Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
whew! You're still here...
If I last that long my dear, let me assure you, I will promise to do so, but in the face of such outrageous inhumanity, I might not persist...
Well, to start out with...the situation is very complex. On one side, we have those who say abortion is murder and should be treated as such, and those who pursue an abortion - no matter the circumstance - have no right to do so, as they would infringe on the inalienable right to life of the child.
On the other side, we have those who say abortion should be an option to women who are raped, as the trauma is extreme. Giving birth to the child would only compound to it. An understandable position.
However, I have to say that it's a position I cannot agree with.
Yes, I am a female. Yes, I will probably be thought of as 'insensitive' to a raped woman. However, I will say that I know what abortion is. When I first learned about abortion at the age of 13 - and what is done - I cried. After all, who could do such a thing to a CHILD? It's incomprehensible; over 45,000,000 children have been aborted - no, MURDERED - since Roe v. Wade. So many people snuffed out before they even had the chance to live outside of the womb.
From the moment of conception, it has been scientifically proven that life begins at conception; although the fetus (such an ugly word; it deprives the humanity from the child, so I shall call the child just that)...pardon, CHILD...is dependant upon the mother for survival, he (or she) has her own DNA. Her own genetics. There has never been another human being like that child before, and there never will be again. EVERYONE is unique, as no two people are alike. That's the beauty of it all.
As for rape and incest as reasons for abortion, those are such a small amount of total abortions to begin with. Unfortunately, I'm sure a good deal of people believe that the percentage is much higher than it actually is.
The only - and I repeat, ONLY - exception would be if the child's birth would take away the life of the mother. Then we have a case of where the mother's right to life is being intruded upon by the child's right to life. Who lives in that case will most likely be the mother.
For rape victims who end up impregnated, I can understand their desire to not want the child of the rapist. However, as has been said before in this thread, the sins of the fathers should not result in the death of an innocent child. Our inalienable rights are 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'. The pursuit of it. I sincerely doubt that killing the child of the rapist will result in the mother being happy in the long run. Life is difficult; there will ALWAYS be pain. However, as humans, we should always strive to the right thing. It may not always be easy - these days, the right thing is often difficult - but that's not the point, now is it? And just a quick question 'eeevil conservative'...you say you're a rape victim, correct? Did the pain of the rape vanish when you held your baby in your arms for the first time?
In any case, back to 'life of the mother'...
Even before Roe v. Wade, the deaths from illegal abortions had declined to less than 200 annually. Why? Because of penicillin, antibiotics, improvements in medical technology...not because it was legalized, but because the medical technology reduced the risk. Roe v. Wade was a horrendous decision (abortion is something that should be left for the states to decide anyway). In all actuality, the risk of death from an abortion is - today - greater than it would be to simply give birth. Startling? Maybe...but the risk of death from an abortion is infinitely greater to the child than birth, for obvious reasons. Humor aside...
I often hear some people say that the child becomes human only after the first trimester (or somewhere close to that). I have to say this argument is very illogical. Much like to acorn/oak tree analogy. A child is not an adult human much like an acorn is not an adult oak tree...but an unborn child is a human much like an acorn is an oak.
Think about the development process of the baby. At one week, the child implants himself or herself into the nutrient line of the womb.
At day 10, the child sends out a chemical that stops the mother's menstrual period. This same chemical will later cause the breasts to enlarge for nursing, softens the pelvic bones for labor, and sets the date of birth.
The child's heart begins beating between day 18-25. Within the first month, the unborn baby's heart is beating. Usually, by day 21, it is pumping blood through the unborn child's closed circulatory system, with blood that is entirely seperate from the mother's.
By day 40, electrical brain waves are detected.
The umbilical cord, the placenta, and amniotic sac are all made from the original cell, the zygote.
Four weeks after conception, the eyes, ears, and respiratory system begin to form.
Motion itself occurs six to eight weeks after conception.
