Log In | Register
In fact, as Palin's cultural views become better known -- she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples -- she will undoubtedly scare the hell out of the soccer moms and 98% of Hillary voters. In fact, many of these women may feel insulted by this choice in that McCain and the GOP think they are stupid and would bypass their own interest (reproductive and economic) to vote for the ticket due to gender and anger that Hillary was not the nominee.
Palin Opposes Use of Birth Control Pills and Condoms, Even Among Married Couples
Seeded on Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:25 AM EDT
Article Source: politicalwire.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (288)
Great. We're literally talking about someone who holds the same stance on birth control as the Catholic Church. Does she have a geocentric view of the Universe too or has she at least gotten past that particular bit of 12th Century superstition.
- 57 votes
Does she have a geocentric view of the Universe too or has she at least gotten past that particular bit of 12th Century superstition.
Thank you for this Killfile, and for posting the article. This is a cavernous problem for the GOP candidates: It amounts to a view that sex is to be held hostage as a vehicle for procreation.
Let me say that I'm all for procreation: It keeps me from going extinct. But for crying out loud, technology increases the survival rate of offspring, enabling parents to space out their children in order to efficiently manage the huge amount of resources they can expect to dedicate to the children, and increasing the likelihood that the children will themselves be reproductively successful. This is in every way insane.
- 24 votes
It would be nice to see the estimate of population growth given abstinence as the only tool for family planning and the economics of providing for the baby boom.
- 34 votes
Indeed, we are headed to medieval times with her. The irony is she is an Evangelical who are known to HATE Catholics (Blacks and others too), but those abortion hatin' Catholics should know WHO they are voting for beyond the one issue. I'm just hoping that the story going round about the DS baby not being hers, but rather her daughter's, is true! If not, we can only hope they'll find her photos from her dominatirx or lesbian (not that there's anything wrong with that, but would be scandalous to those ppl) phase.
- 12 votes
How do you know this, Jerry-469244?
Any idea of the number of children that would've been aborted by far riskier means, or the number of who that might've died because of that, or the number of children that wouldn't be born because their future mother died? Or the number of children that would've died from being born to those who could not care for their children?
- 28 votes
Murder is a very strong word Jerry! I wouldn't bandy it about so non-chalantly or without forethought!
- 13 votes
jerry-469244
Comment collapsed by the community
Comment collapsed by the communityTo the geocentric question. I think the answer is an obvious YES.
Palin just got her first passport in 2007 after she became govenor.
Her state borders two different countries that she never bothered to go to until her job demanded it.
Geocentric mindset may be an understatement when describing Palin.
- 16 votes
Jerry,
If birth control is murder wouldn't you describe starting a war based on lies in order to steal a nationas natural resources mass murder?
Yet, it sounds as if you plan to support more of the same on that issue.
Why is that?
- 23 votes
Jerry: No, it wouldn't be called a double-homicide. That law hasn't been passed.
The legality of abortion doesn't make much difference, unless you really want to punish the mother with death or imprisonment alongside a bunch of guys.
- 15 votes
Feldspar,
I never said, "birth control", I said abortion.
As far as Iraq is concerned the U.S. has yet to steal a quart of oil from the Iraqis.
Also what, "sounds like", and what reality is are not always the same.
Many years before President Bush took office, Hussein started what he eventually got by not complying with the UN sanctions set forth by the League of Nations.
- 1 vote
Maxwell,
You need to check with your local Police Department. It is simply a term and is called a double homicide, since 2 people were killed. Which does not require a law to be passed to be called that.
Imagine a pregnant woman being shot and both she and her baby a killed. The police would call this a double homicide.
No, they wouldn't. Anti-abortion nuts think the rest of us don't realize what we're doing when a pregnancy is aborted, like when the hold up the signs of dead, mangled fetuses - it's a symptom of total self-righteousness.
- 9 votes
The fetus is not yet recognized as a sovereign person. Only one murder charge can be put forth.
Though, I'm willing to be proven wrong, if you can supply verification of the laws on the matter.
- 8 votes
I know this from research.
What sort of research is that?
- Newsletters from Focus on the Family?
- A hateful tirade from Haggee or Dobson?
- A ten second soundbite from the 700 Club?
- Reading the old testament
- Prayer?
These are the types of research generally cited by anti-choice religious fundamentalists.
- 19 votes
Jerry --
And what would the man who got her pregnant be charged with? What responsiblity should he take? For how long? Or is it strictly the woman's fault in your view?
- 15 votes
Feldspar
1.No I did not get my information from a newsletter and don't even know who Focus on the Family is.
2. I don't know who Haggee is. I have seen Dodson a few times , never did like him.
3. I cant stand the 700 Club
4. I did read the Old Testament about 40 years ago.
5. But yes I do pray.
6. And no I am not a religious fundamentalist.
I did all of my research on the Internet. Ranging from the Federal Government down to sites that were so obviously biased that I ignored them.
All told, the general consensus came out within a range of 46 -50 million.
I did all of my research on the Internet. Ranging from the Federal Government down to sites that were so obviously biased that I ignored them.
Let me guess... you smoked out their bias by discovering information that did not agree with your opinion on the subject?
- 7 votes
. . .she oppose abortion in all cases and opposes the use of birth control pills and condoms even among married couples
This is, of course, a completely unsubstantiated allegation but what the hey it's on the internets so it must be true right?
Or is Time (whose editors have put Barack Obama on its cover seven times this year) just lying:
She is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization. In 2002, she wrote a letter to FFL stating that she had "adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion." She supports the teaching of creationism in public schools, alongside evolution. She is also a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association and supports the constitutional right to bear arms.
Unlike the leftwing blogosphere and its NV contingent, the Obama campaign is wisely not joining in the comically frenzied attempt to defame this woman. Nor is the left-center Center For American Progress who has a link confirming the Time story.
And the Anchorage Daily News, covering Palin's race for governor, has this:
Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.
After a perusal of over 10 pages of a Google search on "Palin contraception" this accusation is based completely on various unsubtantiated comments on message boards and Palin's membership FFL which as an organization doesn't take a stand on contraception. Interesting how these rumors attain something approaching credibility with some on the internet.
- 19 votes
Getting off topic on the tiresome abortion issue folks.
This was a disappointing and brief article. I would like to know the source for her supposed beliefs against any form of birth control for married couples. Heck, even the catholic church says the rhythm method is OK (what is the rhythm method?).
I'm unimpressed with Palin but this seems like the worst kind of bloggery to me: if I say it hopefully people will believe it.
Unless of course a source can be cited.
- 7 votes
Are people comparing condoms to abortions?
Sperm will never mature into babies on their own, just in case some folks aren't aware...
It seems like a pretty far stretch to me to lump condoms, birth control pills, and abortions together. This is where many anti-abortion advocates seem to go really wrong.
- 14 votes
I would call a war started with lies an act of genocide. I don't like abortion, but since I'm a male, it's not my body and not my choice to make. I don't hear those calling it murder raising their voices for those innocents dying in Iraq.
