on the differences between slaves and fetuses when that is clearly not the issue. The example is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether an unborn human should have the right to life. How many times do I have to repeat this?---------------“If your example was merely an example with no implied arguments or points, then I fail to see the point in stating it.” - LS04The point was to illustrate the argument and present a new way of thinking about the issue. Defining slaves as people would have a detrimental effect on slave owners, which clouded people’s judgment on whether they were people and entitled to rights. In this respect only it is similar to abortion, since defining fetuses as people would have a detrimental effect on pregnant women. The reasons why slaves should be defined as people, or the difference between slaves and fetuses is not the issue. You bringing those issues up to claim my analogy is weak is flawed because those are not the issues at hand. Again, the issue at hand is whether an unborn human should have the right to life and be defined as a person. If you want to make argument as to why fetuses shouldn’t be defined as people, make those arguments. So far you have only referred to “genuine and significant differences” but haven’t backed up the vague claims.If you want to continue talking about the difference between slaves and fetuses then you are talking to yourself.Your logic about why fetuses aren’t people is completely tautological. I could quote your exact words, but to safe space your arguments basically are: Slaves are people because they are (even though historically by legal definition, this was not the case, and opinions changed), and fetuses aren’t people because they are not.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“You mentioned PP vs. Casey in an argument to Rooster…that decision still doesn't declare that a fetus is a person, but rather that if a fetus is so close to becoming a person, there is some interest in protecting that near certainty.”When did I claim PP v. Casey defined a fetus as a person? What it does is provide protection and gives some de facto rights to a unborn child. The right to life once it reaches the point of viability, which supercede a mother's right to an abortion. (Unless you want to argue the interest in protecting the unborn is totally a society interest and a society right, but in the end doesn’t create a significant difference between the unborn having the right).

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“Not a single person here has stated a belief that it is acceptable to murder someone.”Quit trying to defend other people’s comments when you don’t’ understand the context, nor the reason I replied as such. In the past when you have done this all it has caused is me having to give you a summary of the entire discussion so you can be brought up to date and explain my comment while resolving nothing. However, I am not willing to hold your hand on this one.

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 11 months ago

Abortion: The Lawrence Journal World's biggest seller.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

kmat 5 years, 11 months ago

first to satirical - reread my post. Your comprehension skills are miserable. I state very clearly that religion is what people use to determine when life begins. Your religious views shouldn't dictact what I do with my body! Period!!! I don't believe is morally ok to murder someone. But, based on MY religious views, I don't think a fetus in the first trimester is a PERSON. You can't get it through your head that people have different opinions and that what you believe shouldn't trump what I believe. You think a life starts at conception, then don't have abortions. I don't think life starts at conception. Don't tell me what I am allowed to do with my body based on your belief system. If I had an abortion, it would not harm you in the least bit. You may not like the idea of it, but it is causing you no physical harm. End of story. none2 - I don't think you even read my post. You're comprehension skills are even worse than satiricals. You say "You really do need to get counseling or attend an NA meeting to get past some of your wild ideas and bitter attitudes." What the f*ck??? I need to go to Narcotics Anonymous? What planet are you living on? Based on my post you think I need counseling and am a junkie. You're a really poor judge of character and have no clue, buddy.Elective abortions are done at clinics. LMH doesn't do them. I was talking about D&C's, which is clearly stated in my post. Repubs have passed laws, which are always fought in court, not allowing the health of the mother to be considered. Most religious conservatives don't believe a woman should be allowed to abort to save her own life. Understand that??? And you quote data from 20 years ago about abortion. Good choice.Come back when you have some rational thoughts and want to take the time to read and comprehend these posts.I'll repeat again, no ones religious beliefs should dictate how an entire society has to live. Can you understand this? If not, go live in Iran for a while to see if you get the picture. This is not a theocracy and laws should not be made based on religion. If you think this country's laws should be based on Christianity, then all of the laws of Leviticus should apply, which means the majority of this country would be in jail. Arrrggghhh!!!! I need a drink after reading these ignorants rants from you people.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…You keep dodging my arguments by bringing up strawman arguments and citing non-relevant differences in my examples. My example was directly applicable for the point I was trying to make, but you would rather discuss semantics since you clearly cannot refute my argument or refine yours.Satirical: Apples and Oranges are both fruit.logicsound04: Apples and Oranges are different in many ways! That is a horrible analogy!