I often hear some pro-abortionists describe an unborn baby as just a 'mass of cells' (barring the fact that technically adults are also a mass of cells, but regardless). I see an unborn child yearning for a chance to live outside the womb.
I will say that a child does not come into being until the sperm and the egg cell merge. The sperm may be part of the equation, but it in itself is not another baby. It has one purpose: to merge with an egg cell. If it doesn't, it dies. Same with an egg cell; if it doesn't merge with a sperm, it dies as well. The two are part of the original being from which they came.
HOWEVER, when the two merge (there are two different ways to look at conception: some say its when the sperm penetrates the egg, and others say its when the pronuclei of the two fuse together 12-14 hours later. In either case, this new human life is complete by the first cell stage), they create something entirely different. They create a human being that has never before existed and never will again; a unique child. A human with its own unique DNA, its own unique body. It has yet to grow completely, but the genetic information is there.
Think of this way: the zygote is not like the blueprints of a house. If you throw away the blueprints of a house, the house is still incomplete. Rather, the zygote IS a house albeit miniaturized. Once the egg and sperm merge, nothing else is added from this time until the man or woman dies. Nothing but nutrition and oxygen. This new human life is programmed from within, going onward in a self-controlled, continuous process of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells.
Oops. I seem to rumbling off the actual topic at hand...
I will say that although I'm happy the anti-abortion law was passed, it seems politically unfeasible to expect this law to remain in place (at least, not until another conservative justic is appointed to the Supreme Court). However, it may take a case concerning this law a couple of years to reach the SCOTUS. By then, we may be in luck.
And finally...my opinion on abortion largely stems from the fact that there's been too many of them.
| country | year range of reported data | total reported abortions | estimated total for underreporting, illegal, and abroad | estimated additional abortions to end of 2004 | most recent annual abortion figure | estimated total abortions through October 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albania | 1975-1999 | 489,000 | 55,000 | 113,000 | 23,000 | 676,000 |
| Armenia | 1992-2002 | 238,000 | 19,000 | 9,400 | 265,000 | |
| Australia | 1970-2005 | 1,725,000 | 311,000 | 0 | 73,000 | 2,097,000 |
| Austria | 1960-2000 | 592,000 | 9,500 | 2,400 | 603,000 | |
| Azerbaijan | 1992-2002 | 280,000 | 33,000 | 17,000 | 327,000 | |
| Barbados | 1992-1995 | 1,100 | 1,100 | 4,000 | 450 | 6,600 |
| Belarus | 1992-2002 | 1,695,000 | 304,000 | 101,000 | 2,084,000 | |
| Belgium | 1992-2001 | 147,000 | 44,000 | 15,000 | 204,000 | |
| Belize | 1985-1996 | 8,600 | 7,200 | 21,000 | 2,600 | 39,000 |