- 8 votes
Dem, the easiest way I can tell you about the 'rhythm method' is this. A woman keeps records of her cycle. The whole cycle is 30 days or so, give or take a few, and individuals are not all alike. Post ' . ' she is usually ok for about 7-10 days(but not always) to have 'unprotected' sex. After that, she should be very careful, the cycle is heading towards the 'fertile' time. month after month after month....like a 'rhythm'.
Women that try to use this method sometimes forget to keep the daily records of thier cycles and temperatures. (indicator of fertility)
Not the most reliable form of BC. Hope this helped.
As for the seed itself, interesting. I still don't trust her.
- 1 vote
Jerry-469244:
But I can tell you that the United States has allowed approximately 50 million babies to be murdered with the advent of legalized abortion.
The US may have saved that many of those women's lives as well.
Do you think abortion didn't happen when it was illegal? Use your head.
It is going to happen whether it's legal or not - especially as the economy tanks. Having it legal makes it safe for women (you know the humans already born, remember them?)
- 16 votes
Thank you Nearing--I've been screaming this for years.
We are NOT going to stop it. Ever. It will happen. If we make it illegal we will just send our daughters back to the alley's and kitchen tables.
The real discussion needs to be on how to prevent the situation, and not arguing what happens to the tooth paste once its out of the tube.
- 11 votes
If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow the matter would simply revert back to the states and I doubt that any state in the Union save maybe for Utah and maybe a couple of others would outlaw abortion. If Roe were overturned, any attempt to outlaw the practice nationally would require passage of a federal law and that's a non-starter as well. There is simply no workable political majority in this country to outlaw abortion nationally.
- 4 votes
If only that were true, there are already plenty of states such as those in the Dakotas who have already outlawed abortions and make it illegal if a girl were to cross state lines in order to get one.
- 3 votes
The US may have saved that many of those women's lives as well.
Right, they may have broken a nail changing diapers.
- 4 votes
jazzman646:
The US may have saved that many of those women's lives as well.
Right, they may have broken a nail changing diapers.
Wow, don't have much regard for the female gender, huh, Jazzman?
- 10 votes
Bill Harrison
If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow the matter would simply revert back to the states and I doubt that any state in the Union save maybe for Utah and maybe a couple of others would outlaw abortion. If Roe were overturned, any attempt to outlaw the practice nationally would require passage of a federal law and that's a non-starter as well. There is simply no workable political majority in this country to outlaw abortion nationally.
It's nice to know that we can always count on Viners to predict the future.
- 5 votes
Do you have something to add that would back up your statement or are you just. . .?
Nonsense. A state cannot outlaw abortion without being in violation of Roe. Nor can it prohibit travel to another state for that purpose which violates a whole slew of federal laws not to mention the Constitution. South Dakota's attempt to do so was repealed in a referendum in 2006 and would have been overturned assuredly by the SCOTUS. A handful of other states have passed "trigger bills" should Roe be overturned but those were essentially meaningless posturing votes knowing that it's cost-free politically so long as Roe's on the books and if it weren't any such bills would most assuredly be tough to pass in anything more than a few states when the politicians actually have to stick their necks out on the issue. Further to the point, the Democrats are likely to maintain control of the Senate for the forseeable future and any SCOTUS nominee would have to pass their litmus test on Roe.
- 3 votes
87% of U.S. counties do not have abortion providers.
Source
Also, thanks to the Hyde Amendment many women in poverty can not have their abortions covered by their health insurance. Only 17 states have such coverage.
Source
It really isn't necessary for some states to bother with such legalities when they can avoid it with side-steps like these.
- 7 votes
The answer to your question would be a tough one to figure out. But I can tell you that the United States has allowed approximately 50 million babies to be murdered with the advent of legalized abortion.
I believe it was Hitchens who said that God is by far the biggest baby killer if you take miscarriages and the like into account.
Oh, and statistically the northern states, in comparison to the typically more religious southern states, actually have a lower rate of abortion among teens and non-teens. They also have a lower rate of teen pregnancy. If there's less babies born to teenager it does mean that said babies will have a better life.
I suppose people like you don't care about whether the child will have a good life or not though. Once the baby comes out they are of no concern to you until they can pay taxes. Funny you care so much about babies before their born, but how often do you volunteer at orphanages, do you try to help the unwanted children find loving families? I bet not. I can admit I don't do those things but I have the decency not to pretend like I care about this supposed sin and don't try tell women what they can do with their bodies.
- 8 votes
Wow, don't have much regard for the female gender, huh, Jazzman?
Yes I do.
I have a lot of regard for those like Palin.
- 3 votes
Abstinence-only is a failed policy, a CDC study finds.
A study by researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on declining birth and pregnancy rates among teenagers concludes that prevention programs should emphasize abstinence and contraception."Both are important," said Dr. John Santelli, the lead author of the study, which has not been published.
In Minnesota, a study found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program. The independent study, commissioned by the state's health department, recommended broadening the program to include more information about contraception.
Quite honestly, I think that conservatives KNOW that abstinence-only doesn't work. They WANT women without much education to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen - creating more ignorant white voters for future generations.
- 11 votes
Anyone who works in public health knows abstinence only education does not work--I'll spare you the details, but the kids are engaging in much riskier behavior because they don't think that counts as "real sex"
- 6 votes
Does she have a geocentric view of the Universe too or has she at least gotten past that particular bit of 12th Century superstition.
One can only wonder.
All I know is in an era when the earth is overcrowded and hurting from supporting all of us, family planning is a very important thing for us to have. Alaska can hold some more people. The majority of the other 49 states are close to bursting.
To say married people shouldn't use birth control is just ignorant. What, are we all supposed to just stop having sex if we can't afford more children? Are we supposed to use the calendar method, which only works well if your cycle is REALLY regular? Or are we all supposed to go on public assistance?
- 2 votes
Sooo, Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock.
That sounds like proof positive that abstinence only education works.
Works to keep young potential conservative women out of college, barefoot and pregnant and voting strait R tickets for the rest of their lives.
- 7 votes
ok, but even as vp, realistically, she can't ban birth control... And I don't see any attempt on her part to do so. I personally believe a lot of things but there are checks and balances and there are certain things that Americans won't stand for. Everyone who does not believe exactly as I do is still entitled to their opinion
BB,
welcome to Killfile's seed style. Poorly researched, and usually a product of yellow media his seeds often smack of supposition, allegations, and unsubstantiated claims by far left talking heads who make claims that, in short order get debunked. I guess the sentiment is that it is our job to make sure the seeds are accurate. I've pondered reporting it as 'no value' given the fact it isn't true
First, it's listed as an opinion piece.
Second, the line is expressed in the source which is a fairly good political blog.
If you've a problem with it, please feel free to debunk it. I welcome that. What you're not welcome to do is toss around general smears against myself in the guise of rebutting the points.
Report it if you like though; doesn't bother me.
- 3 votes
I already debunked your seed... in my own article. No, scratch that. Facts I reserarched and put into an article debunked your seed.
