Conference yukon::christian

    I just checked out the Web site, and pro-life outnumbers pro-choice
    over 10 to 1 now.
    
    I see no safeguards to prevent one person or group from "stuffing the
    ballot box," so I don't see how the voting on this Web site could be
    regarded as effective/significant.

The current count is "pro-life 2046, pro-choice 165."

"Clinton uses" would seem to be a bit of a stretch.

The creators of the site say that they will forward the data to the
White House on a regular basis.  Whether Clinton actually sees it is
a good question.

/john

Someone has reset the counter.

It's now 9 pro-life, 1 pro-choice.

And now it's 13 pro-life, 1 pro-choice.

The system must be going wild with accesses.

/john

    Even if Clintoon saw it he wouldn't do anything about it.  

RE:  <<< Note 78.3 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

> Someone has reset the counter.

        I sent mail to editor@abortion.com to address the concern Wayne had
        about people stuffing the ballot box.  I asked if there was a way
        to guarantee one vote per url.  I hope there is, because it would
        make the vote slightly more meaningful.

        The sample is flawed, because how good each side is at getting the
        word out and which side has more access to the web are likely to
        have first order effects on the results.

	TonyC
	

	I agree with what TonyC said. A poll taken with people calling and
asking for specifics is much more accurate. This is more than likely just one
side getting the work out better than the other. Like the side who started the
poll sending mail out to their friends, mail lists, etc. I wouldn't think that
there would be too many pro-choice people on the lists.



Glen

    I read in the paper this week the Clinton lifted the ban on using
    aborted fetuses in medical research.  Bush had put on the ban.

 I think that was lifted a long time ago.




 Jim

>    I read in the paper this week the Clinton lifted the ban on using
>    aborted fetuses in medical research.  Bush had put on the ban.

Oh boy.  Another step into the abyss.

I remember reading an editorial in the Boston Globe many years ago.  I've
regretted that I never cut it out, because it presented an extreme that many
people still don't believe is possible, but which is only the natural
progression of things.  Reading the article almost made me physically ill,
quite literally.

It was advocating selling fetuses as a way for poor women to make money.  If
the fetuses were valuable for research or medical products or whatever, poor
women could produce fetuses for 'harvesting,' and perhaps lift themselves out
of poverty.

The truly horrible thing about this is that it's really no different than
abortion itself.  What matter the reason, really, for the killing?  If you
can kill the child because you don't have the money to support it, why not
kill the child to MAKE some money?  It's all perfectly reasonable if the
fetus really is, as claimed by the pro-choice agenda, merely a non-human blob
of cells.  It's no different than selling your hair to a wig-maker.

By Clinton allowing the fetuses to be used, it legitimizes the method of
obtaining them.  It's only another step closer to producing living human
beings explicitly for 'harvesting.'

O come, Lord Jesus.  We need you desperately.  Bring TRUTH to this land.

Paul

    It was but I just found out based a "medical research" breakthrough
    that was in the paper this past week form using aborted fetuses.  Which
    by the way must be in the 5th month for the abortion.

	I have a tape of songs recorded at the Brethren Bible Conference in
	1994.  One of the songs is called "Only God Knows."  It never
	directly mentions abortion.  It starts with, "She will never bake
	cookies with mommie, never climb up and sit on daddy's knee..."

        Whenever I hear it, I cry. Told my wife about it, she said, "Sure,
        I'll have a listen."  When it was over, we were both weeping.  

        It's very intense. Required listening for any who might be "on the
        fence."

	TonyC

    Now I find interesting the debate on when life begins.  Some in the
    pro-abortion camp maintain that life doesn't begin until the baby is
    actually born, i.e., a fetus can only be regarded as alive/viable
    outside the womb.
    
    Ah, but we see that a fetus can be of "medical benefit" to the living.
    How can this be if a fetus doesn't share properties of life inherent
    to our species?
    
    Whatever...

    One of the seven things that the LORD hates and regards as an abomination
    is "hands that shed innocent blood." (see Pr.6:16-19)  The blood of
    fetuses is the same as ours.

    Even in this perversion the wickedness of man confesses the Truth of God:
    "Without shedding of blood is no remission."  From any perspective,
    fetal death is traded for life.

	Wayne, a living tissue is not the same as a living life. For example, a
person could die, but their internal parts could live on. 

	So when you hear of someone who says a baby is not a life until outside
the womb, they are talking about a baby who can live outside of the womb.

    John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb. 
    Not bad for a piece of "tissue."

    I'll say two things:
    
    You are right; and You missed my point.

	About harvesting body parts from people of any age:

        In a documentary by D. James Kennedy called "Who Lives? Who Dies?
        Who Cares?" I thought I detected physicians in the trauma room
        inferring that when a person dies, his organs are no longer useful. 
        I could be wrong, but it seemed as though harvesting must be done
        while the body is respirating, with mechanical assist if necessary.
	