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Kmat…You might want to check your own reading skills.“I state very clearly that religion is what people use to determine when life begins. Your religious views shouldn't dictact what I do with my body!” - kmat(1) Your morals don’t’ trump mine either. I stated very clearly that people use both non-religious ethics or morals as well as religious ethics and morals to determine when life begins. Simply because you base your morals with (or without) religion doesn’t mean your morals should trump mine in deciding when life begins. Why can’t you get that through your head? If my morals don’t trump yours then yours can’t trump mine, then how do we decide? Oh yeah, it is called a Constitution. This discussion about trumping morals is a red herring. (2) Just because something doesn’t cause me harm doesn’t mean society doesn’t consider it a crime. Ex: Shoplifting from store X doesn’t affect me personally in the least bit, but it is still illegal. Therefore the logic that is it doesn’t affect me I shouldn’t be concerned is false.(3) If an unborn child is defined as a person, it cannot be murdered and most abortions would be illegal. i.e. society can tell you what to do with your own body

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Correction: Therefore the logic that (if) it doesn’t affect me I shouldn’t be concerned, is false.

KansasVoter 5 years, 11 months ago

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

If you don't like shoplifting, don't do it.

badger 5 years, 11 months ago

This debate illustrates exactly why the prayer was inappropriate.It is a deeply partisan political issue, and the priest openly stated he was there to (quoting from the article) "stir hearts to conversion."And the House didn't ask him to stand in; their regular chaplain did. She should be taken to task for not ensuring that he had been given the appropriate guidance regarding subject matter and use of the prayer for political purposes.Clergy have ample opportunity to stir hearts to conversion every day. They have churches in which to speak to their membership on moral and ethical concerns, and they can lead by example. They can write their elected representatives as registered voters, they can donate their personal money to political causes, and they can counsel those elected officials who seek spiritual guidance on weighty moral matters.But what I am supremely uncomfortable with them doing is using their position as clergy in a political arena to attempt to influence a voting body through the application of prayer. Its use as a political tool cheapens prayer, and oversteps the role established for the chaplain of a political body (if a political body even needs a chaplain, a point which I do not concede).And for the record, I'd have been equally upset with a prayer exhorting the reps to keep abortion safe and legal, the position more in line with my own philosophy. Likewise, if a minister chose to use the prayer to call for an end to the war in Iraq, or greater attention to global warming, or an endorsement of same-sex marriage, I'd be deeply offended at the use of the privilege of clergy as a means to a political statement, even though I agree with those positions as well.

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 11 months ago

Just so you know Satirical, if I shoplift it does affect you. You need a better analogy.

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Logicsound04…“I addressed your argument directly.”I think I know what my argument is, and whether you were directly addressing it. The fact you assume to know my argument better than I shows the beginning of your failed logic. --------------“logicsound04: However, the fact that they are both fruit is irrelevant because we are arguing about which goes best in a pie. A poor analogy.” – LS04This is an analogy. A poor one in fact because your counter argument was discussing the differences, not how both slavery and abortion didn’t apply. I have explicitly stated argument several times, which you have yet to acknowledge. Instead you want to continue playing these games because you can’t admit you were wrong. My argument: Abortions (Apples) are like slaves (oranges) because bother were excluded from the definition as a person for the benefits of another group (are fruit). The detrimental effect of defining something as a person clouds the judgment in both circumstances. Fetuses (apples) should be defined as persons and entitled to similar rights (are fruit)Valid counter argument: Fetuses (apples) shouldn’t be defined as persons (are not fruit) because X, Y, Z. Also, the detrimental effect to a group doesn’t cloud judgment because, X, Y, Z.Invalid counter argument: The reasons fetuses (apples) shouldn’t be defined to be a person (are not fruit) are different than the reasons slaves (oranges) were defined to be a person (are fruit). This doesn’t counter “my argument”. Also, bring up differences between apples and oranges which aren't relevant don't counter my argument (i.e. skin pigmentation, etc). In order to counter my argument you only need to claim the “Apples should not be fruit because…”So are we going to continue to discuss whether you know what my argument was and whether you are countering it, or are you going to counter what I have repeatedly stated was my actual argument? (It should be abundantly clear by now).

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Racheliscancer…“Just so you know Satirical, if I shoplift it does affect you. You need a better analogy”Shoplifting could affect me in several ways, such as the proprietor raising prices to compensate, but wouldn’t necessarily affect me if, for example, I don’t shop at that store.However, abortions could affect me in similar ways (all things can have a small direct or indirect affect), but that was obviously not the implied point I was making. The point I was making was the effect on society. So whether an action effects you personally is irrelevant to whether it is (1) a crime (2) harms society or (3) morally or ethically justified.I would have used the analogy of murder, but then I would have had people like logicsound04 assuming I was referring to abortion as murder. So if you prefer. “If you don’t like murder, don’t do it”

