Palin's Abortion Stance

[Not Amused]

It appears to me that few of the posters here are really concerned with the ethical/moral pro's and cons of abortion........more interested in using Palin's belief systems as a political tool.

Obamanation.

I have to say I found your post re: bird eggs interesting, you used an argument against I myself had not ever considered, or seen put forward by anyone before.

You made a valid point I feel, perspective wise.

Personally I am rather hypocritical in my stance on abortion, as I only find it unacceptable after the first trimester. I do feel though, that in too many cases in the western world, abortion is used as a form of contraception.

That is completely inexcusable to my mind, as the success rate of the various contraceptive methods now available means that apart from the accepted percentages re: small failure rate, there is no real excuse for falling pregnant.

 

[GOP(JT)]

I'm no doctor and I haven't done a whole lot of research so I have to ask, is it possible to transplant a baby? If so, couldn't you kind of "put it up for adoption" or whatever you want to call it. Just an idea. Personally, I think abortion should only be allowed following a conviction in a rape or incest case (for the victim obviously), but deffinitely not if there was any indication of consent i.e. consensual statutory rape. If a girl is old enough to be pregnant, she's old enough to know what is and isn't appropriate and if she's dumb enough to go get herself knocked up, I don't see why she should be released from the consequences... but that's the liberal way isn't it? irresponsibility for one's actions

 

[top gun]

The abortion issue is a very personal issue. But it's the woman's decision all the way up to viability. In no case can someone be legally compelled to donate their body for something or someone else's use against their will. And the government is in no position to put women totally against their will in a situation to be forced government incubators.

Making abortion illegal doesn't in any way stop abortion. It only risks the life of the woman. The cold hard fact is you cannot force a woman to carry a child to term if she doesn't want to. She'll find a way be it a much more unsafe way to abort if that's what she wants.

Once you pass the "viability" point (where the baby could medically survive on it's own outside the womb without the mothers assistance/body) that's the line where the abortion choice should and does now stop. This of course is except for the life of the mother or serious birth defect.

Pro-Choice doesn't mean Pro-Abortion. Nobody is pushing abortions and nobody is ever legally forced or coerced into having one. The burden is totally 100% on the woman involved and that's where the choice should (and in reality will always) remain.

The goal should be the best sex education and birth control available along with the good (but most often not followed) advice of abstinence to non-adults.

 

[Agnapostate]

Do you mean non-legal adults or non-biological adults?

At any rate, it is difficult for right-wingers to deny that Palin's stance on these two issues forms a logical inconsisteny without resorting to unwarranted speciesism.

 

[Pandora]

Same issue raised above about species membership. And do you automatically assume that sexual rape of a child is worse than that of an adult? I disagree that the conventional rape of a child is worse than the conventional rape of an adult. While rape is a heinous violation of one's right to self-governance and bodily sovereignty, I believe it to be a natural biological act. This does not mean that it is acceptable, of course. To assert that it is would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Because of this, women of reproductive age experience more emotional and psychological trauma after forced sexual intercourse than do children or post-menopausal women: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...1992-09511-001

Children typically do not regard forced sexual intercourse as any more brutal or traumatizing than other forms of assault. Nor should they. Nor should anyone, frankly. What should make you feel worse: for someone to assault you because they feel sexually aroused by you, or for someone to assault you because they hold malevolent feelings towards you?

Hence, rape should be considered more serious based on the consequences it brings about, and it would seem more reasonable to consider an assault that caused severe emotional trauma more serious than one that did not. It would follow that rape of an adult woman is on average worse than the rape of a child or post-menopausal woman.

WOW you have a really interesting point of view on child rape,

BUT the question was should a person who raped and MURDERED a child be put to death for the crime of MURDERING.



Second question is this

Do you think the law is correct that it is a federal crime to touch/take/eat an eagle or owl egg?

 

[Pandora]

If they are at the same level of self-consciousness, rationality, and other traits of personhood, than yes, they are at an equal level. Species membership should not determine personhood.

well you did not answer my question but I might be able to guess your answer from this.

an owls egg is equal to the value of a human egg.

So.... Should it be a federal crime to hurt a human egg or should we make it legal to hurt the owl egg?

 

[Agnapostate]

WOW you have a really interesting point of view on child rape,

BUT the question was should a person who raped and MURDERED a child be put to death for the crime of MURDERING.