| Bermuda | 1983-1984 | 180 | 1,800 | 92 | 2,100 | |
| Botswana | 1980-1984 | 66 | 19 | 340 | 17 | 440 |
| Bulgaria | 1953-2002 | 5,420,000 | 102,000 | 51,000 | 5,587,000 | |
| Canada | 1969-2002 | 2,526,000 | 210,000 | 105,000 | 2,824,000 | |
| Channel Islands | 1987-2004 | 4,700 | 320 | 0 | 21 | 5,100 |
| Chile | 1986-1991 | 280 | 870 | 67 | 1,200 | |
| ROC Taiwan | 1996-1999 | 422,000 | 61,000 | 211,000 | 42,000 | 730,000 |
| PR China | 1971-2001 | 266,772,000 | 8,170,000 | 19,020,000 | 6,340,000 | 299,246,000 |
| Cocos Islands | 1978 | 2 | 52 | 2 | 55 | |
| Croatia | 1992-2002 | 154,000 | 12,000 | 6,200 | 171,000 | |
| Cuba | 1968-2000 | 3,442,000 | 2,617,000 | 305,000 | 76,000 | 6,428,000 |
| Czech Republic | 1993-2002 | 449,000 | 62,000 | 31,000 | 537,000 | |
| Czechoslovakia | 1953-1992 | 3,645,000 | 0 | 0 | 3,645,000 | |
| Denmark | 1939-2003 | 770,000 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 799,000 | |
| Dominican Republic | 1995-1998 | 93,000 | 186,000 | 31,000 | 306,000 | |
| East Germany | 1948-1989 | 1,728,000 | 514,000 | 0 | 0 | 2,242,000 |
| Estonia | 1992-2004 | 217,000 | 0 | 10,000 | 225,000 | |
| Faeroe Islands | 1966-1975 | 260 | 750 | 26 | 1,000 | |
| Finland | 1951-2003 | 578,000 | 11,000 | 11,000 | 598,000 | |
| France | 1970-2002 | 5,467,000 | 256,000 | 411,000 | 206,000 | 6,306,000 |
| French Guiana | 1984 | 390 | 7,800 | 390 | 8,500 | |
| Georgia | 1992-2002 | 325,000 | 28,000 | 14,000 | 364,000 | |
| FR Germany | 1950-2003 | 2,814,000 | 184,000 | 128,000 | 128,000 | 3,233,000 |
| Greece | 1971-1996 | 97,000 | 160 | 100,000 | 13,000 | 208,000 |
| Greenland | 1967-2002 | 22,000 | 200 | 1,600 | 820 | 24,000 |
| Guadeloupe | 1977-1998 | 9,900 | 37,000 | 29,000 | 4,800 | 80,000 |
| Hong Kong | 1973-2001 | 341,000 | 104,000 | 61,000 | 20,000 | 523,000 |
| Hungary | 1949-2002 | 5,435,000 | 112,000 | 56,000 | 5,594,000 | |
| Iceland | 1960-2002 | 21,000 | 1,900 | 930 | 24,000 | |
| India | 1972-2001 | 14,076,000 | 2,169,000 | 723,000 | 16,848,000 | |
| Ireland | 1968-2004 | 0 | 134,000 | 0 | 6,200 | 139,000 |
| Isle of Man | 1991-2004 | 2,200 | 0 | 150 | 2,300 | |
| Israel | 1979-2003 | 434,000 | 31,000 | 20,000 | 20,000 | 502,000 |
| Italy | 1978-2003 | 4,376,000 | 133,000 | 133,000 | 4,620,000 | |
| Japan | 1949-2003 | 36,212,000 | 39,766,000 | 320,000 | 320,000 | 76,564,000 |
| Kazakhstan | 1992-2002 | 2,163,000 | 249,000 | 125,000 | 2,516,000 | |
| South Korea | 1961-1996 | 4,391,000 | 9,631,000 | 1,840,000 | 230,000 | 16,053,000 |
| Kyrgyzstan | 1992-2001 | 344,000 | 70,000 | 23,000 | 434,000 | |
| Latvia | 1992-2004 | 284,000 | 0 | 14,000 | 296,000 | |
| Lithuania | 1992-2002 | 285,000 | 25,000 | 12,000 | 320,000 | |
| Macedonia | 1992-2000 | 129,000 | 46,000 | 11,000 | 184,000 | |
| Martinique | 1981-1999 | 15,000 | 25,000 | 14,000 | 2,900 | 57,000 |
| Mexico | 1994-2000 | 44,000 | 16,000 | 13,000 | 3,300 | 76,000 |
| Moldova | 1992-2002 | 454,000 | 31,000 | 16,000 | 498,000 | |
| Mongolia | 1984-1997 | 244,000 | 90,000 | 13,000 | 345,000 | |