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

Oh wait, I forgot logicsound04’s counter argument to my shoplifting analogy....LS04: Shoplifting is illegal because it is wrong, and abortions are legal because they aren’t wrong. Shoplifting harms a person, abortions don’t harm a person. Your analogy is horrible!Satirical: My point was not to discuss all similarities between the two; my point was to counter the implied argument that if something doesn’t affect you then you shouldn’t be concerned. Shoplifting whether it directly affects you, does affect society and therefore society can outlaw shoplifting. In that respect only, abortion, whether it directly affects you, does affect society, and therefore society can outlaw abortions. Just like many states have restrictions on abortions past the point of viability.LS04: You can’t admit your analogy was horrible. Stop playing a game of semantics. Shoplifting is illegal for valid reasons, and abortions are legal for valid reasons.Satirical: Again you miss the point of my analogy. Etc., etc, etc, (see our discussion on abortion and slavery)

Satirical 5 years, 11 months ago

I have stayed out of the debate relative to the direct topic at hand (the controversial prayer in the state house), but I think I want to address it.What is the difference between someone saying a prayer espousing their political views in the state capital building vs. someone coming in to talk about their views in front of the legislature? (Outside the realm of whether a prayer should be allowed, because that is another topic given it currently is allowed).Why is one acceptable and necessary and the other is so horrible? Is it wrong simply because it was unexpected? Given the fact the legislature is suppose to discuss these issues what real harm was done? Like many people here have stated, if you don't agree with his statements then don't say them when you pray.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 11 months ago

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Keep your eyes on the prize."The rooster may crow but it is the chicken that lays the eggs.I am not a martyr, I am very much alive.

KS 5 years, 11 months ago

Go Father, great job. Keep up the good work.

kmat 5 years, 11 months ago

Hey Sat - think real hard here. You don't want my beliefs to dictact what you do. If I say that you don't have to have abortions, I'm not telling you what to do. You dictating that the law has to be based on your beliefs is controlling what I do based on your moral and relgious beliefs. You are unbelievable. You may not like that people that don't believe as you do may do things against your morals. That's living in a free country. You need to live in a theocracy where the laws are based off your religion. We don't share the same religion and I don't have to live under your religious beliefs. You need to learn to deal with that.none2 - I just love how you think you can judge me and think you know what I do with my life. I am not a druggie (do support legalizing some drugs though for medicinal use - which is legal in many states) so don't you dare tell me I'm high. You need to get down off your frickin' cross. And just because I would like a drink doesn't make me an alcoholic. So, now according to the high and mighty none2, if you like to have an occasional drink, you're a drunk.Remember that according to your god you're not supposed to judge. Tisk tisk. You know he's recording all these sins to decide if you get into heaven!!!!!You are using 20 year old info from Wiki! Ha ha ha ha ha. Good source of info. My original post was talking about the # of abortions and that a D&C done for a miscarriage (fetus is already dead) is medically an abortion. Believe me, I signed off on enough paperwork stating that and had everyone explain that to me in the hospital. You'd think someone that supposedly worked in a hospital and KNOWS SO MUCH would know this info.You say religious people controlling Wiki are out to get your ????????????? Can you type?See, you get rude - I get rude. Nuf said.And I brought up LMH because that's the hospital in Lawrence, where this newspaper is, where I had to have my unfortunate experience. So, if you want to reference another hospital, you'd better be more clear. My post was in reference to a local issue. And I've travelled a lot to and haven't always lived in little old KS. You really need to get off your high horse. Good grief. I'm going to go have a life now, you can just keep on ranting. Nothing will change, the law is the law and you that think god is dictating that you must get the law changed can keep on living in your fantasy world. I prefer the real world.Bye bye. I'm going to have that coctail now and laugh at you.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Richard Smith 5 years, 11 months ago

hujiko (Anonymous) says: Okay, so can your omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god change the future he already created?No. God isn't real, you will die alone. Enjoy.RichardS: You have presented no argument at all. Why would He change what is perfect? The very fact that you are attempting to use reason and arrive at knowledge demonstrates that God exists. It would be impossible if He did not exist. He is real and you will not die (either physically or eternally) alone. You will be in His presence (either eternal joy or eternal wrath) for eternity. Down deep you know that He exists and you simply want to deny Him so your conscience will be quiet.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

Whoops. Not Larry, but GA that advocated that I should be aborted. I shouldn't vilify Larry unneccessarily.

bondmen 5 years, 11 months ago

Pastor Joe Wright's prayer January 23, 1996, in the Kansas House:"Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. Lord, we know Your Word says, "Woe to those who call evil good," but that's exactly what we've done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it moral pluralism.We have worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturalism.We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.We have killed our unborn and called it choice.We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem.We have abused power and called it political savvy.We have coveted our neighbors' possessions and called it ambition.We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our fore-fathers and called it enlightenment.Search us oh God and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state. Grant them Your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your will. I ask it in the name of Your Son, the Living Savior, Jesus Christ.Amen."Clearly he was on target then and for today too, the words are still true.