I didn't smear you, I smeared your seed and the style of seeds you generally place up. When you step out into the comment field you're good at holding your own in most cases. it tells me you believe what you write and seed, so you're not 'fake' per se. I'm just of the opinion that this and several other seeds were put up, and find it disingenuous of anyone who puts up a seed without first finding out if their source is accurate. Second, the title is written as though the seed states the opinion as fact, so in a way, you're misleading the audience. Semantics don't separate right or wrong, they separate perception and actuality.
Also, I saw no attempt on your part to stress to anyone who believed the article to be fact that the articel only expressed an opinion from a guest poster on the seed site. So, okay... the argument could be made that you didn't actually mislead, but you were complacent in my opinion.
- 1 vote
Jerry i understand your point but I refuse to allow you or any person on GOD"s green earth to tell me and my husband whether or not I have a choice to do as I please with my life and that of any child I may or may not have. You go to far. That is between myself and MY GOD. If he chooses to punish me for my actions That is his right not yours. I and any woman who decides to have an abortion will be standing at the pearly gates and take that punishment not you. You have no right to tell me what to do with my body and God will decide.
It irritates the hell out of me that you or any pro-life person would try to be GOD over me or any woman. Let him do his job, and quit trying to take it.
That said, I have 4 beautiful kids and would never have had an abortion unless my life was at stake. But that's just my personal feeling. If my daughters wanted one, it is their life and their bodies not my decision to make. My role is to support whatever decision that a woman makes, not try to guilt them into my way of thinking.
- 4 votes
I didn't smear you, I smeared your seed and the style of seeds you generally place up.
"Everything that Shawn says is a lie. His style is false hood, deception, and deceit. Nothing he says is true and you should never trust anything you hear from him."
Now is that an attack on you, or just an attack on what you say? Me, I think it's an attack on you. You've spoken of me in vague generalities and while you maintain that you speak only of my words, you speak also of my character.
And that's bull@!$%#.
Palin's got an abstinence only sex ed record, she's been strongly associated with anti-contraception stances. Now I seeded this article from a fairly reputable source in good faith and sometimes those things turn out to be unsubstantiated.
I'm ok with that and I'm ok with people addressing the source but if you can't do that without attacking me personally then your comment isn't welcome here.
- 4 votes
Some quotes from a recent article (with cartoons) I did about Sarah Palin. (insert evil laugh here)
'Palin is so far to the right that if the Earth were flat, she might fall off the edge...'
'Palin believes global warming is NOT man-made, although she admits CO-2 levels are rising. She points out that people emit carbon dioxide with every breath. So her answer to the problem is:'
'Just say no...' (to breathing)
In one cartoon, Palin is addressing a womens' group. She tells them:
'I favor a return to traditional values for women. Such as sneaking proudly down back alleys if you need an abortion...'
I'll admit it. I can be awful sometimes.
I guess you can tell that I think McCain could have done a lot better.
- 3 votes
associated with anti-contraception stances.
and that's you logic? are you really going to call the kettle black on that? I remember you saying the opposite when right wingers said that Obama had ties to terrorits. You made the case that becuase someone is associated with a group doesn't mean they subscribe to everything they do. FFL isn't anti-contraception and that's her close affiliation.
Now is that an attack on you, or just an attack on what you say? Me, I think it's an attack on you. You've spoken of me in vague generalities and while you maintain that you speak only of my words, you speak also of my character.
I didn't attack you, but I did attack the reliability of your seeds. Its like telling someone their workmanship sucks. I truly believe that the work here was shoddy, and all I've really asked is that you take responsibility for putting the proof behind the claims your seeds, which are an extension of your words - much like an endorsement or a voucher. If you seed things that are repeatedly unsubstantiated or have questionable reliability, then of course you should be called to question on it.
Now I seeded this article from a fairly reputable source in good faith and sometimes those things turn out to be unsubstantiated.
And when you seed an opinion that makes claims that are not substantiated, the responsible person would either not seed it, or check up on the seed to ensure that they have up to date information. Have you done either beyond using her statement of "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." in reference to abstinence to explicit sex ed. Comprehensive sex ed is favorable to both, but that wasn't one of her options.
kILLFILE- She is PRO-CONTRACEPTION, PRO-WOMAN, PRO-LIFE
She has stated that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She's pro-contraception and she's a member of a pro-woman group, and anti-abortion group called Feminist for life.
She opposes abortion, except if the pregnancy can end a woman's life.
This can be found, ON THE ISSUES.
I've really asked is that you take responsibility for putting the proof behind the claims your seeds, which are an extension of your words - much like an endorsement or a voucher.
Ah, ok. I understand now. See, the problem is that despite being a member of Newsvine for some time you've no idea what the seeding system is about. Calvin and I talked about this over the course of the DNC. Allow me to relay his thoughts.
A seed is not an article. It is not the setting forwards of a position, supposition, or assertion by the author. It is a way of saying "I found this and it is interesting and relevant." A seed directs the user to a news story. Nothing more.
Asking me to "support" the suppositions put forward by my seeds suggests that there is no discussion worth having here. If I am to exhaustively research every seed I put up then I may as well not seed at all -- I should publish articles instead. The purpose of a seed is to direct the reader to another story, not claim that story as my own.
Now the community has discussed this and I'd agree that the author's claim that Palin is anti-contraception is probably false, at least insofar as condoms are concerned. (It remains unclear if she endorses the Bush Administration's position that oral contraceptives are tantamount to abortion). What I have defended here, and continue to defend here, is my decision to seed this in the first place. The "vetting" process for my seeds consists of the following criteria, of which these seed matches all:
- Is the claim credulous? The article should not claim something unreasonable or otherwise implausible?
- Is the source reputable? I typically dismiss websites that have a reputation for printing falsehoods
- Is the story interesting to my audience?
Now that doesn't ensure that everything is always perfectly accurate, but it does a pretty damn good job. Look back over my seed history here and tell me how often you find stuff from me that's not true. This seed met all of my criteria and so I put it up. In the discussion that followed we've determined that Palin is probably not as this seed describes, but that's the point of social media and the discussion area.
- 6 votes
I believe it was Hitchens who said that God is by far the biggest baby killer if you take miscarriages and the like into account.
'God' ia also the biggest murderer if you take all life forms on the planets not just a baby killer
- 4 votes
That's because Hitchens has no use for God or anything remotely related to God.
Miscarriages is part of natural biology, not the hand of God. As far as murder, people kill people. Don't blame God—that's a cop-out and a far too easy attempt at denying human capacity for evil.
- 1 vote
Like scam artists, religious extremists and religious impostors cloak themselves in "God" as a rationale or excuse for their behavior. The Roman Catholic church (RCC) did it during the Inquisitions and Crusades, and today militant Muslims are doing the same (though there is more to the Muslim response to the West than meets the eye). During its barbaric acts, the RCC purported it was trying to convert nonbelievers in the name of God, but that also is a veneer covering sheer hunger for power (read: You're under our control or you're dead.)
Any group that goes to war in the name of God is grossly misguided or just flagrant lying power-mongers.
Wait one bloody second Vision coast! since according to all you believers, God controls EVERY THING then it stands to reason that HE is responsible no matter how you slice it!