        Further, it seemed as though harvesting does not begin until the
        patient's EEG is flatline (brain-dead) UNLESS next of kin give
        permission to start harvesting beforehand.

        I saw the physicians asking parents if it was ok to start
        harvesting from their daughter, a Policewoman shot in the chest by
        carjackers.  The parents asked if there were any brain activity. 
        The physicians said that there was, but they had been unsuccessful
	at getting her heart to beat on its own and that time was of the
        essence in harvesting the organs. The parents decided to wait it
        out.  They took it to the Lord in prayer, along with their pastor
        and others of their congregation.

        A heart specialist who just happened to be in the hospital at the
        time heard of the situation and got himself down to the trauma room
        where the dying policewoman lay.  He took her heart in his hands
        and massaged it.  The other trauma physicians had performed the
        same procedure without success, but this man was able to get the
        woman's heart to beat on its own.  She survived.  

        The chief trauma physician said he'd never seen anything like it.
        He also said that they had wheeled that young policewoman into a
        room full of unbelievers, but they wheeled her out of a room full
        of believers.

        Segue to the young policewoman back on the force and playing
        softball in her precinct's league just a few weeks later, praising
        God for sparing her life, and thanking her parents for their faith.	

        TonyC
	

re Tony:

>I asked if there was a way to guarantee one vote per url.

Well, then.  Everyone at DEC will count as a single vote (or at most one
vote per proxy server, of which there are about six or so).

/john

RE: <<< Note 78.17 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

	Well, I guess that won't work then.  The poll is virtually
	meaningless in that light.

	TonyC
	

    One way to make this work would be to vote by SSN, i.e., one vote for
    each Social Security Number.  Both vote and SSN could be encoded when
    the "Enter" button were clicked.
    
    Or something like that.

RE: <<< Note 78.19 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

	Someone could just use SS number generators to vote in an endless
	loop.  The SS numbers that have already voted won't be counted, but
	the ones that haven't would. 

	The most comprehensive way to determine how people really feel
	about this issue is to hold a carefully worded, non-binding
	referendum proposition.

	Of course, it would just be a prevailing opinion, which is
	meaningless next to God's truth.  The media portray our social
	fabric as wool and linen - a weave of conflicting opinions.

        We need to demonstrate that there is an Absolute, External,
        Objective Truth, that there is a better way to live, and that there
        is A Way to life eternal.  The only way to do this is one heart at
        a time.  If we could really demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit,
        this may not be so difficult a task.

	"For the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
	gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such
	there is no law."
	-- Galatians 5:22-23

    True.
    
    I assumed SSN verification on the receiving end and some kind of
    confirmation to the sender's e-mail address.
    
    But, clever people can always find a way to cheat, or otherwise work
    around a "secure" system.
    
    So I guess we leave the work in the hearts of mankind to God as we by
    His grace love.
    
    /Wayne

    
    	I'm sitting here with my hand on my belly, where my five
    	month old baby is kicking up a storm, and wondering how
    	any woman at this stage of pregnancy could deny to herself
    	that this is a life.
    
    

  In every abortion, there are two casualties:

	a dead baby
  and
	a dead conscience.

				-- Mother Teresa

    Is there a reason you started this topic other than to quote Mother
    Teresa, John?
    
    Is there more that you wish you add?

God, please forgive Nancy, for she knows not what she has written.

    .25
    
    God forgive is right!  I don't know why I thought I saw 78.0 on your
    note and I was curious. :-) x 100
    
    Yikes this has been a very strenuous week.

      One of the main things I think of regarding abortion is the
      power it can have to unite those who otherwise might not be
      so united.
    
      Things like perhaps facilitating a continued erosion of church/
      state separation where the state is not to prefer any specific
      religion or perhaps uniting different groups of professed believers.
    
      I think the Pharisees would have been against abortion.  They
      still crucified Christ.  They were still murderers in their hearts.
    
      I am pro-life, but I fear the repercusions of this whole issue
      go far beyond what is discussed here.  If the deep conviction is
      not *carefully* handled, they may include the allowance of other
      abominations.
    
      Such as the facilitation of the mark of the beast movement.  Churches
      uniting on somewhat superficial grounds and clasping the hands of
      the state.
    
      As I said, I am against abortion, but I foresee some awful ominous
      possibilities here.
                                                                          
    							Tony

	Tony,

	Well, I don't see it that way at all.  I'm happy and honored to
unite on the pro-life side with anyone and everyone I find there.  This
definitely does *not* mean that we will always agree on doctrine.  There
isn't anything wrong with forming alliances on defining issues such as
abortion, without compromising one's own principles.

	FWIW,
	Bob Sampson

      Bob,
    
        I think we agree.  I didn't say we oughtn't ally for common
        good.  I merely meant to say that I think more than this may
        come about and we need to be careful.
    
    						Tony