| Netherlands | 1970-2002 | 660,000 | 59,000 | 29,000 | 743,000 | |
| New Caledonia | 1997-1998 | 3,000 | 8,800 | 1,500 | 13,000 | |
| New Zealand | 1965-2003 | 298,000 | 12,000 | 19,000 | 19,000 | 345,000 |
| Norway | 1954-2004 | 527,000 | 26,000 | 0 | 14,000 | 565,000 |
| Panama | 1972-2000 | 160 | 220 | 44 | 11 | 430 |
| Panama Canal Zone | 1970-1978 | 400 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 400 |
| Poland | 1955-2003 | 4,622,000 | 170 | 170 | 4,622,000 | |
| Portugal | 1984-2002 | 3,600 | 3,100 | 780 | 560 | 7,900 |
| Puerto Rico | 1992 | 19,000 | 230,000 | 19,000 | 266,000 | |
| Reunion | 1979-1988 | 37,000 | 4,300 | 69,000 | 4,300 | 114,000 |
| Romania | 1958-2003 | 19,728,000 | 1,489,000 | 227,000 | 227,000 | 21,633,000 |
| Russia | 1992-2004 | 32,083,000 | 0 | 1,600,000 | 33,417,000 | |
| Saint Helena | 1985-1990 | 61 | 70 | 5 | 140 | |
| Seychelles | 1986-1990 | 160 | 230 | 2,000 | 150 | 2,600 |
| Singapore | 1970-2002 | 487,000 | 13,000 | 25,000 | 13,000 | 537,000 |
| Slovakia | 1993-2002 | 253,000 | 35,000 | 17,000 | 302,000 | |
| Slovenia | 1992-2002 | 109,000 | 15,000 | 7,300 | 130,000 | |
| South Africa | 1997-2005 | 470,000 | 0 | 83,000 | 519,000 | |
| Spain | 1941-2003 | 920,000 | 787,000 | 80,000 | 80,000 | 1,853,000 |
| Suriname | 1994 | 260 | 2,600 | 260 | 3,100 | |
| Sweden | 1939-2003 | 1,209,000 | 34,000 | 34,000 | 1,272,000 | |
| Switzerland | 1966-2002 | 195,000 | 40,000 | 24,000 | 12,000 | 268,000 |
| Tajikistan | 1990-2000 | 327,000 | 94,000 | 114,000 | 28,000 | 559,000 |
| Tunisia | 1966-1996 | 347,000 | 148,000 | 152,000 | 19,000 | 663,000 |
| Turkey | 1993 | 351,000 | 3,864,000 | 351,000 | 4,508,000 | |
| Turkmenistan | 1995-2000 | 63,000 | 128,000 | 128,000 | 32,000 | 345,000 |
| Turks and Caicos | 1996 | 42 | 340 | 42 | 410 | |
| U.S.S.R. | 1957-1991 | 244,417,000 | 64,781,000 | 0 | 0 | 309,198,000 |
| Ukraine | 1992-2000 | 6,071,000 | 1,737,000 | 434,000 | 8,170,000 | |
| United Kingdom | 1961-2004 | 6,380,000 | 0 | 0 | 208,000 | 6,553,000 |
| United States | 1923-2005 | 44,037,000 | 717,000 | 1,209,000 | 1,293,000 | 47,041,000 |
| Uzbekistan | 1994-2000 | 469,000 | 140,000 | 220,000 | 55,000 | 875,000 |
| Venezuela | 1968 | 3,100 | 111,000 | 3,100 | 117,000 | |
| Vietnam | 1976-2002 | 17,720,000 | 4,694,000 | 2,000,000 | 1,000,000 | 25,248,000 |
| Yugoslavia | 1959-1998 | 5,496,000 | 3,647,000 | 352,000 | 59,000 | 9,545,000 |
| Zambia | 1976-1983 | 1,400 | 4,100 | 25,000 | 1,200 | 32,000 |
| subtotals | 756,695,000 | 138,675,000 | 37,333,000 | 14,704,000 | 944,935,000 | |
* indicates abortions abroad only
Note: estimated underreporting includes estimates for missing years in reported year range, abortions abroad, and registered illegal abortions. Totals may not add due to rounding.
TOTAL, 1920 - 2005: 757,000,000 reported abortions, estimated 945,000,000 total abortions
Estimated current global monthly average: 1,225,000 abortions
xxxx
Nearly a billion people in less than a century. ALL of them killed before they even had a chance to live out their lives. Look at my tagline.
