Posted on 04/18/2008 8:38:05 AM PDT by DFG
Read the affidavit. And please, read it with a critical eye just once.
This all started with a phone call from a mystery woman who cannot be found. She claimed to be two weeks pregnant. I’ve never met a woman in my life who knew they were pregnant at two weeks. The person stated they were treated at the local hospital. Did the authorities verify any of this?
Uggggh.
I can't even read the rest.
This is not Waco in the 90's, and you cannot see the forest for the trees.
From your postings, I’m surprised you could read that far.
Later...
From your attitude, I would be very surprised if you could theologically respond to post #400.
Actually, she said she was “several” weeks pregnant. She could easily have known at 3-5 weeks.
She did NOT claim to be two weeks pregnant. She said “several”.
“My great X4 was sort of a polygamist..maybe he was actually a bigamist...”
LOL, I spilled a little of my drink because of that one.
Skim that link and jump in anywhere when you get the urge to post and you will be in THE class for learning about Mormonism related to the issues you raised.
Wait till you start trying to ask questions and unravel contradictions, you will be surprised.
Read the affidavit. And please, read it with a critical eye just once.
How "critical" was your eye?
Politicalmom : Actually, she said she was “several” weeks pregnant. She could easily have known at 3-5 weeks. She did NOT claim to be two weeks pregnant. She said “several”.
That is correct. It is a strange way to describe a just discovered pregnancy IMO. Several is more than three. So this person was a month pregnant, maybe more, but refered to it as several weeks. It still doesn’t sound like something someone would say who is actually pregnant.
Excellent analysis. So the girl who is a month pregnant stated she was several weeks pregnant. I’m buying that one.
He posted that as an indicator of the age of marrige for young women in those time frames. I asked for more time so I could develop a broader resource. If you’ll note, the number of families is rather small.
With this small a data base, this may have been an elite family whose stats may not be anything close to what a broad spectrum of stats might reveal.
Pregnancies are nearly always described by weeks, not months.
Women are pregnant for about 40 weeks, NOT nine months.
If a woman knew she was pregnant, but not exactly how far along, she could easily use “several weeks”. This is especially true since these girls are not educated and probably don’t know how to figure a conception date.
You see, your post is about what ticks your off - about you. You are not being hurt here. It is all about YOU.
You are not being raped.
You are not being told what to wear.
You are not being controlled.
To You - it is all about some precedent being set where the Evil Government will come into your home and find your Whatever.
I don't like some things the US Gov't does either pal - on Abortion, Gun Control, or Taxes - but I will be DAMNED if I will defend child abuse on account of it.
That is the difference between you and me.
I recall seeing Warren Jeffs in an orange jumpsuit long before this raid, and believe the authorities had much, much more on the molestation aspect of this case than "a phone call."
I believe that is a reasoned response. I’m not sure it’s an accurate response. Some girls refer to weeks and others refer to months, so I guess your observation makes as much sense as mine.
“A few weeks” is very non-specific. It could mean about four to ten weeks. The dictionary refers to the top end of few as many. I’m not sure what I would refer to as many weeks pregnant.
Thanks for your comments.
Skypilot, I can’t tell you how impressed I am by your membership in the Deity. Do I genuflect or bow?
Please let me know.
BTW, the Constitution trumps your rant.
When we see the warrant, you and I might agree about that. It doesn’t appear Warren was used as a reason, but then we haven’t seen the document.
>>He posted that as an indicator of the age of marrige for young women in those time frames.<<
1) It specifically excludes anyone under the age of 15.
2) The data may be derived from “official” records which would only include civil marriages. Who knows.
What do you mean what is the point?, you can't see what the average marriage age was for women and first birth delivery from that chart?
It included 15 year olds, there was no reason for them to go younger, that is part of the point, here is another source. ------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.siu.edu/offices/iii/Publications/curr/high.html
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.