Katara 5 years, 11 months ago

KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…If you don't like abortions, don't have one.Satirical (Anonymous) says…If you don't like shoplifting, don't do it.~~~~~~~~~That is an interesting response to KansasVoter's comment, Satirical. Tthere is the comparing an illegal action with a legal one.And probably not understanding the reasons why one is illegal while the other is not.Shoplifting is a property crime, more specifically it is a crime because one is depriving someone of their use of their property.So is the reason for your particular response is that abortion is also a property crime in that the fetus is the property of the mother? Because if that is the case, I would argue one can dispose of their property how they choose and so it would not fall under the definition of depriving someone else of the use of their property and could not be considered an illegal action.Because otherwise, your choice is to argue that a fetus is a person and deserving of all the rights of personhood and you seem to be attempting to deny that you are arguing that in your exchanges with Logicsound04.Do you mind clearing up your position, please?

UrFriend 5 years, 11 months ago

I would like to know where the numbers came from? 30,000,000 abortions in USA ? Hey, This is a number I do NOT believe and would like some real reference to just where this number came from.

soelmama 5 years, 11 months ago

How old are some of you? Twenty or something? Doesn't anyone get it? We need committed clergymen who aren't afraid to pray for this country and this state regarding our use of abortion. Kansas and the rest of our country need a miracle to pull out of this one. Simple logic....abortion kills members of our society.Why do you think Social Security is going to be non-existent by the time you "twenty-somethings" reach retirement? Sure, go ahead and keep trying to keep the Church out of Government. See what starts happening when our society keeps losing it's future educated, employed and tax-paying citizens to abortion. Bet you'll be singing a different tune then.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

"Simple logic….abortion kills members of our society."Call it simplistic logic and you might be on to something. But census, I believe, doesn't count babies until they're born, so you're actually wrong.

bornagain 5 years, 11 months ago

balbies are babies. weather there in side the mom or not.You guy need to understand that Jesus knows what a baby is because he knows everything all the time. Don't kill the babes of the world,please.

jonas_opines 5 years, 11 months ago

I've heard that the apes drew straws to determine which species should be intelligently re-designed.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 11 months ago

Where in the bible does it state that a human being is formed at fertilization?As a biblical strict constructionist, I find this "life begins at fertilization" thing to be liberal overinterpretation of what god said in the bible. Stop trying to attribute things to god which are not explicitly written in the bible.Such as rules for polygamous marriages, restrictions on eating flesh of cloven-hooved animals that do not chew their cud (i.e. pigs), and wearing anything other than woolen fabrics.These are the explicit rules of god laid out clearly in the bible.This "life begins at fertilization" stuff is liberal overinterpretation.

JOstermann 5 years, 11 months ago

I am highly disturbed by the faith-based dogmatism evident on this message board, in a debate that should be scientifically based. We are, after all, talking about medical procedures here. Here are some examplesof what I am talking about:(These gems are from Logicsound04)"You may believe that fetuses are entitled to the same rights as people, but no amount of arguing or justification will turn a fetus into a person.""My point is that comparing the two situations based on that similarity is meaningless because in one, an actual person is being denied “person” status, while in the other, no person is being denied “person” status."And my personal favorite:"it is a fact: a fetus is not a person. Period."And from hujiko:"God isn't real, you will die alone. Enjoy."And from kmat:"Your religious views shouldn't dictact [sic] what I do with my body! Period!!!"And from edjayhawk:"The “culture” of the Catholic church is to molest young children and cover it up, promote heavy breeding, especially Latinos, so they grow up in poverty and no future, and persecute those that don't follow their doctrine like abortion."And Connacht:"What our representatives choose to do in private regarding religion is their own business and right, but forcing it on others crosses a line, both legally and morally."And Multidisciplinary:"To hold to the belief that some of those children might have grown up to be someone who made major, and I'm talking MAJOR contribution to society, is just plain silly."Since at least one of you have the audacity to include the word "logic" in your screenname, I would suggest that you learn the difference between logic and dogmatic statements. When you say "X is true(or false), period", that is not logic, it is a dogmatic statement. The primary (and in most cases only) justification for the above statements is that the writer believes they are true. Thus we have faith-based dogmatism. What would be rational is to prove WHY "X is true(or false)", using reasonable arguments. These posts are laugh-out-loud funny - the "logical", "scientific" bloggers march out against the forces of religious dogmatism, attacking ignorance with...wait for it...dogmatic statements!! But wait, you say, they must be logical and scientific and intellectual: because they say they are! Look! The word "logic" is even part of one of their screennames! Could it get any funnier? Chesterton had it right: we have left the age of reason and moved into the age of dogmatism. Sigh...I am a KU grad who does not live in Kansas anymore. I wish those of you who do would stop proving the negative stereotype of Kansans as intellectually backward dogmatic zealots.

aveteran 5 years, 11 months ago

The legislature just happened to invite this clown Schieber at the last minute to speak on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade…. Not bloody likely.So what was the problem, was Fred Phelps busy that day?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.