Sarah Palin Totally Supports Gay Rights! (Yeah Right)

77 CommentsLeave a comment

• There were a few mistakes that made it confusing sometimes.

• OMG she makes my head hurt.

• Can someone just take her back to Alaska and bury her in a snowbank please?

• Um, Sarah Palin may not be my favorite person ever, but I agree with her on this topic.

  Stopping the life of an unborn child is ridiculously cruel and immoral. [I’m not trying to justify rape of young girls.]
  Abortion is like age discrimination.
  It’s the woman’s choice? Bullllshittt. What about the kid?
  And no shit they can’t voice their opinion, they don’t have the ability to.
  We stand up for the rights of animals but we won’t even fucking side with our fellow humans.
  What a wonderful, hypocritical society we live in.

  If you’re pro-choice & looking to try and understand the pro-life perspective..watch this.
  • http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6152070479992487290

  http://prolife.com/images/FEET.gif

  http://www.holylamb.com/images/abortion/22-weeksa.jpg

• I wouldn’t get too worked up about how much of an idiot she is. It’s pretty clear all the buzz and excitement surrounding when McCain first announced her as his VP candidate has died down and people are starting to see what a fucking moron she really is. Most of the republicans I know even realize just how unqualified and dangerous this woman is.

• Whats so wrong with being pro life? It is obviously a horrible situation when someone is a victim of rape or incest. But it is not the baby’s fault that it happened. Why should you cheat the infant out of having a life. Nobody said that you had to raise the baby, you can give it up for adoption. And I know that giving birth hurts like hell. But you would rather not have that pain than giving a human the chance of growing up.

• I am going to enjoy the debate on Thursday so much.

• I like her stand on abortion and homosexuality… It’s too bad that she doesn’t have the guts to say it with more conviction.

  She’ll make a good Vice President.

• Beet WTF is going on with you. This blog is becoming quite depressing. Here’s a ((HUG)). There. Now borrow Hayden’s pink toy and get back to normal!!! You are way too good for this! Cheer up.

  The interview–wedge issue. I see Obama possibly reworking Roe v Wade–with his “rigorously defined mental health exception,” before Palin.

• “I can see Russia from my house”, its amazing how well that little line sums up Sarah Palin. Does anybody know who wrote that line, or if Tina Fey wrote it herself?

• I’m with you TSS, she’s not as dumb as everyone makes her out to be.

• She’s not dumb, she’s just average. Scary average.

  Here’s a hearty “fuck you” to her and anyone else who would tell me that I or one of my daughters shouldn’t or couldn’t take the morning after pill after being raped.

  Giving birth doesn’t “hurt like hell” and it’s downright insulting to suggest that’s the reason why a woman wouldn’t want to carry a constant reminder of such a horrific experience.

• “She also thinks that teenage victims of rape and incest really ought to have the babies no matter what.”

  Beet, what are you saying? That since the fetuses resulted from unwanted/forced sex are less valued than others, it’s OK to abort them? It’s alright to abort a so-called “life” if you really, really didn’t want it? Stupidest standpoint ever. For the record I’m all for abortions regardless of the situation, so when I hear people say “Well, I don’t think people should abort but if it was rape then it’s totally OK!!!” the hypocrisy really pisses me off.
  Palin thinks all those fetuses should be born. Just because that means that she includes the unwanted ones doesn’t make her a terrible person, it means she sticks to her values 100%, rather than saying “All ‘life’ is valuable! But rape-related abortions are A-OK because it just wasn’t expected!”

  What’s the problem with Palin’s standpoint? It’s her personal opinion… Palin wants a nation where abortions and morning-after pills aren’t necessary — where people can be more responsible with their sex life so they don’t have to rely on controversial methods to keep from spawning. I remember reading that McCain wanted to leave it up to the states to form abortion-related laws, rather than have a national thing…

• Yo bitch did you just read one fucking sentence out of my post. I didn’t say that’s the reason women choose to have an abortion. A woman is not going to forget that shit 9 months after. Thats gonna stay with you your whole life.

• Abortions should not only be legal, but they should be absolutely free! At the very least they should offer half off coupon days. Heck, I say that you should be able to abort your pregnancy up to 12 months AFTER you’ve given birth to the kid.

• @ nobody,

  Thanks. She’s definitely a very intelligent woman who has excellent insight on a variety of arbitrary topics.

  She has accomplished so much in such a short period of time. Intelligent and attractive. She’s like the perfect role model for women.

• jk, i could not agree with you more

• Yea, if I want some Alaskan woman all up in the business of my uterus, I will fuck one.

• Haha, yay Lah-Dee-Dah!

• are you saying incest babies should still be kept, no matter the rape and the reminder that is bloody growing in you but how about the medical issues that can pop up from that? or from stranger rape what about those mental and physical health issues? abortion should be your choice no matter what but saying its simply not the childs fault so you should be forced to have it is bullshit because maybe you ARE thinking about the child and what it could be/have specially in those sensitive mental illnesses that are genetic.

• Mc Cain/Palin….PRO-LIFE and PRO DEATH PENALTY….WTF?

• You can choose your own role models if you want, but please don’t choose her as a role model for ALL women.

  Ick.

• Honestly, people.
  I agree with you, Klipper… (that abortions should be legal AND free).

  So if abortions ever become illegal, and *I* get raped and become pregnant, I’d dig that shit out with a coat hanger. Throw myself down the stairs.

• Look up Sarah Palin’s educational background. It’s alarming considering she could be running the country.

  Okay, I’ll just tell you. She has a BS in Communications. Most Barista’s at Starbucks have BS’s in Communications.

• Katie missed the crucial questions: What kind of policies would she seek to promote or ban based on her individual pro-lifebeliefs: morning after pill, partial birth abortion, stem cell research, parental notification (a huge issue on the CA ballot that no one is talking about here), etc? Would a judge’s stance on this one issue make or break Palin’s ability to nominate that judge for a higher court position?

  Those are the key questions and Ms Couric blew it. Let’s get to the substance of how her extreme prolife stance would relate to her political decisions. Good God, it’s not that hard to make the discussion actually relevant to the position for which she is running. Put her on the spot, damn it. Make her say something not middle of the road.