No. I oppose the use of the death penalty.

Second question is this

Do you think the law is correct that it is a federal crime to touch/take/eat an eagle or owl egg?

If it actually serves to defend an endangered species, then yes.

 

[Libsmasher]

Even among those who oppose abortion, many believe in an exception for the health of the mother...mentally as well as physically. Would you expect a victim of rape or incest to play incubator for 9 months ? Or are you just supporting Caribou Barbie's postion?

"Caribou Barbie"?? See what it's like talking to you? There's never anything serious, no arguments - just slurs and slogans and liberal cant.

Ifr you ever summon the cajones to engage in a REAL debate on that issue, based on medical research, philosophy, science, and law, instead of feminist slogans and Obama talking points, we'll debate. (Not holding my breath. )

As for the ol' "health of the mother" gimmick - anyone who has followed the abortion issue carefully knows that's simply an escape clause that would never restrict a single abortion - any woman would ALWAYS find an abortionist who would say her "health" is endangered.

 

[Pandora]

Sarah Palin not only condones the trophy killing of animals but cares more about a bunch of nonviable cells that a victim of rape or incest.

I've found one of the things most repugnant about the majority of Republicans is their lack of regard for life other than white Americans....in their hypocritical world slaughtering animals or opposing their protection is ok as is killing innocent civilians in a war, just as long as they're not American.

Look out though if if a fetus gets aborted or an American gets killed (as long as he's not on death row)...then they turn it into a political thing and snivel endlessly. Being Republican is the very definition of hypocrisy.

YOU LIED She does not only condone trophy killing. She hunts for food. Some people would rather eat food they hunted rather than chancing disease from food in stores.

human children are more than just a bunch of cells. But I dont expect you to understand that

 

[Pandora]

It appears to me that few of the posters here are really concerned with the ethical/moral pro's and cons of abortion........more interested in using Palin's belief systems as a political tool.

Obamanation.

I have to say I found your post re: bird eggs interesting, you used an argument against I myself had not ever considered, or seen put forward by anyone before.

You made a valid point I feel, perspective wise.

Personally I am rather hypocritical in my stance on abortion, as I only find it unacceptable after the first trimester. I do feel though, that in too many cases in the western world, abortion is used as a form of contraception.

That is completely inexcusable to my mind, as the success rate of the various contraceptive methods now available means that apart from the accepted percentages re: small failure rate, there is no real excuse for falling pregnant.

I like your honesty about feeling hypocritical on the abortion issue. We are all hypocritical on some things. To some degree I am hypocritical on abortion too. I do not think it is right for a person to have an abortion because of being raped. It is not the child’s fault on how they were conceived.

But if there were a chance to vote for getting rid of abortion except for the LIFE of the mother, Or getting rid of abortion except for cases of rape and the LIFE of the mother. I would vote the second even though I don’t think its right to kill a child because of something another person did.

I will debate abortion with anyone who would want to debate it but I would not even want to try and debate with a rape victim why they should not kill the child, even though I think they should I would just let them do what ever they want and try to be there for them as a human being.


I get really mad about the owl and eagle thing. It is the same people who promote the federal laws protecting "possibly fertile" eggs that are so dang pro abortion and call the child in the womb clumps of use less cells exc. But oh boy that Owl egg is so freaking valuable.

Thanks for noticing my argument. No one else seemed to

 

[Libsmasher]

[]The abortion issue is a very personal issue.

Like saying robbery is a very personal issue.

But it's the woman's decision all the way up to viability

Got anything to justify that? Probably not.

In no case can someone be legally compelled to donate their body for something or someone else's use against their will. And the government is in no position to put women totally against their will in a situation to be forced government incubators.

The old "against their will" blather is as fake an argument as there is. Her will was in effect when she chose to engage in sex, with the possible consequence of pregnancy - it is EXACTLY there that her famous "choice" occurred. After that, she has a contract with the life she created. Saying women should have the "choice" to abort - excluding the less than 1% of abortions that are due to rape, is exactly as if I signed a contract, then decided I wanted out of it, and complained my "choice" was taken away if the other party holds me to it. Her choice point was engaging in sex, mine was signing the contract - changing your mind later is no go.

Making abortion illegal doesn't in any way stop abortion.

Duhhhh - yes it does.