Joseph,
Here's what I believe. God gave each of us this thing called free will. Do you want your children to love you because they have to or because they want to? I choose the latter, and so does the God in which I believe. This is the basis of free will—we are at liberty to make our own choices and act on them. This freedom is abused in myriad ways, and war is just one of them.
It's so easy to blame God for the things people do. Sure, an omnipotent God could intervene, but in doing so, he'd be upsetting the laws of nature he put in place. And, if he intervened here, why shouldn't he intervene there? Where does the interference with nature end? If intervention is applied across the board, there is no more free will for any of us.
In the end, people need to accept responsibility for their predetermined actions and stop blaming anyone else for what they do, including God. It's time for personal accountability.
- 2 votes
Asking me to "support" the suppositions put forward by my seeds suggests that there is no discussion worth having here. If I am to exhaustively research every seed I put up then I may as well not seed at all -- I should publish articles instead. The purpose of a seed is to direct the reader to another story, not claim that story as my own.
Now the community has discussed this and I'd agree that the author's claim that Palin is anti-contraception is probably false, at least insofar as condoms are concerned. (It remains unclear if she endorses the Bush Administration's position that oral contraceptives are tantamount to abortion). What I have defended here, and continue to defend here, is my decision to seed this in the first place. The "vetting" process for my seeds consists of the following criteria, of which these seed matches all:
1. Is the claim credulous? The article should not claim something unreasonable or otherwise implausible?
2. Is the source reputable? I typically dismiss websites that have a reputation for printing falsehoods
3. Is the story interesting to my audience?Now that doesn't ensure that everything is always perfectly accurate, but it does a pretty damn good job. Look back over my seed history here and tell me how often you find stuff from me that's not true. This seed met all of my criteria and so I put it up. In the discussion that followed we've determined that Palin is probably not as this seed describes, but that's the point of social media and the discussion area.
...okay... if that's how it is looked upon by the community and the staff, I really can't argue with it. I share a different opinion, but that opinion shoudl then be evidenced on my own column. I understand your process a bit better (yet still don't agree). I think we can agree to disagree, but it is your column.
Gee! I'd love to comment, but as of the time of this posting, the article isn't even available!
Not to say she has to put her life on hold but there is more to motherhood than producing babies. After being elected she got pregnant, then hid it. Was told her baby would be born with Downs syndrome (often a result of being an older mom) and she was "confused". Her water broke during a speech in Texas but she finished it then got on a plane and flew back to Alaska. She now has a special needs child but is campaigning and perhaps going to be VP. She is against choice but she is making a lot of choices most moms will not agree with.
- 12 votes
#2 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:03 AM EDTThat's why it's called choice. Not everyone needs to agree.
- 12 votes
What nearly all parents can agree is that any infant makes special demands on you that are so draining that it impossible to be at 100% on the job. When a baby spikes a fever in the middle of the night parents are toasted out. High office requires some distance from every other commitment. That's how 24/7 jobs go, you have one.
- 13 votes
My thoughts...when your water breaks, it's a mess. I mean, you're leaking for god's sake.
Giving birth is the easy part. Infants need the maternal bond to develop optimally, especially for that first year. Is this some great role model for women? Push out the babe and rush off to work. Not in my book, and not in my experience working with troubled kids. Children are precious, priceless, real live human beings who need nurturing. The neurology of mother and child is hard wired for optimal growth. The infant develops in relationship and that first important relationship is with the mother. It is sad commentary today that so many women are forced to leave their infants for jobs in those first weeks of birth..although many are fortunate to get a month of maternity leave. For some it is economic survival. To leave your infant by choice for some personal power is unconscionable and speaks to the hypocrisy of those who proclaim to value life over choice. Life is about nurturing and emotional support in the early years. Why have a child if you have no intent of parenting to the very best of your ability.
- 16 votes
I believe all of this should be unrelated when assessing her aptitude as a Vice Presidential candidate.
However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I do have an opinion on this matter. As much as males can do almost everything females can do in regards to nurturing a child, it has still be proven under many scientific studies that infants suffer from a mother who is MIA often thanks to their profession. This infant is no average baby - it has special needs and therefore that statement is applied 10 fold. I'm of the opinion that this is not the time for Palin to be making such large career choices that will eat up 99% of her time that should be dedicated to her child. The father will be the stay-at-home caregiver and it's disturbing to me feeling that this child will not receive all of the proper attention it needs for it's growth, development.
- 9 votes
If you want to have five kids then keep you self home to love them. Don't care what you say, she is not wonderwoman and her absence is screwing those kids lives up forever. He nanny will become mom and she will go through a few of them because her kids will calling them mom instead of her. You don't just drop the load and move on. I would rather have a lion for a mother than her.
- 5 votes
As a product of an unwanted pregnancy where my mother eventually did relinquish me over to be cared for by relatives years later, AFTER being on welfare and housing assistance and AFTER having me endure neglect during my earlier years (which resulted in a court battle for custody among my relatives), I just can't understand the anti-abortion, everyone-must-have-the child argument. You do realize that we "babies" (which fundamentalist love to depict as mangled fetuses on signs) do grow up to become bonafide persons, adults, and parents of another generation? You might try forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to full-term, but you can't make the mother love her child. And you can't ensure that she takes proper care of that child.
I say quality of life is the most important factor here. Without that, what's the point? You're just mindlessly "breeding" a new generation of screwed up individuals, many of whom will just carry on that dysfunctional legacy.
Lucky for the world, I've chosen not to have kids of my own and AM on birth control pills. You're welcome.
- 13 votes
I agree completely. She should be bonding with her special needs child. The child has a tough road ahead and during this time in his life he needs to be close to his mother. I have no respect for a woman that will put running for VP before a special needs baby or even a healthy baby.
We know the Mc is not going to give her any important duties. Rove is the one that picked her.
- 4 votes
wakemenow, bless you.
I hope things are well for you now.
I say in times of trouble, the old 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger', and I believe you are stronger for it. Do you know what became of your mom? I understand if you didn't want to know. I wouldn't.
As an adult you do have your own choices and I salute you. Two votes if I could give them to you....take care.
- 2 votes
Actually, her water broke at 4:30a on the day of that speech. She was 7 months pregnant, carrying a child with Down's Syndrome, and instead of going immediately to the hospital as is recommended on every medical site I've visited...(Google PROM-Premature Rupture of Membrane)...she boarded a plane...arriving in Alaska 8 hours later. She went back to work 3 days later, even though a premature Down's Syndrome baby should have been in ICU with many serious complications. Either it was totally irresponsible, or there's a story here that we have yet to learn.
- 6 votes
I was appalled to see the baby on the podium when Mc Cain introduced her. No 4 month old preemie belongs in such a public situation, let alone on with special needs. That the baby was trotted out to make a pretty picture just underscores the purpose of this nomination - voter manuplation and nothing more.
- 8 votes
she is going for that sympathy vote.
And only among people who think they can relate, but don't know the first thing about motherhood.
- 1 vote
Jack are you saying I was a bad mother?