In essence...it boils down to the fact that too many lives have been lost. A line in the sand needs to be drawn. It needs to be said that we have gone this far...and we can go no further. That's all there is to it.
As for Bush's opinion on the law, I understand his position and appreciate that he's consistent. I just disagree about the rape/incest part (but agree with life of the mother). I know that a raped woman would want to try and forget about the pain from the rape by terminating the child in her womb...but I think that would be a mistake of the highest order.
After all, why can't we love them both?
I know. I'll know you tried :D
I'm not sure if that poster was condemning the mother. I certainly wouldn't condemn the mother.
That said, I do think that the right thing for the mother to do in a situation like that is to save the life of the child.
and not standing up for truth makes us hypocrits..
rather be an extremist/religious zealot standing against murder than a hypocrit that okays it for political gain anyday...
Clue time - don't ever elevate yourself enough to presume that you know what the other person is thinking, what that person's motivation is, what that person believes in.
Otherwise you are only removing all doubt.
Sounded like an insane statement to me . Who in their right mind would force a woman to carry a rape baby to full term ? Would you still support the "no exception stance" if it was your wife who was raped ?
I think abortion is terrible , but so is rape, incest, and anyone who would force a woman to carry a child from those circumstances .
I respect that argument but you are opening up a whole can of worms if you exclude stressing the innocence of the humanity.. and just argue the humanity. It'll get very sticky very fast, and many a good Christian will have issues with the logical conclusion of such an argument.
For example, if all we are stressing is every humans right to life, then we should be out marching in the streets to end capital punishment and to STOP THE WAR!! and a host of other nonsense.
The only issue which really gives me pause as an "rational exceptionalist" (cough cough) is the innocence of the child.
One of the only ways around the absolutist "evry human is precious" moral dilema is to say that it is immoral to take the life of an "innocent".
Under this doctrine then, The guilty can and should be punished by society. The innocent should be protected. Killing in war is unfortunate, for example, but allowed.
Innocents shouldn't die in war, for example, but we know it happens.
If one takes the absolute "every human is precious" view, (and I know a few Liberal Christians, yes there are some, as well as Peace Church members who do indeed takes this approach) then we really have some moral issues to think about on a host of issues....
I hope not. That would not be much at all.
As for your comment:
The rape/incest victim should be made whole immediately by removing the spawn of evil. Rape/incest spawn are losing propositions.
YOU ARE ONE SICK FUCK.
Get me suspended or banned if you can, I don't care. Your statement as quoted is the most reprehensible spew I've heard on this earth, and I'm calling you on it.
You are clearly not a rationale person.
Rational is valuing every human life, no matter how lowly or high, no matter how close to perfection or challenged by distance from it.
You know nothing of history, and that makes you an ignorant fool, for you are ignorant of what "sophisticated societies" have done to the lowly in only the last hundred years. God help you.
I'm very happy to have exposed my daughter to the GOOD cartoons. Recently, she's taken a liking to.. "the Pink Panther". O.T. Did anyone ever notice that the Pink Panther is SMOKING in the opening credit? Horror! ;)
Petronski, can you take this one... my eyes are going to bleed.....the logic is just too stunning....
(eye roll)
I am not "assuming" that having abortion kills an innocent child. But I think many are assuming that carrying the child worsens the trauma of the rape more than an abortion would.
Many people who would generally call themselves "pro-life", nevertheless make an exception in cases of rape.
Pro-abortionists often use rape as a prime example of a justification for abortion. How, they ask, could you force this poor woman to go through with this pregnancy?
Pro-lifers typically reply that while they have great sympathy for a woman who has been so terribly victimized, the rights of the child must also be considered.
But both sides in this debate rely on one key assumption: That abortion helps to ease the trauma of a woman who has been raped, and that women who have been raped want abortions. Pro-abortionists use this as their rallying cry. Pro-lifers explain why other factors are more important.