  I know several people who have personal beliefs about this issue who are in elected or government positions, who refuse to allow this issue to be a determining factor in how they do their jobs. One example would be Elizabeth Dole. I don’t think Palin falls into this category and it blows my mind that Couric failed to highlight that fact.

  I hate the media almost as much as I hate both political parties.

• “Here’s a hearty “fuck you” to her and anyone else who would tell me that I or one of my daughters shouldn’t or couldn’t take the morning after pill after being raped.”

  Cheers!! I will extend that “fuck you” to anyone who wants to take my freedom of thought and freedom of choice away on ANYTHING. Period.

  I am also with those of you who say she should have some balls and say what she feels. If she believes you should shut the fuck up and give birth regardless of the circumstances, she should say it. I hate all the dancing around the subject.

• The answer is either YES or NO!

  Seriously, how fucking hard is that?

• I’m pro choice…as in you make the choice to have sex.

• Hey copa do you actually think that a kid with mental issues wishes that they weren’t born. That person could make the choice whether they want to live or die. Who are you to say who’s life is important enough to keep.

• First, I actually agree with Palin that if she is “pro-life”, than no abortion would be acceptable be it by rape, incest, whatever.
  But that is why I am “pro-choice”, talk about punishing the victim, making them carry a baby. Being pregnant, giving birth, and then having that child one day search for them (don’t all adopted children end up doing this?) is not getting away from the situation. I’m pro-life; pro the lives of people who are already here and struggling to make it.

  Second, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE ABORTIONS whether or not they are safe and legal, so make them SAFE and LEGAL!! Letting women risk their lives and die- that’s “pro-life”?! What about the lives of women considering abortions? I am pro THEIR lives.

  Thirdly, if you are determined to be “pro-life” than you damn well better have STRONG policies PROMOTING SEX ED and providing easy, accessible BIRTH CONTROL. Because PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX, and when people have sex, they are at risk for getting pregnant, and people who are pregnant sometimes want ABORTIONS. Palin says she is for contraception, then put your money where your mouth is. Did she provide Bristol with sex education and birth control? I think not.

• She needs donkey punched so hard.

• Typical extreme right wing hypocrite. She won’t kill a fertilized egg or a fetus but she has no problem shooting other animals. Humans are in fact animals, just a little higher up the food chain. We’re not special.

• If you don’t mind Yak, I’ll just expand on your theme:

  Typical extreme right wing hypocrite. She won’t kill a fertilized egg or a fetus but she has no problem watching real human beings live on the edge of starvation in this first world country. Typical extreme right wing hypocrite. She won’t kill a fertilized egg or a fetus but she has no problem implementing the death penalty. Typical extreme right wing hypocrite. She won’t kill a fertilized egg or a fetus but she has no problem sending innocent American soldiers off to fight an illegal and unjust war. Typical extreme right wing hypocrite. She won’t kill a fertilized egg or a fetus but she has no problem with the tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who have been killed in this illegal and unjust war.

• Beet, honestly, you need to realize half of the u.s. population IS on her side about all these issues. you guys can rant all you want but the fact is that people can be pro-life AND BE OKAY WITH THAT. honestly, you need to recognize that yours is not the only legitimate view point, and I, for one, completely stand behind Palin in her convictions. Just because she says she doesn’t SUPPORT abortion, does not mean that she wants to make it illegal, as she made very clear. She is entitled to her opinions, as are you, but you need to stop assuming that the nation is unequivocally on your side.

• @ Becky and jojo:
  THANK YOU. You both said exactly what I was going to say, but so much better.

  Here’s the bottom line people-if you are “pro-life”, (which maybe we should just call it anti-abortion since jojo pointed out it really isn’t “pro-LIFE” at all), then YOU don’t HAVE to have an abortion. Do you understand that? It’s your choice not to-and other people may make a different choice. But at the end of the day, it’s a choice people are going to make regardless of whether or not abortion is illegal. And it is not pro-“life” to consider the women who could lose their lives attempting to have an abortion by other, unsafe methods if it became illegal.

  And abortion is like “age discrimination”?? This is ridiculous. To create a law outlawing abortion would be gender discrimination, because it would uphold the thought process that women are not intelligent enough to make a decision for themselves, and that a woman’s only duty in society is to procreate-regardless of the circumstances.

• ribbet! you are so awesome! i sure was missing you for a while, glad you are back…

• Leaning towards liberal and being a homosexual, I do not think that this interview was all that bad, or that her positions were all that bad. She seems to be confused in that her questions should not reflect herself but the positions she’s going to take in office, but it doesn’t seem she’s going to take an active stance against things like abortion in the case of instance or rape or homosexual marriage … possibly. Republicans have their opinions and its their right to have their own opinions.

  However, although being far better than other interviews she has participated in, she is clearly not in the position to HAVE the position of vice president.

• So her gay friend is one she has had for 30 years, I would be very interested if this individual was an openly outted homo when they first got to know each other. My guess is a big fat no.

  By the way, nicole…

  “Beet, honestly, you need to realize half of the u.s. population IS on her side about all these issues.”

  Im pretty sure she does considering that you are leaving messages on HER website and Beet works in the media. Hmmm…..

• Its my body and I WILL do what I want with it. I don’t think I could have an abortion myself, but I appreciate the option being there if need be, especially in a time of rape. She has NEVER been raped so I don’t think she should have an opinion on that. Dumb bitch.

• Oh and I’ve taken the morning after pill as a precaution (after condom broke, and on birth control) and if anyone wants to take that away from me, I will also give them a big fuck you. The ignorance and the intolerance in this country makes me sick. Oh, btw if she does try to make Morning after pills harder to get take 7 birth control pills, does the same thing.

• The morning after pill is only a contraceptive device if the egg has not yet been fertilized. If the egg HAS already been fertilized, a new life has begun and the morning after pill carries out an abortion.