Because my daughter is an intelligent, hard working, tax paying citizen, and a beautiful young woman. Not a bad result for a 'bad mother'. If this is an example of bad motherhood, I'll take it as a compliment.
- 2 votes
I agree...Palin will pull in the "symapathy vote" and not just from women who "know nothing of motherhood." In fact, there are a lot of women out there who have wound up having children at an early age and faced all the barriers that can go along with that. Our criticism of Palin likely will be taken personally by the conservative women out there who do identify at least in part with her story, particularly the conservative feminist voters.
Here's an article that discusses just how "smart" selecting Palin as the Republican running mate may turn out to be:
http://www.alternet.org/story/97193/
- 1 vote
Kill,
As usual, a great seed. One wonders if she was vetted at all. Some of her positions, and particularly those you highlighted above, seem more at home in the 1950s than in the 21st century. Just another reason why a vote for McCain is a vote to set women back fifty years.
- 19 votes
#3 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:50 AM EDTHer vetting process is right here.
No doubt that's about as deep as it went.
- 1 vote
She is entitled, personally, to oppose anything she wants to, but, like others, would impose her beliefs on everyone else. Why can't the republicans 'get out of the bedroom' and concentrate on the real issues facing this country? Divisive to be sure and probably the reason it's done.
Since she evidently favors no artificial methods of birth control, it appears that having a tubal ligation or vasectomy would be wrong, too, in her narrow way of thinking. Is it the fact that taxpayer money might pay for these services or operations? I find it hard to believe that she and others are truly concerned about the immortal souls of each and every American. I guess, when at the pearly gates, I'd rather fess-up to advocating or using birth control than to ignoring the plight of children brought into this world by those who don't want or can't properly take care of them. Contraception = fewer abortions? There is no choice - it's her (their) way or no way at all.
- 18 votes
#4 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:00 AM EDTI got this out of an raggedy document labeled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" written in July of 1776... probable way outdated by now...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
- 7 votes
#5 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:23 AM EDTThis was in reference to the Colonies being ruled by Princes, Lords, and Masters. In other words Despots. Where is the argument for or against abortion? Do you suggest the government be overthrown because of abortion. The writers were describing the conditions under which they were being governed and stating the right to revolt and free themselves from the despotism of the Lords and King of England.
Sounds like a description of Bush and his would-be successor(s).....
- 2 votes
the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion (from the treaty with tripoli written by George Washington)
- 2 votes
She probably also believes that intercourse, I'm mean lovemaking between a husband and wife, should only be preformed in the missionary position. Because we all know that any other position or even thought would be immoral and should be illegal. IDIOT!
- 12 votes
#6 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:24 AM EDTNo, no, no---she has had intercourse five times. So she is an expert in at least five positions !!
- 3 votes
and they are:
1) Under the covers, no lights
2) Under the covers, lights
3) No covers, no lights
4) No covers, lights
5) on the kitchen table
- 2 votes
The delivery of this woman's 5th pregnancy shows that she has very poor judgement. Knowingly expecting a child with downs, her water breaks prematurely, yet she seeks no medical help. Instead, she gives a speech and then she spends at least 8 hours in the air flying to Alaska - leaving Dallas which has some of the best neonatal facilities in the nation. Since she'd given birth before, surely she knows that subsequent births, premature births are fast and more unpredictable labors than term births. This woman endangered her self and her child for what, so the kid could be born in Alaska? What sense does that make? It doesn't.
No wonder there are rumors that the kid might actually belong to her daughter. Nobody can believe she is that stupid.
- 19 votes
#7 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:49 AM EDTAllen Girl, I hadn't yet heard this story. Where did you get this information? If it is true, then it show some pretty poor judgment on her part.
- 2 votes
Because Evangelical/Fundamentalist are all nutcases! with such a tenuos grasp on reality that they must create their own reality!
- 3 votes
I question that myself, first of all unless she was on a private plane the airlines will not take a pregnant woman over 7 months pregnant at the most 8 months, if your water breaks you go to a hospital not take a 6 or 7 hour flight. And no mother goes back to work 3 days after giving birth least of all with a child that has special needs, this story makes no sense. I am starting to believe the rumor that it is her daughters child.
I've had two children the first one took 13 hours labor, but the second one was 4 hours,
this story has a few holes in it for sure.
- 4 votes
Haven't you heard of the pioneer spirit, build a cabin, break new ground, scrub the laundry, cook the meal, clean the dishes and table, service the husband, and feed the baby. They're tougher from Alaska.
I agree, as a pregnant woman there is a lot of info thrown at you from the medical professionals, and by the 5th one she should have known the book. I know that when I was pregnant, I was one with a 'dangerous' pregnancy and they tell you all kinds of stuff. And monitor you. Was in Dr.s office at least once at least once a week. It was me, not the kid that they were worried about.
After the water breaks, you only have a few HOURS (24 or less) to deliver, otherwise infection starts to set in and that causes trouble. You are encouraged to get to the nearest hospital from where ever you are.
Travel is discouraged in the last few months and the airlines in particular want a DR.'S note (I am serious-its a litigation issue)
If this was a 'dangerous' pregnancy, she wouldn't be so far from home, so late in the pregnancy. Dr.'s would be in a highly questionable malpractice position if they allowed her to take this trip so late in the pregnancy.
No, this is too fishy.
Besides, was she trying to get pregnant during her campaign for governor to get the sympathy vote and missed her timing? Becoming pregnant after she won. Just my thoughts now, just thinking out-loud.
- 2 votes
I've been saying the same thing--there is more to the story.
I know for a fact, Airlines are very picky about flying late term women, or newborns.
I'm not accusing her of anything--I just think there is more to the story.
- 1 vote
I read where she said, "I will not allow my child to be born a Texan". What does that say for her health concerns not the least of what she thinks of mainland America?
- 2 votes
Actually, here's another little tidbit that has me wondering if the rumors are true: her daughter was pulled from school for mononucleosis. The infection period for this disease is about 3 months and yet the daughter was pulled for a total of 8.
Again, I don't KNOW if these rumors are true or not- I really, really don't! And frankly, even if they ARE, I'm not even sure how much of a difference that even makes to me anyway, but I do have to admit that I am seriously beginning to wonder.
- 1 vote
Maybe McCain should have talked to her more than twice before picking her as the second most powerful person in the nation.
- 7 votes
#8 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:03 AM EDTPerhaps McCain did more than talk with her two times, perhaps we "mis-understood" what he meant when he "tapped" her for VP?
- 3 votes
When Fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross! Who would have thought that it would come from the great white north-west?
- 10 votes
#9 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:31 AM EDTEVERYBODY, have a movie night very very soon and show this movie. Have a serious discussion after. It is a must see.....
- 2 votes
Women, spread the word about THIS woman. If they get in, and he croaks, she's your prez. SCARY
Live and let live - vote Democrat.
- 13 votes
#10 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:37 AM EDTOr "third party" if you want protection of reproductive rights AND an end to the corporatocracy all in one. ;)
- 1 vote
Nope. Sorry, I think I'd rather take my chances with her, than with a candidate with ties to a known terrorist.