Once you pass the "viability" point (where the baby could medically survive on it's own outside the womb without the mothers assistance/body) that's the line where the abortion choice should and does now stop.

There is not a shred of validity to this old non-argument - the key issue is "when is the fetus a live humen being?" - not "where is it located?"

This of course is except for the life of the mother or serious birth defect.

Once again - there is not a shred of ethical sense in aborting a fetus witha birth defect. If that argument were to prevail, then there would be no ethical argument against killing children with birth defects - and if the abortionists prevail that is probably what will come next.

Pro-Choice doesn't mean Pro-Abortion. Nobody is pushing abortions and nobody is ever legally forced or coerced into having one.

The sophistry of THAT abortionist illogic is easily demonstrated by changing a few words:

"Pro-legal murder doesn't mean Pro-murder. Nobody is pushing murder and nobody is ever legally forced or coerced into committing one."

And incidentally, you are wrong in any case. To a hard core feminazi, the only bad abortion is the one that doesn't happen. Feminazis know the reproductive capability of women is the one thing that incontravertably sets women distinct from men, and with their ideological principle that there is no effective difference between men and women, they hate the very idea of pregnancy with ferocity.

 

[Pandora]

I'm no doctor and I haven't done a whole lot of research so I have to ask, is it possible to transplant a baby? If so, couldn't you kind of "put it up for adoption" or whatever you want to call it. Just an idea. Personally, I think abortion should only be allowed following a conviction in a rape or incest case (for the victim obviously), but deffinitely not if there was any indication of consent i.e. consensual statutory rape. If a girl is old enough to be pregnant, she's old enough to know what is and isn't appropriate and if she's dumb enough to go get herself knocked up, I don't see why she should be released from the consequences... but that's the liberal way isn't it? irresponsibility for one's actions

I don’t think it’s possible and the people who are foaming at the mouth to keep abortion an option do not care about the life of the child anyways. The child's life is just a non issue.

Partial birth abortions can be done up until the delivery date. They purposely position the baby to be born breech to bypass the law that if the head comes out it’s a baby. They let the legs body and shoulders come out. They hold the baby's head inside the "mother" until they can stab it in the back of the head; once the legs stop kicking and they know the baby is dead they say successful abortion and then let the baby out.

If they really cared about the life of the baby they would let it get delivered and adopt it out. If they really cared about the health of the "mother" they would not have forced the baby to be born breech because that is very dangerous for a woman, and if her health were truly at stake they would not have held the baby in till it could be killed, they would have delivered as quickly as possible.

Another type of abortion is just to deliver at 5th and 6th month, usually the lungs are so undeveloped the baby is born dead, sometimes they are born alive. Obama says giving the baby who was born alive a doctor defeats the purpose of the abortion. He does not care about the baby and neither do his rabid supporters.

 

[Pandora]

No. I oppose the use of the death penalty.



If it actually serves to defend an endangered species, then yes.

Thank you for replying

you are by far more of a hypocrate than Sarah Palin could ever dream of being in her worst nightmares.

 

[Popeye]

"Caribou Barbie"?? See what it's like talking to you? There's never anything serious, no arguments - just slurs and slogans and liberal cant.

Ifr you ever summon the cajones to engage in a REAL debate on that issue, based on medical research, philosophy, science, and law, instead of feminist slogans and Obama talking points, we'll debate. (Not holding my breath. )

As for the ol' "health of the mother" gimmick - anyone who has followed the abortion issue carefully knows that's simply an escape clause that would never restrict a single abortion - any woman would ALWAYS find an abortionist who would say her "health" is endangered.

YOU LIED She does not only condone trophy killing. She hunts for food. Some people would rather eat food they hunted rather than chancing disease from food in stores.

She hunts for food, that's nice, the bloodthirsty broad really needs to, doesn't she? My point is that she condones and enables trophy killing by out of state urban hunters.

human children are more than just a bunch of cells. But I dont expect you to understand that

Sorry but I don't consider a bunch of nonviable cells to be a child. Anymore than I consider the eggs I collect from my laying hens to be chickens.

 

[Agnapostate]

Thank you for replying

you are by far more of a hypocrate than Sarah Palin could ever dream of being in her worst nightmares.

I may indeed be a hypocrate, but Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. Or do you care to explain your objections to my argument in legitimate detail? You said you would debate anyone.