  Medical science tells us without a doubt that the life of a new human being begins the second an egg is fertilized. The DNA of a new individual, separate from his mother, definitively determines at that moment, gender, eye, hair and skin color, as well as things like personality traits. One cannot see these things with the naked eye at this point, no fingers or toes etc, but the scientific evidence is confirmable by anyone who can read DNA.

  DNA is not a mere blueprint. Physical construction begins upon fertilization. One cannot wish it away. It is undeniable fact.

  Rape and incest do not negate these facts. Despite the horror of conceiving a child this way, the child does not suddenly cease to exist as a human being simply because of the method of conception. Do we have the right to arbitrarliy decide to give these children death sentences merely for having been conceived?

  Those who are pro-life seek to protect the the lives of the most vulnerable among us. The most innocent and defenseless of all human beings deserve to have THEIR rights to life legally protected. Pre-meditated murder cannot be left to one’s personal discretion.

  If for any reason the mother either refuses or is unable to care for her child, the courts regularly appoint a guardian ad-litem to step in on behalf of the child, except in cases of the unborn. These children are proven to exist and yet have no legal rights. Palin and others simply want the courts to recognize current medical evidence and place it into law in an effort to give these helpless children a legal voice.

• okay lets look at this from another point of view…pro life means I can’t make a choice about my own body?
  let’s say I’m in a seriously fucked situation, i’m pregnant, no support, no job cuz in was fired when they found out i was pregnant, but if ask them it was a lay off, my husband/bf beats me, and will more than likely beat this child i’m carrying…but i should still bring this child into the world, to be mistreated, abused and half starved and will probably end up in the system anyway. yeah pro life…i don’t think so…pro choice, at least you can choose to maybe give your kid a chance in another way.
  choice doesn’t mean every woman who ends up knocked up is going to terminate it, but at least she has the choice.
  Do you know a lot of woman do not leave the abusive partner for the sake of the child, because it’s better to have a father in the child’s life than none?
  What about children born to drug addicts, they are born experiencing withdrawal, and a lot of them die after suffering this withdrawal? and those who don’t end up with a lot of behavioral, and learning issues, and some even physical deformities.

• There doesn’t need to be an explanation made to the public why a woman chooses whatever option is best for her body and her life. End of story. Obviously I am not for late term abortions because I think by that time you have already made the choice to carry out your pregnancy, but then again, nobody is for late term abortions. They should be illegal, and are illegal. But equality among the sexes means that women can have the same freedom with their bodies as men have.

  And for all those who think the argument is abortion vs. no abortion- you are way too idealist and naive. Just because Sarah Palin (who for some reasons absolutely has no sympathy for rape victims in general- including making them pay for their own rape kits) makes a vow to turn us all into baby making machines, women wont stop having abortions. They have been having abortions since the beginning of time. It’s just much better now, because less of us are dying or becoming ill due to an unsafe or unclean abortion. We need to make sure women have a safe and comfortable environment because an unwanted pregnancy can be very emotionally and physically difficult, no matter what choice a woman makes. Especially after a rape, but some people just can’t seem to grasp just how traumatic and damaging rape is.

  And the argument that “you should have thought of that before you had sex” is not only subtley sexist (the male in the situation gets off scot free), it is also idealistic and naive. So many kids don’t get good sex education, and some are taught incest only, so when they have sex (which teens inevitably do no matter what God they believe in or what part of the country they live in) they don’t know how to be safe. It is our job to make sure they are all educated. It is our job to make sure they have access to contraception and birth control. This will not only lower the number of abortions in this country, it will also lower the growing number of teens with STI’s.

  Anyway, this woman is no kind of role model for me, and I think most women would agree, hence the endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket by the National Organization of Women. Hence the Women Against Palin rally in Alaska. Hence the countless other groups of women standing up against this ignorant (not stupid) anti-women politician. Hence the national polling numbers right now among women. You may think she is the ideal woman, TSS, but she is far from what a lot of us women actually aspire to be. A lot of us believe in equality- including equal pay for equal work and an equal say over our bodies. If health insurance wants to cover men’s sexual health pills (I can’t say the name for some reason on this website but it starts with a v and rhymes with diagra), fine, but then they better cover birth control. If we are, God forbid, ever victims of rape, we don’t want to be charged $1200 for a rape kit, or denied the right to take a morning after pill. Stuff like that- all of which McCain/Palin stand against

• She has an extreme position, no matter what anyone says (forcing a woman to have a baby after being raped is the very definition of “woman as baby factory”).

  And, considering her church ties and the drooling evangelical wackos that claim her as their political savior, I don’t buy for a minute that, given the chance, she would support the overturning of Roe v Wade and making abortion illegal in whatever state of the union she can influence. Let’s not forget that, if she were president within the next four years, she will most likely get to nominate between one and three Supreme Court Justices (pretty scary, considering she can’t name any Supreme Court cases other than Roe v. Wade).

• She WILL be acting president at some point throughtout the next four years if elected. McCain is an older gentleman, and will have hospital visits and possibly surgeries. During these times Sarah Palin will be president.

  This is why more and mroe conservatives are expressing concern. The National Review just had an article saying Sarah Palin should drop out (for family reasons) for the good of the party. There are very few people out there who would actually feel completely comfortable having someone so ignorant of American government (all three branches- she doesn’t know what the VP does, she doesn’t know any Supreme Court decision after Roe v. Wade, and she doesn’t know Congress or even anything her running mate has proposed or achieved while in the Senate for the past 20 some years- hell, she’s even suggested creating laws that are already written!)

  This ignorance, partnered with her extreme right wing views (it would be like us running Dennis Kucinich for VP idealogy-wise), is what scares the majority of the country about her candidacy.

• Well I guess I see it differently. I think Palin is a role model for all women. I think Palin is what women’s rights is about. Women’s rights is not about what you stand for but that you can stand for anything you want in the first place. No one can tell you to stand down just because of your gender or the position you hold. Every woman should be like Palin and show as much interest in how they stand on the “life” issue. A lot of little girls take the fact they DO have a voice—for granted. I think Hillary Clinton said it best when asked about Palin’s nomination—in brevity–Palin doesn’t offer liberals/Democrats what liberals/Democrats believe in (“the right direction of this country”) , but “Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.” Governor Palin is a role model because she EXERCISES her voice–no matter your judgment on her potions eloquence or “style.”

