Most violent deaths, post WWII? 1st place is probably the Great Cultural Revolution at 14M. Then, probably Central Africa in the last 5 years at 4+ million. Then we start to have some ties and things: the Korean War 3+ million, the Vietnam War 3 million, Cambodia 2 million, Ethiopia/Eritrea 1.4 million, Afghanistan war(s) 1 million against the soviets, more later, the Chinese Civil War at 1.25 million, Iran-Iraq war 1+ million, etc., etc. The partition of India (currently a big favorite for supporters of the Iraq war as a scare scenario) was about 1 million deaths.

The Great Chinese Cultural Revolution was fought to enforce the principles of dialectic materialism (Hegel), and to improve the revolutionary spirit of the Chinese youth (Mao). Most of the casualties came from pitched battles between the Red Guards and the Southern Command of the Red Army.

I can think of no reasonable argument that either the Partition or the Cultural Revolution had anything whatsoever to do with Buddhist compassion, even in name. The Red Guard were not brought up as Buddhists and had little knowledge of Buddhism, nor were Buddhists the principals in the Partition. Not that Buddhists are angels, just that your "facts" are horsefeathers.

Education of women is a huge force in social change. Money...not so much.

...if Salon would implement an automated system that put a colon and a number after the sign Anonymous so that it read Anonymous:3 for the third email address posting as Anonymous. It's really hard to figure out how many people are writing under the same tag right now.

...appeared on a burning bush.

...appeared on 8 golden plates.

...appeared as cracks on a tortoise shell.

...were seen in chicken entrails.

...were seen holding hands in a dream by Kekule.

...were part of a secret coded message in a plastic ring at the bottom of a CrackerJack box.

Just trying to be helpful.

I didn't know all the Catholic roots of the decision that Frances Kissling brings out, but I read it, and read all of it, and I was appalled. While quoting in full the amicus jurae of the American Conference of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which wrote to oppose the ban, they cite the congressional committees that drafted the bill as the medical authority in favor of the ban, hardly a panel of doctors. I found that deliberately deceptive, and was shocked that Supreme Court judges would do such a thing.

But obviously, if one knew the religious cause that was at stake, they had to write an opinion no matter what lack of facts they had to support it. So much for separation of church and state.

Thank you Ms. Kissling, for your eloquent explanation.

The term partial birth is misleading phony medical terminology, the fact that it shows up in the law and the court decision is more proof that we allow lawyers to practice medicine without a license when we get wound up by unscientific belief.

The delivery of the intact fetus except for the head is into the birth canal, the head remains in the uterus at this point. The problem has always been that the cervix can't sufficiently dilate to allow the fetus to pass intact. This idea that there is a whole "baby" alive and kicking while the head is inside the mother, which is then "killed" is just crap.

The procedure was invented as a way to deal with late term abortions that had to be done, without hurting the woman -- by extensive use of tools and procedures inside the uterus that could result in piercing the uterine wall -- something that can kill a woman.

Oh, and by the way, since it always comes up in these discussions, the words "late term" refer to late 2nd trimester, not late in the whole pregnancy. The commenter that pretended that we all don't know what we're talking about because a 20 week old fetus that is miscarried is some kind of viable birth is talking garbage as well.