- 2 votes
Yea, McCain's ties to Blackwater are a little nerve-wracking aren't they
- 3 votes
a known terrorist
Singular. As in Ayers. Or do we just conveniently ignore that part of Obama so that he fits the image of the perfect candidate.
- 3 votes
Fundamentalists are all nutcases? And we are narrow minded? I may disagree with you, but you seem more intelligent than to really believe that.
As for Sarah Palin... is this the best argument out there ? As VP what will she do, outlaw the manufacturing of condoms? I guess we will add them to the endangered species list, along with light bulbs.
- 2 votes
#11 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:47 AM EDTThere's a point.
You seem to be missing it.
Perhaps you should reread it, without allowing some of the more colorful comments to tinge your perception of the article itself.
- 4 votes
boogie.. how old is mccain?
have you ever in your life heard of someone his age havign debilitating problems?
- 5 votes
You can call Christians nutcases if you want to but the Bible is a blueprint on how to live and when you do not follow it well all kinds of sad things happen it is called sin! If people waited to have sex until they were married it would take care of a lot of the budget we spend on welfare, if men really worked & supported their families it would cut down on welfare, if politicians really had our best interest at heart this country would not be in such a mess but the reality is people put money & pleasure ahead of doing what is right - it all started with Adam & Eve and it will not end until Jesus comes back and makes things right. I may not be a rocket scientist but I know right from wrong and it is wrong to not give an unborn child a chance to life not to mention the emotional toll it takes on the woman having the abortion - some women after an abortion are never emotionally stable & why is that ? Say whatever you want but these unborn children have rights & if we do not stand up for them who will - people who consider them an inconvience or an accident, no they will not stand up for them, but people who are truelly Christians will stand up for the unborn - God did not give us the ability to create life just so we could get rid of it if it is not convienent - we need to teach our childlren to wait to have sex, that sex outside of marriage is not only a sin but a huge risk - it could take their lives if they become infected with the aids virus. How many problems do we have to deal with before we realize that we need to teach & be an example to young people to wait to have a physical relationship when they are married - wake up America - the lose morals are causing havoc in more ways than one!
Ooops, I forgot, as a fundamentalist, I am obviously too ignorant to grasp the point. Thank you for sharing the truth with me.
#12 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:54 AM EDTWhat? This is a legitimate issue. Her positions, put into action, would greatly increase the number of unwanted pregnancies.
And for what it's worth, I haven't said anything derogatory about fundamentalists.
- 2 votes
For the sake of the argument, you may be right about that, but I am dubious of her ability to put anything of that nature into action without the will of the people behind her.
- 1 vote
If the past eight years are any indication, the will of the people isn't really all that necessary, nor is it dependable when you consider how willing the system is to disseminate false information.
- 4 votes
um supreme court nominees
um bush has shown the will of the ppeople doesn't matter.
plsu he has signed executive orders like she would is mccain collapsed and she took the riens
One of bush's ecent orders makes it legal for health care workers to not only refuse to provide legal perscripions llike o the morning after pill but doctors are allowed to withhold information about options you may have due to their relgious beliefs..
sorry boogie but bush's presidential order,. proves are fears are founded and totally destorys your arguement. and notice I havent gotten tot he supreme court nominees yet.
oh yeha bush also had our national parks carry young earth literature.
- 5 votes
What? This is a legitimate issue. Her positions, put into action, would greatly increase the number of unwanted pregnancies
well if don't want to get pregnant don't @!$%#ing have sex...simple as that. The problem today is that people are scared to accept responsbility
- 1 vote
Sex need not be automatically equated with wanting pregnancy, mars. People have been attempting non-baby-producing sex for thousands of years. It's not like we suddenly faced this predicament in the 20th century.
It's very arrogant to assume that sex serves only a procreative function. Plenty of us out here disagree and have a right to do with our own bodies as we see fit, including accessing birth control/barrier options to enjoy sex without the threat of bringing another being into this world. What would human intimacy be reduced to if all lovemaking were expressly reduced to nothing more than baby-making? Not a world I'd personally care to live in.
- 5 votes
Palin has been in at least 5 positions, if she and McCain are elected, she will be in position to do it ti Us!!!
- 1 vote
mars, who has to accept responsibility? Just get your mommy to pretend it's hers.
well if don't want to get pregnant don't @!$%#ing have sex...simple as that. The problem today is that people are scared to accept responsbility
A bit of a closed minded view on sex, IMO.
I'm sure you've never considered sex without thinking of the "what if she were to get pregnant" question though, you're pure and all that.
- 3 votes
This is probably the twelfth thread on Palin I've read so far that criticizes some of her more "colorful" judgement calls. In every single one of them, someone gets bold and asks, "Is this the only argument you dems/libs/worshipers of Satan/puppy kickers have?"
This being one of multiple threads citing her many stances on the wrong side of several issues should make anyone nervous. I encourage someone to create a thread detailing her more bizarre stances on the issues...it will keep the "Is that the only argument..." people well in check and make them resort to insulting Obama as their rebuttal (and we all know they do that when they have nothing to say).
- 12 votes
#13 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:57 AM EDTMe? I'm still very much a novice on newsvine at everything other than a post here and there. I'm sure a post on Palin's stances on the issues and the investigations she is currently under for can be better articulated by others.
I will say, your post helps establish the point that you don't need to read an article on her stances...that, or it establishes the point that you won't read an article on her stances. I'll go down a brief list:
1. Is against a woman's right to choose, and on top of it, anti-birth control (unless you count pulling out...which smart people don't)
2. Is anti-gun control despite the fact that more people die of gun-violence in this country than any other in the world
3. Is in support of drilling in ANWR
4. Has no foreign policy experience
5. Has little experience in politics
6. Merely holds a degree in journalism
7. Is far right wing, running with another right wing candidate...guess who's policies they'll be enforcing?
There are 7 talking points for you...if you wish to offer a rebuttal for them I'll allow you to do so and continue our little dialogue. You may not, however, mention Obama until you've successfully countered all 7 arguments. I will gladly reciprocate if you wish to offer your own list on Obama after you've written on Palin. Anything to the contrary will be received as avoidance.
- 12 votes
So wait, we shouldn't judge people on what they say and want done? So just give Palin a by for things?
. . . Yeah, I'm sure newsvine will get right on that.
- 3 votes
Evangelicalists/funDAmentalists, are they people who believe snakes TALK, seas part, A person can walk on water and come back from the dead? That our earth is only 6,000 years old etc. ? I know when I stopped believing in santa claus, Evan/ F's tried make me also believe in these illogical events. Believe .Have faith. They say. In what ? more BS. I was born in 1935. Had enough BS fantasy theology from them to last me another life time.
These are the same people who want to bring a fetus to life, but have NO qualms about sending thousands of our young men to their deaths.
Whatever happened to the separation of government and religion ?
The GOP forsakes that, for votes.