  As to abortion–late abortions are illegal, but if a woman develops the uncommon —mental or physical heath issue– as a result of the pregnancy that might jeopardize her life–by law her and her doctor CAN determine to terminate the pregnancy in it’s late term. The law is written broadly when they use mental or physical health exception, and any “rigorous” defining of the mental health would be at odds with the original intention of the ruling. It should stay broad because the reality is that it is quite uncommon for women to exercise that right so late into the pregnancy, and most health complications as a result of the pregnancy come up sooner than later. But just because majority of women might naturally not take that road (CHOICE), doesn’t mean that road (choice) should be narrowed. Just like abortion— many women don’t see themselves being able to go through an abortion, but they like to know they have that choice. Narrowing that choice, in small of large bounds, means that the law is written in a way that singles out gender–and such laws conflict with that other law that no law shall be written to discriminate on the basis of so and so, whether by de facto or de jure .

  Outlawing abortion is gender discrimination–for the mother–the woman, but legalizing abortion is also age discrimination because a person in his developing stages based on the fact he is in his developmental stages can be removed—. However, anything after birth is innocent under the age of 7, after that a juvenile who cant be put to death, or must be waved up to adult court where it’s still innocent until proven guilty—before anyone can determine to terminate that persons life. It is age discrimination with a line in the sand for a break off point.

  Personally good for Palin. In the confines of her position she’s sound. I remember the Catholic church in a certain country also had a similarly view before the catholic church backed off. Communist times. My problem is not her position which aims for a higher society where naturally a person wouldn’t put themselves before another person (or little “to-be” person). It’s idealistic, but noble. Yet in practice such an attitude can have the opposite effect as there is room for human righteousness–and therefor over application of the position–to a point that it actually becomes counter productive. From emphasizing personal responsibility to make way for happy individuals in body mind heart and spirit—-to people broken in body mind heart in spirit. In those communist times–“Counseling” a woman, which is all that Palin is saying here, became “this is your only choice.” Counseling I have no problem with—women rape or not should know ALL the options. But your only course of action—-That I have a HUGE problem with.

• Palin is absolutely 100% not a role model for me or my daughters!! This woman has relied heavily on her looks her entire life and has been rewarded for it. Which just sickens me. She has come into this nomination completely unprepared and it is painfully obvious. Would you nominate and then vote for a principle for your child’s school because they are cute, but have zero knowledge of the education system or of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind”? I didn’t think so.

  And yes people, Dinosuars is right, she will at some point(s) in time(s) be acting as President of the United States. To simply think of her as a harmless Vice President nominee is very dangerous thinking.

• Very thoughtful response, beefy!

  My thoughts on abortion are similar. I just think it’s very personal choice, and ought not to be politicized.

  As to women’s rights, sure, I think it’s important for women to have a voice on any issue. For me, however, women’s rights are about equality. In the turn of the century (and before) women fought to have equality in our voting- so that they could vote however they’d choose (R or D or I or Green, etc.). Women fought, and are fighting for, equal pay for equal work. Women fought to open up all-male schools so that women had a fair shot at a good education. Women fought for maternity rights so that they would be protceted from unjust firings in the workplace due to pregnancy. Women fought to have sports teams in schools and in the professional arena. And with Roe v. Wade we were fighting to have safety and protection in the choice that we will all make regardless of laws.
  Nothing else about Sarah Palin makes her anti-woman to me. But when she actively stands against women having a safe choice, I cannot call her pro-women. When she wants to take our reproductive freedom away, I cannot say that she stands for women’s rights. When she is mayor in a state that has the highest rate of rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence, and still charges victims for rape kits (including collecting evidence against an attacker), I cannot say she is the epitome of women’s rights. She is an interesting voice in the debate, ok, but it is not a voice of women’s rights. Sure, she, as a politician and contender to become vice president of the United States, is an example of what women’s rights have done for this country. But that does not mean that she herself works or stands for women’s rights.

• palin is as dumb as a rock.

• Please do not for a minute overlook the fact that there are already hundreds of thousands of children in this country in foster care or group homes because there are not, repeat ARE NOT enough foster parents or homes for children to go to when their parents cannot care for them or give them up. I can’t help but notice that “pro-lifers” never talk about funding more orphanages, or how they will magically produce thousands of foster homes for all these kids that women will be forced to have and give up if their circumstances dictate that they cannot care/pay for a child. Not to mention that most pro-lifer Republicans generally cannot stop castigating single moms on welfare long enough to even take a breath. So you outlaw abortion, and airily say, “Well, they can always give the kid up for adoption,” as if there isn’t already a backlog of kids without homes or parents. Where is the solution to the population increase and a baby boom of unwanted kids??

  Oh yeah I forgot – we’ll just teach abstinence. Because that never fails, just ask Sarah “Grandma” Palin.

• hi joan: i missed you too and being here. work exploded and i have a sick 3 year old – he’s having surgery on friday. so it’s nice to be back!

  @quirkygirlkitten: too funny. everyone else goes on ad nauseum and you sum it up with one line. love it!

• Still ignoring science and pretending this is a religious issue. It’s a about giving ALL human beings equal, legal rights. Religion doesn’t enter into the matter unless you are personally religious, and is not legally binding.

  Medical science proves the existence of a separate, individual person in the womb from the moment of conception. Deliberate, pre-meditatated destruction of that life is murder. Murder should not be left to one’s personal discretion. And it is not a private issue when tax dollars are funding abortion.

  Yo own your own body but not your child’s. Your job is to protect your child, not destroy him.

  Unless your life is in direct immediate danger, you have the obligation to do everything in your power to protect your child as he is powerless to do so.

  • It isn’t even a pregnancy from the moment of conception, genius.
    And I’ve got no obligation to uphold your morals over mine.