But is this assumption true? Surprisingly, with all the studies that the government, universities, and big companies are always doing on every conceivable subject, we have only been able to find one small study on this question. Perhaps it is because everyone just assumed they knew the answer.
But in 1979 Dr Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape counselor, studied 37 women who had become pregnant through rape. (This was apparently all she could find. Pregnancy from rape is, in fact, extremely rare. The small numbers make the study less statistically significant. But we are certainly not going to hope for more rape victims just so we can get more reliable studies!) Of the 37, 4 did not complete the study. Of the remainder, 28 chose to continue their pregnancies, and 5 chose abortion. So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion.
When questioned, most of these women said that they saw abortion as another act of violence. One woman said that she "would suffer more mental anguish from taking the life of the unborn child than carrying the baby to term".
But few saw the question as a conflict between her own needs and the rights of the baby. Rather, most said that the major influence leading her to abortion was pressure from others: parents, boyfriend, etc.
There is a curious thing about rape: People often place a stigma on the victim, as if she was the criminal rather than the rapist. They discuss what she might have done to invite it. Her husband or boyfriend may suddenly not want to touch her anymore. Friends and relatives shy away from her. The victim herself often falls into this line of thinking. Rape victims frequently run home and take a shower or try some other symbolic means of "cleansing themselves". Rape is one of the most un-reported crimes, because the victim so often feels guilty and ashamed.
A few years ago the lawyer for an accused rapist in Florida argued in court that his client should be acquitted because the victim incited him by wearing a short skirt. Another judge went even further, releasing a rapist because he felt that women in his area provoked rape by their clothes and manners. (In the second case, the judge didn't even say that the victim herself somehow provoked the attack, just that women in general encouraged rapists.)
Even if it is true that in some cases a woman "encourages" a rape by dressing provocatively or walking though a bad neighborhood alone at night ... That might mean that she was foolish, but it hardly makes her share in the guilt. Suppose you parked your car and left the keys in the ignition, and someone stole it. People might say that was a foolish thing to do, but I doubt anyone would say that you therefore "deserved" to have your car stolen, or that you are as guilty as the car thief. I cannot imagine someone suggesting that the thief should be released because you "asked for it" by leaving such a nice car so easy to steal. But that is apparently a common response to rape.
And so it seems that the psychological problem faced by a pregnant rape victim is not that this child will "remind" her of the rape. (Like if she wasn't pregnant, she would just forget about it.) Rather, it is that when her pregnancy becomes obvious, she will be forced to "confess" that she is guilty of being raped. (Similarly, the baby is blamed for being conceived by rape. He is not thought of as an innocent baby, but as a "product of rape" -- an ugly blot to be removed.)
Abortion does not solve rape. It simply transforms the victim into a victimizer. Jackie B. had an abortion after a rape. She later said:
"I soon discovered that the aftermath of the abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the emptiness and pain I would feel deep within, causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I would continue on with my life as if nothing had happened. ... I found that though I could forgive the man who raped me, I couldn't forgive myself for having the abortion."
Debbie "N." wrote:
"I still feel that I probably couldn't have loved that child conceived of rape, but there are so many people who would have loved that baby dearly. The man who raped me took a few moments of my life, but I took that innocent baby's entire life."
Debbie's comment starkly shows the actual effect on the women who is aborted to "cure" rape: It shifts the focus from the violence the rapist committed against her, to the violence she committed against the baby. I would never dream of minimizing rape by saying that it only "took a few moments" of the woman's life -- clearly the fear, trauma, and sense of violation lasts much more than a few moments. But Debbie described her own rape that way, because she is now comparing what the rapist did to her, with what she did to this baby.
As one young woman put it, "The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape."
from http://www.pregnantpause.org/aborted/curerape.htm
What if it was my mother who was raped?
Let me ask you, why is abortion terrible?
Well, who would'a thunk this would cause a stir?
I fear not.
I am not for this site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.