MEDIA ALERT: Charmaine on MSNBC and CNN Today
Two pictures
from Charmaine’s PowerPoint at Princeton
Thanks to Joe Carter
for uploading Information is good.
Reason and science.
Our friends on the left would prefer less information when it confronts their…religion. Its two sacraments are:
Abortion, and
Evolution.
And so Charmaine recently has braved to lecture liberals on abortion and evolution on CNN, MSNBC and Princeton University.
Alert Readers have noted that the Anderson Cooper 360 segment on CNN aired Wednesday night and will air again tonight, Friday, between 10 and midnite. Tivo and let us know.
What you think.
Her debate with Anderson Cooper was on the teaching of the theories of evolution and intelligent design in the classroom. Edu-crates do not care for I.D.
The academy at pharyngula seems less concerned about academic censorship as they do about the age of the earth. They swallow a camel and choke on a gnat.
Charmaine will also be on MSNBC LIVE today Friday, 6 April. She will be debating for the wisdom of viewing a picture of your baby before you have an abortion.
Backstory, from The Times and Democrat
S.C. House approves bill requiring ultrasounds before abortions
By SEANNA ADCOX
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
COLUMBIA, S.C. – The South Carolina House gave key approval Wednesday to a bill that requires women seeking abortions in this state to first review ultrasound images of their fetus before the procedure.
If enacted, it would be the first law of its kind in the nation. Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone in mandating women see the pictures.
It seems that liberals are most unhappy because 80% of women will stop their abortions after seeing a picture of their babies (in the womb). See the picture and the baby lives. Information can save a life.
Hit time is between 3:30 and 4pm Eastern Time.
Abortion and evolution. Today.
More from TandD
But should our state require that doctors and/or medical facilities show fetal images to a woman who is seeking an abortion?
For most women, seeking an abortion will be traumatic enough. Such decisions are not reached lightly. Should she be put under duress and forced to look at an image even if she chooses not to?
It was in 1992 that the U.S. Supreme Court decided states could regulate abortion as long as laws do not place an “undo burden” on the woman. The South Carolina law, which would be the first in the nation, could face a legal challenge.
And this week, S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster advised that the law as written is unconstitutional.
Trying to bring some common sense to the equation, Orangeburg Sen. Brad Hutto has argued that viewing the ultrasound should be voluntary.
Forcing women to view the image is impractical, he said. “Otherwise, what would you do – put people’s head in a harness? The right to refuse is pretty basic.”
Is it to be left to medical professionals to force a person to view an image they don’t want to see? And just how far are they to go in such a process?
And then there’s the matter of abortions being conducted because the health of the mother is at risk. How culpable is the state if the law makes the woman in such a case change her mind about abortion and ultimately lose her health or even life in the process?
What has abortion to do with evolution? Abortion is a question about human rights. Evolution is science. There is enough evil and stupidity in this world. Do not promote more of it!
So it’s the fault of P.Z. Myers, et al, that you won’t answer a very simple question?
So much for that conservative sense of personal responsibility.
Nice attempt, by the way, at conflating abortion and evolution solely with liberalism.
I suppose your head would explode if I told you I voted for Bush and accept evolution as true.
Your argumentation is no more sincere nor rational than those ultra-liberals who try to equate capitalism with all the ills of the world and George Bush with Hitler.
I find it interesting, that, from such an adamant stance on the issue of creationism/science/evolution, you are unable to answer the one question that would perhaps most succinctly clarify your stance. If you’re right, as you said in the interview with Anderson Cooper, and that 90% of the American public is behind you, then why not speak from your heart? Afraid of alienating those “godless liberals”? Afraid of the backlash from the scientific community? Or are you just unwilling to give up the allegiance of the few adherents you have retained by waffling the line of a “true christian” and not answering?
So tell us, Charmaine: how old is the earth. Stand up for what you believe. If you don’t do that, you’re no better than what you claim those you fight against are like.
Why didn’t you answer the question about the earth’s age; you kept avoiding it which makes you look like you only believe in God’s word partially. Do you or do you not know what the age of the earth is Biblically? And if you don’t know for sure then there is nothing wrong in saying you don’t know something.
It is possible that the earth was created millions or billions of years ago but it is true that Adam was created 6000 years ago. From Genesis 1:1 it says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. In verse 1:2 it says, And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.. did something happen between the first and second verse? Read in Jeremiah 4:23-27. did God let Jeremiah look into the past? There was no light, there was no man, no life. Is this when Lucifer came down like a shot of lightening? We will have the answers once we get to heaven.
Personally I would have answered in front of millions on CNN that I believed that Adam was 6000 years old and that I wasn’t sure yet about the age of the earth. This is a good topic for Kent Hovind from Pensacola Florida. Have a talk with him!
Further evidence that in the US, political conservatives and religious fundamentalists are so tied together that its near-impossible to seperate the two – to the detriment of both.
Just the fact that liberals and conservatives have both picked sides in a scientific debate is a serious problem, because it *shouldn’t be a political issue*. It should be a simple matter of science: Several theories have been proposed, and its supposed to be up to the qualified professional biologists now to decide which one most closely matches the evidence. But how can those biologists do their work when they have conservatives waging a literal holy war on evolution?
I dont see how ID can be classified as science because it has a great big hole in a vital spot: It very deliberatly doesn’t say anything about the designer. Its very clear who the designer is intended to be, God, making it clearly a religious position. But ID proponents just refuse to admit this for reasons of law and credability.
Sometimes they will mutter something about aliens designing life on earth. But if life here required designing, so must the aliens, which leads to an endless chain of designers.
On abortion: Its emotional blackmail, plain and simple. Also, I notice another unforseen problem… your picture shows a very clear image, and I think it was produced using one of those fancy 4D scanners – nifty things, very clear, very detailed, still quite new. But its so new (and expensive), I would expect most abortion clinics are using the 2D scanners, which show only a slice of womb and are much harder to interpret – without training, its barely possible to see the head.
For comparison, this is an unusually clear 2D scan: http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/ckepler/ultrasound%20of%20new%20baby.jpg
Now, I suspect this may mean that those clinics currently using 2d scanners are going to refuse to upgrade to the clearer images with their greater emotional impact. Those currently using 4d scanners may even dig out their old 2d equipment.
So how old is the Earth. Be honest.