• Forcing a woman to have a baby is denying her the right to make decisions about her body. Forcing a woman to carryout a pregnancy regardless of her financial situation (hospital bills and poor healthcare), forcing her to carryout a pregnancy whether or not she could lose her job or have to drop out of school, and forcing a woman or young girl who is the victim of rape to carry through a very painful reminder of her attack is nasty and brutal.

  You are still denying the fact that women will ALWAYS HAVE ABORTIONS REGARDLESS OF LAWS. Women have been doing it since the beginning of time with various methods. And they have been dying or becoming ill due to unsafe and unclean conditions. We are finally at a point in our society’s history where we’ve acknowledged this fact and the Supreme Court made a decision so that a woman’s safety and right not to have a back alley abortion is protected. You can preach about how wrong it is until you are blue in the face, but it is a part of life and will not just go away. The only way to help lower the number of abortions is proper sex education and access to contraception and birth control.

  And if you think that these women deserve to die or suffer, and you self righteously believe justice is being served, well, I think there’s something wrong there.

  Plus, Lee made a great point. Here in Chicago, DCFS just took a huge budget cut. There is no money for these kids. There are not enough safe homes for these kids.

• If people spent as much time and money trying to find homes for their children as they do planning their wedding which lasts all of one day, there would be no problem.

  It’s an outright lie that pro-lifers care nothing for mother and child after birth. They’re the ones who adopt thousands of the most severely disabled, crack addicted, aids and fetal alcohol afflicted babies. They adopt outside their own race and don’t feel a need to go outside the country to do it. Much of it is done quietly and they’re raising large families on little income. It is possible to raise a family of 5 on less than $30,000 a year. Not easily, but happily. But people today simply refuse to make the sacrifices. They can’t imagine not being able to get their hair done or go on vacation.

  Those people will never know the tremendous burden of raising these children it’s true, but they won’t experience that kind of joy that results from the hard work either.

  Bottom line is that once the egg is fertilized, the CHOICE has been made. There is no going back. You can destroy the evidence, but you can’t pretend a child never existed.

• She doesn’t seem to understand what the morning after pill is. It’s not an abortion pill. It STOPS conception from ever occuring, just like the pill or a condom. You can be pro-life and still allow victims of rape the morning after pill.

• Bottom line is that it is not a scientific fact that life begins at conception. Scientifically speaking conception is a PROCESS. Therefore to pinpoint an exact time at which a person comes to an existence is merely a line in the sand. Religiously, life begins at conception.

  But this is not even a religious nor a scientific issue. Abortion is the right of the child v the right of the woman. Most of the time, if you debate it up and down–past religion and science– you are only left with a moral issue.

  Aborion– very personal choice, and if it only affected one person it might stay a private matter…but whose personal choice? The only reason the abortion debate becomes publicized and politicized is because we already know how one person stands on the issue. The mother–“my body my world.” However, there are two people in that immediate pregnant equation. It becomes publicized and politicized because there is one person, the child–“it WILL be my body my world”– who some argue should be able to exercise their personal choice. Naturally, unborn children aren’t capable of exercising that personal choice because they are dependent on the mother, but that hasn’t stopped courts from stepping in as guardians in the best interest of the child in abuse cases–yet. The debate is not your right to choice v your no right to choice–its about the right to choice for the mother and the right to choice for the child. That’s the complex and very paradoxical abortion debate!

  It will never die. We will never live in a perfect world where a person won’t put themselves before others (or the unborn). Soooo the only thing good that comes out of the long debate is that both sides of the argument begin to understand their ideal position cant exist in an unideal world—without each other. Both sides of the argument are basically tied to each other like eternal mother–cord–child. Which is why every time one has a point, the other will be able to counter it–because like woman–cord–child they are interdependent. “But when she actively stands against women having a safe choice, I cannot call her pro-women. When she wants to take our reproductive freedom away, I cannot say that she stands for women’s rights.” I hope you understand that means that I can’t consider you pro-children. When you want to take their freedom to develop away, I can not say you are for childrens rights. By standing for the woman’s right to a safe choice you are standing against the safest choice for the child–to be born v to be terminated. Even to be born to a bad life– a bad life is better than no chance (choice) to make it though life. Many people who come from horrendous circumstances grow up to be phenomenal people. To say you’d rather kids be terminated if they MIGHT have to live an abused or adopted life—means you are discriminating against class. Only financially– correlating to physically emotionally–kids are worth saving.

  Publicizing the debate is important because each side brings a core value. From the left, individual choice is paramount. From the right, children are our future. In this way conservatism brings –respect yourself and respect life.. Liberalism brings importance of freedom to act without limitations. Together the goal in an unideal world is being responsible and respectful so that way while you are out exercising your freedom you won’t curtail the freedom of others. In practice that means the availability of choice (liberalism) with the emphasis on respect for life (conservatism) morph society to an imperfect but close goal of having LESS people faced with the predicament of such a HARD personal choice as separating something so interdependent as do I put my personal choice ahead of the child’s personal choice or the other way around..

  I apologize for typos ect. Nor an I ever ever doing this long spiel on this blog ever again.

• Our taxes should definitely be put to better use, no question. To nurture human lives, not destroy them. Women have the choice not to raise their own children. THEIR right to life is already legally protected. The child’s life is not. He is being forced into a death sentence for the crime of having been conceived. Where is HIS choice, his rights? Despite residing temporarily in his mother’s womb, he is an individual, separate from his mother. No infant outside the womb can survive without perpetualcare. Do we ignore these facts and say their lives don’t matter? Pretend they don’t exist?

  The lives of millions of unborn are not legally protected even though science proves their personhood. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act identifies them as children in the womb. It is illegal to kill any child in the wombif he is wanted. Yet if mom decides she WANTS him dead, she can have him killed. There are are contradictions here. Lacy Peterson had the right to kill Connor, but her husband did not. In certain states, there ARE still abortions being legally performed at 7, 8 months.

  Ru486 is killing thousands of women legally. And of course, abortions are never safe for the child.

  The stigma of a being a single parent should be removed. We should be reaching out to help these women and children not condemning. Birth control should be used but as we are all aware that it is no guarrantee, especially with teens. Condoms fail all the time, but more often than not, people simply fail to use them every time. And certainly, we’re not so naive as to think that parents have the ability to control their teens every action. We could hire the secret service to follow them around and they’d still find a way to have sex.