- 11 votes
#14 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:26 PM EDTDaSunbum--you make too much sense to have been born in 1935 !!! It isn't separation of 'government and religion'---it is 'separation of church and state'. I am all for everyone having their own religion (faith-that is, unsubstantiated belief in something). It is just that churches go out of their way to propagate their 'fantasy theology'. Wish they had some proof, probably would help with the theology. Anyway, major problem with the GOP is that they continue this fantasy. They don't seem to realize that continuing this pursuit of 'precious life' will result in extreme overpopulation and massive starvation; let alone using up all the world's fossil fuels in the process. Lets hope that real women see the fallaciousness of McCain's choice and vote accordingly !!
- 7 votes
That's insulting. I'm agnostic or whatever and I find that insulting
- 1 vote
Actually, I'd say that "separation of government and religion" is a pretty accurate way of characterizing "separation of church and state."
That's insulting. I'm agnostic or whatever and I find that insulting
I assume you're referring to "fantasy theology." Feel free to actually make a cogent argument against such a characterization.
Unless someone has initiated a state religion, I would say it still and hopefully always will exist. I will vote for a candidate based on values. I will never trust someone who proclaims he or she is religious.
- 3 votes
#15 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:35 PM EDTValues I can see...however many people cannot distinguish the line between values and religious beliefs. This is an ongoing problem and almost always keeps the argument on the separation of church and state on the front lines of any election.
It's unfortunate...
- 6 votes
I suppose that their view is get married young because you'll probably have to, continue to have children until you are forced to leach large quantities of money off the government and still barely get by. Then tell people the government should stop giving hand outs and that the teenagers having sex are morally incomprehensible.
- 12 votes
#16 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:47 PM EDTI just read she was catholic till twelve,that explains her view on planned parenthood .
She was infected with that cults belief at a young and impressionable age.
That's a hard cult to leave. They blow your mind away at a very young age.I know the same happened to me.
- 7 votes
#18 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:29 PM EDTBTW, if Bush and McCain are so anti-abortion, why didn't they so much as notice the CRIME Saakashvili the Georgian Hero did? Not so long ago when his wife was pregnant, his mistress (at the same time his press secretary Alana Gagloeva) got pregnant from him too. Facing divorce threatened by his wife, he made his mistress make an abortion when she was on the 7th month of pregnancy, which is against the law in Georgia (as I prsume in all normal countries). The baby died of course. The face was saved - or was it? Son-of-a-bitch, but "our son-of-a-bitch " again?
- 2 votes
#19 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:58 PM EDTWell, well...she has managed to get my 14yo son interested in politics, something I've tried to do for years.
No, it is not her looks, it her anti condom stance. Some of you may recall my son has a "booming" business at school--yes selling condoms. He got started early in 8th grade when he was disgusted by having 2 pregnant class mates. I've told him since he was 7ish--No Glove, No Love...guess the message took?
He is particularly offended because we just went to Sam's club yesterday to buy the warehouse sized box of condoms. Did pretty good too, he managed to get his cost down to about 23 cents a condom, and can still sell them for a buck each. Pretty good mark up rate. You should have seen the look on peoples faces though, while we were waiting in the checkout line--considering that is all we were buying.
These kids that buy the condoms could get them for free from the school nurse (oddly progressive for Texas) but they are too embarrassed to ask, so it makes total sense that the kids would be more comfortable asking a peer.
You don't have to be partisan to know teens are going to experiment with sex. Always have, always will.
He's really mad at Palin--not only is it stupid he said, how dare she cut into his business. At least he is not watching politics and reading about candidates, she made him mad enough to get involved.
Being anti birth control is just having your head stuck in the sand about human nature. So what, would she increase the funding for HIV treatment because they did not practice safe sex? Oh--right, they should just not have sex. Like that is going to happen.
- 12 votes
#20 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:13 PM EDTGreat story about your son. I'm surprised the school admin. hasn't put the smackdown on his business. Like equating it with selling illicit drugs, or some such nonsense.
- 3 votes
njb, a great big KUDOs to your son.
NOW that is the great american dream, a sucessful business.
I am not being sarcastic.
I applaud his initiative. He is earning his own money, learning valuable business lessons of supply and demand, expenses and profit. KUDOS. And now, politics.
What a great lesson for him.
Keep us informed of his progress.
Let him know that I am proud of him from the great state of California!!! whoo whoo
- 3 votes
Actually, he did get called into the office over his 'business'....seemed he sold a condom to a 6th grader, who then blew it up in class, (they make great balloons too). The parents were out raged their child had a condom, so the kid was only too happy to snitch my kid off.
Fortunately, for him, the principal, was both experienced and wise. He just laughed about it, explained to the parents the child could have gotten a condom for free for the asking, but would talk to the student selling them about not disrupting class. The parents, having such wonderful communication with their child, had no idea condoms were available from the nurse, just for the asking.
The principal, just shook my boys hand and asked him to please not engage in business during class--but told him to keep up the good work. I'm thinking he is tired of pregnant 8th graders himself.
- 4 votes
Killfile - Great seed, as usual! The issue of her opposition to ALL birth control, even by married couples, could be the only thing that will stop the freight train of support that is starting to build for her among even conservative leaning Independents.
It is, unfortunate, that we can't seem to get beyond these personal kinds of social issues. As far as I am concerned government shouldn't be 'hiding under our beds' in the first place, and we should be discussing the real issues that ARE government's business, but those things take more than just gut responses.
I fear all we will hear in the MSM will be how she is a 'maverick' and a 'reformer' with no one asking what kind of 'maverick' - does this mean outlawing abortion and all birth control, requiring the teaching of Creationism as an alternative to science in our schools? Does her vision of 'reform' mean ever more drilling, ever more tax cuts for the rich, continued denial of Global Warming, and a never ending war on a global scale, etc.?
Sounds like more of the same on steroids (in this case a strong dose of estrogen) to me.
- 3 votes
#21 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:22 PM EDTIt is, unfortunate, that we can't seem to get beyond these personal kinds of social issues. As far as I am concerned government shouldn't be 'hiding under our beds' in the first place, and we should be discussing the real issues that ARE government's business, but those things take more than just gut responses.
Right on greengal, this is all fine to discuss, but I hope people will vote to have less government - less government is a blessing, wherever we can cut the fat.
Can you point to a quote of hers about birth control/condoms? Something specific. This article didn't have any actual quote of hers.
greenguy - There are numerous sources and public statements that Mrs. Palin has made on abortion and birth conrol, and they all seem to indicate that she is anti-abortion and pro-contraception. However, in those statements she almost always refers to her active membership in an organization called Feminists For Life (FFL), and her strong support for their views on these issues.
The key phrase seems to be what they consider to be abortifacients which they define very broadly as any artificial birth control.
When you look at their statements - these are from their website, you come away with the distinct impression that their view of birth control is not what the vast majority of people would see as birth control at all. Most would call it the rhythm method others would simply call it the 'breeders club'. Otherwise, it is 'just say NO!' from what I can tell.
Hope this sheds some light.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is Feminists for Life's position on contraception?
Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception.
FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.
In the time of the early American feminists, sex between married couples was not always consensual....