  Of course there will always be abortions no matter what the laws say. Murders occur everyday despite homicide laws. But the unborn are the only ones not legally protected. At a woman’s whim, she can hire a doctor to carry out a hit on her own child without legal consequence, and force the taxpayers to foot the bill.

• great points!

  But Individual choice is about providing that choice for EVERY individual. It cannot be exclusive to women of child-bearing age.

  Guardian ad-litems for the unborn is necessary because their rights to life are being ignored.

  Religion should be kept out of it, but current abortion laws DO take their cues from science. Viability is a factor in many state laws. 26 weeks used to be standard, but as technology has advanced, viabilty is currently at 20 weeks. Current science centering around DNA shows definitively that life begins at fertilization and not before. Persona;lity traits are determined, gender, hair, eye & skin color etc.

  Murder cannot be optional. It cannot be anyone’s personal choice. The child is a separate individual. His life should be protected. We’re not speaking of whether to have a tumor sliced up and vaccumed out.

  The whole concept of abortion having been decided as a privacy issue is unconstitututional.

  Roe vs Wade, decided in terms of an implied right to privacy, is in fact, not based in the Constitution. The Court’s decision is riddled with contradictions, law-making decisions (which the Court is not supposed to do), and rather strange Constitutional interpretations.

• The Fourteenth Amendment deals with procedural limitations regarding life, liberty, and property. While we are guaranteed such rights without government interference, the government can indeed infringe upon our life, liberty or property as long as it gives notice and an opportunity to be heard.

  This amendment was also used to extend the Bill of rights to states as well as Congress, but it was not intended to add concrete rights to the Constitution. Nowhere, in fact, does the Constitution mention privacy, which is invaded by any government action and certainly any criminal statute. Justice Blackmun decided that a “right of personal privacy…does exist under the Constitution” and this personal privacy “right” creates a limited right to have an abortion.

  It’s debatable whether there is indeed an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, but regardless of one’s opinion on that, it seems tenuous and irresponsible of the Court to expand this right to the right to terminate the life of the unborn. After all, the right to privacy doesn’t expand to many other areas in a woman’s life, but somehow, without specific justification, it extends to the right to have an abortion? In addition, the idea that the right to an abortion is a “constitutional” right begs the question: are there then constitutional rights that apply only to certain groups of people? After all, this “right” to abort certainly does not extend to men, so does this mean that women have fundamental rights that men do not? Should men then, have a Constitutional right that applies to them, but excludes women? What other rights beside privacy are “implied” by the Constitution, if any? And what is “private” about an abortion–is it any more private than infanticide? Is there any government intrusion that does not invade privacy?

  .

• Lauralee… you are very articulate and obviously have a very well-thought out position on this issue. But so do many of us on the other side of this. Personally, I do not agree with abortion, nor would I have ever had one and I would definitely try to help a friend make a choice to have a baby before I would encourage abortion. But still…. I agree that this issue is so infinitely difficult because scientifically this is not black and white. If it were, we would not be arguing this point. It is a philosophical/moral/religious issue. And many, many people who are equally religious, moral and philosophical have vastly differing viewpoints. How can I presume to KNOW that my God and her/his “moral edicts” are MORE right than my friend whose faith differs ( Jew, Christian, Hindi, Buddhist, Muslim, Athiest) How can I possibly be a true democrat (with a small “d” – the kind that all of us Americans are supposed to be) and legislate on such issues? I can’t! And frankly, neither can you nor any other Pro-Lifer.

  What I don’t understand is that there are many philosophical/moral/religious issues beyond abortion that are equally or even vastly more important and they are completely disregarded by the ONE ISSUE Pro-life voters. WHY??? The right to life does NOT end at birth!!!
  The right to life includes the right to an existence with dignity. It includes having fiscal policies that afford every citizen in this country the right to a dignified existence. It includes policies that foster social justice. The right to life does NOT condone state-sanctioned murder, such as the DEATH PENALTY! Well, I could go on and on. You get my gist.

• I am definitely pro women vs. pro-zygote when it comes to a woman having access to a safe and clean abortion that she will seek regardless of law. I cannot condone banning a safe procedure for women who wish to terminate their pregnancy. I do not think less of anyone who is pro-life. It is absolutely your choice and I support you whatever choice you make. Adoption, abortion, or keeping the baby yourself. I look forward to the day when I myself am ready for a family and get to go through a pregnancy myself!

  Have you ever read accounts from families who have watched their mother die from infection that follows a back alley abortion? It’s awful. And it was sadly a big part of life pre Roe v. Wade. And it will be again if anything ever happens to our freedom.

  This is a difficult debate, but I will always be staunchly feminist about this issue, and will stand by my beliefs that should a woman choose to terminate her pregnancy, she does not have to die for it. And when rape is involved, I really do think it is cruel and unusual punishment to force a wmoan to have a baby.

• Actually, we legislate morality everyday. Well, we don’t personally, but the courts do. Rightly, or wrongly they often decide who lives and dies. They once edcided thatvpeople of color counted only as3/5 of a human being, and could be bought and sold, maimed and killed at the owners personal discretion. My prpoerty, my choice.

  I’ve watched plenty of mothers die from the ‘safe’ and legal abortion pill, as well as countless numbers of children for whom this simple ‘procedure’ has NEVER been safe. They get no funeral, no acknowledgement of ever having existed. I have seen a child survive an abortion. She is now what many will call deformed, but is otherwise healthy.

  I think this issue is only religious though only if one happens to be religious and has no bearing from a legal standpoint. But certainly our laws should reflect the rights of of all, not just specific groups.

  This whole idea of better the kid die than me have to suffer isn’t really even the debate. No one is acknowledging that another human being is involved separate from the mother, one that cannot defend himself as she can. If they do, it is deemed irrelevant. That fact is glossed over and keeps going back to forcing a woman to give birth. People would rather have cancer it seems than have a baby.

  If her life is directly in danger, such as in a case of ectopic pregnancies, where both mother and child will die without intervention, mom will be saved and baby allowed to die but even then, direct abortion is unnecessary. The fallopian tubes will be removed and child growing inside those tubes will die a natural death.

  A pregnant rape victim still has her life after an abortion. Her child does not. It’s not about taking her rights away, it is about preserving the rights of both equally.

  You ALL make excellent cases for why a woman shouldn’t want a child. And I certainly don’t believe any woman should be forced to raise her child without help.

  And yes, I oppose the death penalty, any form of torture, or pre-emptive war. We don’t have the right to arbitrarily kill ANY innocent, defenseless human being. In my view, the death penalty is revenge, not justice and we risk ending the lives of people later found to be innocent. It doesn’t erase the crime or the pain it caused. anyway. It doesn’t really give the victim any satisfaction.

  Never made sense to me to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. But of course, death row inmates have the right to appeal. Victims of abortion have no guardian ad-litems speaking up for them.

• I hate to extend this debate, since it’s putting a real downer on the gossip, but Lauralee’s response demands some counterpoint.

  Sure, her response is well-thought-out and articulate. But, as she writes, it is up to interpretation whether there is a constitutional right to privacy and whether this right extends to abortion. Of course, it was interpreted that way by the Supreme Court. Lauralee interprets it differently.

  Lauralee also seems to think that he rights of a woman are superseded by the rights of a zygote. Abortion is simply not the same as infanticide because a woman’s very state of physical being is tied up with the embryo or fetus living, attached, inside of her. Lauralee’s argument is an attempt to be “scientific” about abortion, but it relies heavily on emotions and guilt, and envisioning even the tiniest clump of cells as a “baby”.

  In the case of a planned or otherwise wanted pregnancy, we make it our job to protect the embryo or fetus (and, I understand that, biologically, our body kicks into pregnancy mode whether we like it or not, but–thankfully–we are not solely driven by our biology). Throw out as much science as you like, but it is a MORAL interpretation that our JOB is to protect that embryo or fetus. As living creatures, our only true biological JOB is to protect ourselves.

• Oh, and, Lauralee, it would probably be a good idea to give credit where credit is due when you cut and past huge chunks of other people’s words. Otherwise, we would be led to believe that those words are yours.

  That’s all I’m going to say on the matter. Except…

  Sarah Palin is an idiot.

• Sorry about the lack of footnotes. I honestly never expected anyone to believe I spouted off the evidence I submitted as thoughts from the top of my head.

  –Alan Guttemacher Institute,
  –Dr. Bernard Nathanson (who used to perform abortions and was one of the founders of NARAL)
  –Do no harm coaltion of Americans for research ethics
  –Steven Ertelt–LifeNews.com Editor
  –Carolyn Gargaro –Roe V Wade – The Unconstitutional Decision

• You don’t need to reference every idea. This is a blog, after all, not a classroom. But I think that if you take whole paragraphs word-for-word from someone else’s work, you should give that person credit.

• As individuals it is indeed up to personal discretion to protect ourselves. The government of a civilised society and the laws it enacts are designed to protect everybody given the fact that not everyone respects life, or is capable of defending one’s own.

  The reason Pro-lifers view abortion as THE issue is because it is the core of all problems concerning human life. If one cannot respect life at the most vulnerable state, certainly we cannot be expected to respect life at any other stage. We were warned long ago that legalized abortion would pave the way for legalized killing of disabled, elderly, terminally ill etc. No one believed it. But here we are with the so-called ‘right’ to die. Dying is an inevitibility, not a right, but there are laws on the books that currently make that legal claim.

  Yes, I interpret, scientists interpret, lawmakers interpret. Many of our legal rights comes from these interpretations. I’m arguing that current laws do not reflect current medical science, and that Justice Blackmun’s interpretation of abortion as an issue of privacy was unconstitutional. Even Justice Ginsberg agrees Roe V Wade should have been decided differently, though she favors abortion rights.

  There is a difference between spontaneous abortion or any situation where the death of a fertilized egg occurs naturally, and a pre-meditated attempt to destroy.

  Accepting the idea that a fertilized egg is a person is not the same as saying that sperm and unfertilized eggs are people. Alone, neither contains the DNA of a new human being. Until they are joined, the DNA belongs to either the father or the mother. Afterward, yes, I’m saying personality traits constitute personhood.

  No law will put an end to abortions, but a law recognizing their existence will restore the dignity that these children deserve and are currently denied. Women won’t be jailed for having abortions, but the doctors who perform them will likely be fined, possibly have their licenses suspended. They do take an oath after all to first, do no harm.

• My fault for not placing quotations around the direct quotes. An obvious oversight on my part.

  Anything concerning specific quotes should be noted. Thank you.

  I do not disregard your opinions and interpretations by the way as irrelevant or something to be dismissed as emotional garbage.

• Laws are are primarily created to keep order in society.
  What is moral can be illegal and what is legal can be immoral. The presumption that all babies are a boy in your posts is funny. Protect him/himself. You are not acknowledging that another human being is involved separate from the child, one that cannot defend herself if she is mandated to carry out a pregnancy against her wishes. I hope you know that my post is not in anyway conflicting with –what I assume is your post to me. I did say the debate is not “what I can’t and I can not do” but that it is extended to two individuals—woman (one being) and child (one possible being.) You don’t become less of an individual because you created another individual–doesn’t diminish your right to individual choice. You don’t become less of an individual because someone created you–doesn’t diminish your right to individual choice. . This is why the abortion debate is so sticky— one is in constant need of acknowledging that in order to respect individual freedom (choice) you must acknowledge there are two individuals in need of freedom (choice). Anything less will only mean—when you mitigate one freedom(choice), the value in the freedom you argue for is weaker (choice). You will never have an ideal situation where both the choice of the mother and child is equal. So laws as they are meant to order and rule will put one over the other. The one that will do the least harm is probably what law will aim for. If all women are deprived of the choice and forced to carry a pregnancy– all women are trampled on/all kids are presumed safe. Nothing can mitigate the trampling on all the women–or “induced into labor.” If women are allowed to have a choice to carry a pregnancy– only the children of the women who chose to have the procedure are being trampled on. The trampling on the children can be mitigated by measures that lessen the chances for abortion