In order to affirm women's rights within marriage, most feminist foremothers promoted "voluntary motherhood," whereby women would have the education and right to fully participate in the decision to have sexual relations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you're getting your information from this page - and it appears you are - you have unfairly left out THE key passage.
Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission.
So, you're right in that they are definitely open to the banning of contraception, which is a deeply extremist idea. But they clearly state that they do not have an official position on contraception. The statement implying that rape was rampant among married couples "in the time of the early American feminists" no doubt is grounded in fact but isn't relevant to the issue of contraception.
Also, your research has led me to conclude that TIME Magazine owes us a correction and apology. They wrote -
She is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization.
Not true. Also, they kinda sugarcoat her beliefs by saying she supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution; she does this because she explicitly rejects evolution.
Its a good post. As you noted, TIME has no reason to think that Feminists For Life is pro-contraception. I'd expand that to say that we just don't know if Palin supports contraception or not - she has never been quoted on the matter, from what I read. Until someone asks her and she answers, I'm not going to guess either.
You're also right that its unwise for liberals to just attack her on these things.
greenguy - 'you have unfairly left out THE key passage. '
'Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission'
Perhaps you are right, but this wasn't an effort on my part to be 'unfair'. I read the statement, and thought ok - they don't take a position on these issues, but when I continued to read the mission statements which followed they seemed to contradict the statement you quote. Therefore, I couldn't really accept the statement at face value or take it seriously.
I didn't include the phrase regarding marital rape because I agree that it doesn't directly relate to the contraception issue. I included the statement regarding 'voluntary motherhood' because I think it speaks volumes - '....whereby women would have the education and right to fully participate in the decision to have sexual relations...' The epitome of 'just say NO' !
I also agree that both the articles from Time and the one from policalwire.com are somewhat misleading. In one case Mrs. Palin is portrayed as being pro-contraception and the other extrapolates from her support of FFL and other ultra-conservative Christian organizations that she is against all forms of contraception - except for 'natural' methods. IMHO, I think the later is closer to reality, but I am willing to hear her out.
As I stated in my original post, I would like to keep the government out of the bedroom PERIOD. Then I wouldn't care what Mrs. Palin's views are on the subject, and maybe we could all focus on the real issues.
Yea. In any case, I'd like to hear her say what exactly her views on contraception are. I think she was also unfairly portrayed as having tolerance for gays. Glenn Reynolds' first reaction was -
Is she too liberal on gay rights? Not for me, but maybe for some people.
David Brooks is peddling this crap too.
On the Bridge to Nowhere, she was for it before she became "against" it. On gays, she was and still is against granting benefits to same-sex couples, only that the Supreme Court of the state already ruled that any such law would have been illegal so her vetoing of such a bill was merely common sense.
Commentators just love a good, romantic narrative. I'd point to Alan Wolfe of The New Republic, an "expert" on religion in America, no doubt.
Commentators who once knew little or nothing about religion now know that there are such things as evangelicals and that there are a lot of them in this country. But they have yet to grasp that, because there are many, there are also many different kinds.
You see, you simpletons don't know the difference b/w Southern and Western evangelicals. Let me explain -
Sarah Palin named two of her children after witches, once took drugs, and refused to sign a bill forbidding domestic benefits for gay couples. Any one of these--especially the first--would raise suspicion in the eyes of a traditional Southern Baptist
So, there you go, commentary from TNR. She likes weird names, at one (and apparently only one) point had a joint, and refused to sign a law that would have been overturned by the Supreme Court of her state anyway.
Real libertarian.
- 2 votes
If someone is gonna be this unsafe with their own body, I don't think I want them running the nation.
- 8 votes
#22 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:26 PM EDTMORE THAN HAPPY
I'm not nuts. I simply don't believe in abortion.
And being, "self-rightious", is so far off of my personality it doesn't make sense.
- 2 votes
#23 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:48 PM EDTI don't believe in having an abortion but, that is my choice my standards. Who am I to push my standards onto someone else? It is my body and christ I am concerned with, not someone else's. They will reap what they sow. Their choice not mine.
- 7 votes
jerry-469244:
I'm not nuts. I simply don't believe in abortion.
Then don't have one.
- 4 votes
Surely you can do better than that.
Perhaps he's just saying that what some people do with their bodies shouldn't affect you. My stance on abortion is I wouldn't want my girlfriend/wife/sister/third-cousin-twice-removed getting one and I would lay out my reasons for them to consider, but the way to stop them is not to make them illegal or anything. Then they just pull out the clothes hanger.
- 2 votes
jerry-469244:
nearing
Surely you can do better than that.
You are late.
See #1.30
- 2 votes
nearing
your sarcasm certainly precludes your ability to say something worthwhile.
- 1 vote
Sure, jerry, attack me personally so you can avoid the actual discussion.
Shows what you've got.
- 1 vote
nearing I was not attacking you. I was merely being as sarcastic as you have been to me.
I apologize.
Maxwell
You may recall the Scott Petterson case in California a few years ago. He was charged with double homicide for killing his wife and unborn baby.
- 1 vote
#24 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:15 PM EDTJerry,
I agree that it seems a bit of a 'double standard' that if a woman wants a baby and that babies life is taken through violence, be it by getting beaten and kicked in the stomach area, both being killed with a weapon or beating, etc than the law stands by that the murderer should pay for the death of both the mother and the unborn child. However, with abortion, still considered a 'medical treatment' it is not considered murder any more than having to use a Durable Power of Attorney to end the life of a loved one that is on machines to keep them "alive." IF you decide to continue to keep that loved one on the machines, knowing they have no hope of real "life" again, I think that is more hideous than "pulling the plug." Women/girls that have gotten pregnant and have no way to take care of the baby and for some reason adoption is not practical, than aborting the fetus is an option that has to be considered. The life of the baby is not "life" if the it is locked in a closet, thrown in a dumpster, left in a shallow grave to suffer and eventually die or be raised by a "drug addict" that can't control her own life much less take care of a babies needs. NO that is not life! A 12 or 13 year old that has been gang raped or raped by a family member, should not have to face the life sentence of raising a baby, when they are but a baby themselves. Taking a baby to full-term is traumatic and has some negative effects on a young body and so again, abortion is sometimes the best option! There are always consequences with abortions and that has to be discussed with the woman and hopefully a parent/trusted friend. Abortions are very painful, bloody, traumatic and can lead to death, sterilization, recurring nightmares, "absent child" syndrome and many other unpleasant experiences. Please don't think that women just go out and get pregnant and use abortion as a regular form of "birth control", because it is the most dangerous form out there.
Abortion=murder, no, it shouldn't be that. Abortion=another opportunity, a choice to made by those that have to face the consequences. These facts are best handled one-on-one with those affected, not by lawyers and judges that have no direct consequence.
- 1 vote
#25 - Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:58 PM EDTIf that's a double standard, its also a double standard to allow women to legally have rough sex if they choose to do so but to make it illegal for men to rape them. Again, that whole choice thing. I'm not going to argue abortion; this is one issue where people take one of two positions, feel very passionately about that position and aren't going to alter their stance. But I don't think its the same thing as someone else violently ending the woman's pregnancy against her will.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