  .
  Science is only as good as what it can prove–there is a lot that it still has to yet prove. The body of what we know is little to what we don’t know. “Current abortion laws take their CUES from science” is not strong enough to say science says life (individual) definitively begins at conception. The fact that the advancement of technology has moved around on the exact point of viability shows that science–clinical and distant– can not definitively pin point the exact moment at which life (individual) happens. It just might change tomorrow. In science, life begins with a live sperm cell (carrying individual traits) and a live egg cell (carrying individual traits) that forms another live cell (carrying individual traits). Conception in science is a PROCESS. Conception in a dictionary is defined as a PROCESS. Viability(science)/Person hood(law) is a line in the sand. Science(viability) changes these “facts” according to different criteria or new research. Law(person hood) takes “cues.” Existence(religion) is constant belief–soul enters at that time. So in different ways–in legal ways, in social ways, in moral ways, in personal ways, in scientific ways people take up the side that speaks to them and they mold how the feel about it. The only difference is the presumption of who should lead the call–the focus on the woman or the child.

  “Alone, neither contains the DNA of a new human being.”

  Every sperm and every egg contains DNA of a new human being.

  I’ll let you have the last copy and paste on this. Good night.

• I agree with much of what you say. And the only part I copied and pasted was the post concerning the point about abortion being decided unconstuitutionally. That came directly from Carolyn Gargaro.

  Calling the child a HE was out of pure laziness on my part. The His/her, he/she stuff takes more time to type. lol

  True, science is only as good as what is known which was exactly my point. The current laws have not yet caught up with current science. Laws are often based on scientific interpretation.

  Vialibity used to be 26 weeks, now is 20, but not all laws refl;ect that. African Americans were once deemed medically inferior, and laws reflected that. The laws of course have been altered in part because scientifically, we know better.

  My wording of the sperm and unfertilized eggs vs fertilized eggs was indeed clumsy. See what happens when I don’t copy and paste? lol Thank you for pointing that out.

  Each contains the DNA of that person, but until the two are joined the DNA of that newly formed offspring has not been created. Oh sh*t, that sounds even worse. lol

  As you stated very wisely, this issue is a sticky one and I don’t believe will ever be agreed upon. I think we can agree that much needs to be done not only to reduce the number of abortions, but to reach out to the thousands who struggle raising the children they chose to have. Your points were all fairly and intelligently expressed. I think everyone appreciates that.

• @ Lauralee: you said: “And yes, I oppose the death penalty, any form of torture, or pre-emptive war. We don’t have the right to arbitrarily kill ANY innocent, defenseless human being. In my view, the death penalty is revenge, not justice and we risk ending the lives of people later found to be innocent. It doesn’t erase the crime or the pain it caused. anyway. It doesn’t really give the victim any satisfaction.”

  So tell me then how do you, with a good conscience, vote Republican????

  @jk: you rock! As a professor, I just cannot tolerate plagiarism of any sort, thanks for pointing out lauralee’s indiscretions.

• Here in Chicago, I have a very close friend who works for a sexual health clinic. No woman has ever died or been injured due to a botched abortion, medical or surgical, in the last fifteen or so years of the clinic’s existence. Scientific data shows us that maternal mortality dropped significantly when abortion became legalized. It was estimated that pre Roe v. Wade, 5,000 to 10,000 women died each year of complications due to an illegal abortion. That from a University of California School of Public Health cited in a Rocky Mountain News article from April 24, 2007. It is not acceptable to sit back and watch these women die! We can all agree on the fact that they are alive, that they have families and people who love them. What we cannot agree on is when a zygote is alive, yet we are willing to overlook the rights of this woman who is undisputedly alive. We are willing to put her emotional and physical well being on the line for a zygote that may be a process or may be a life. And that is the reason such a large number of women consider this a women’s rights issue.

  And, yes, a woman has her “life” after she has been raped. For a lot of rape victims, this is not much of a life. It is one filled with various emotional road blocks, and in some cases, pretty bad PTSD. I work with a lot of girls who have been raped and I still stand by my statement that forcing these girls to carryout one of the consesquences and reminders of their brutal attack (and it is brutal) is cruel and unusual punishment.

  More women than you know have gotten abortions. Maybe some in your family, Maybe in your church. And it’s a hard personal decision. No one made it with ease, or without a lot of thought. And it is SO personal. I cannot stress that enough. I believe it is so much like the euthanasia argument, and it sickens me that it is so hyper politicized. You can cite whichever laws about personal property and all the tricky wording that is part of Roe V. Wade, these tough decisions that these girls’ make should not be exploited.

  And those of us who are pro life, God bless you, and please focus on living your life that way and not trying to force other women to do the same. Instead we can work together on lowering abortions with proper sex education and access to contraception and birth control. We should not teach abstinence only and then act surprised when so many teens are pregnant.

• Thanks, JoJo. I’m locked in the ivory tower, grading papers, just like you.

  It seems to me that, in the end, Lauralee is pro-choice, since she understands that the whole thing is a “sticky issue” that “will never be agreed upon”. So, pro-choice, it is.

• Sheesh, pardon my grammar at 8 am!

  And Sarah Palin totally blows.

• I support abortion. Yeah, I said it. The last thing this world needs is more disgusting humans.

• “Each contains the DNA of that person, but until the two are joined the DNA of that newly formed offspring has not been created. Oh sh*t, that sounds even worse. lol”

  @ Lauralee: it has nothing to do with you not copying and pasting. It has everything to do with science being a process. Your inability to place the DNA as belonging to the mother father or the child is why viability/personhood is a line in the sand. In science an egg and a sperm are both cells carrying DNA belonging to either the mother or the father AND they are cells carrying DNA belonging to a new person. I fully agree too– much needs to be done to reduce the number of abortions. I support all standard means aimed to reduce abortions. I also believe in reaching out to the thousands who struggle raising the children they chose to have, and the improvement of facilities that house children without a good home.

  I respect your position and all who chimed in.