McCain picks woman for VP slot

[Guest American Woman]

Why...is Chelsea knocked up too?

Here's a tip, Einstein: 'keep families/children out of it' doesn't only apply to "knocked up" teenagers-- unless you're a hypocrite, so if the shoe fits........

[WIP]

The growth of the fertilized egg into a full human being begins right from the moment it is fertilized, and the DNA blueprint is clearly human DNA. Division of cells, an integral component of the life cycle, begins right at that moment. You are of course welcome to argue that this is not where life begins.

I asked this question before during the last abortion debate, but I'll use it again since it illustrates the fallacy of equating a partial design with the finished product: in 1991, I went to an architect to get a unique set of design plans to build a house out in the country. Were the blueprints of equal value to the finished house?

And in that case, the blueprints were followed exactly to plan, but in biological organisms, that genetic blueprint that we have at birth is only a partial plan that guides the development of the creature. Environmental factors will weigh in right from the earliest stages of development and determine which genes are expressed and which ones are redundant and unused; so you have no way of determining the future outcome of a child if you're using that fertilized egg as an example of where personhood should start.

Even if you did want to give rights to a zygote, should those rights supercede the wants or desires of the woman who has become pregnant? If would be one thing to guarantee human rights to a fertilized egg if you were to extract it and place it in some artificial womb (maybe that will happen in the future), but the demand to regard this collection of less than 100 cells as a person also carries with it the demand that the woman give up her freedom to decide whether it has enough value to require her to carry it around for nine months, sapping her energy and interfering with whatever else she is doing in her life. To me this is an absolute unreasonable request that no man would accept for himself, and it's offside to demand that women give up their rights and freedoms to make it possible.

I don't know how many prolifers think through all of the ethical problems of the place where they say life begins, but the way it's carried out in real life indicates that the desire has more to do with trying to control women's fertility, deciding when and when not they should have babies, and a distant secondary consideration is "the sanctity of life." Otherwise there would be more focus on the excess supply of fertilized eggs created in fertility clinics, more money spent to prevent miscarriages and certainly a lot more money would be spent on children after birth. The big knock against pro life conservatives is that they respect the sanctity of life until it comes out of the womb, and cutting aid to single mothers on welfare for example, indicates that they feel it is more important to punish single women who get pregnant, than it is to worry about the health or quality of life of the child they have given birth to. As the pro lifers say when excusing their refusal to allow abortions in cases of rape: "the child is a victim and should not be punished." But they are not reluctant to punish the children after they're born.

[WIP]

I'm surprised that if Palin is against abortion then is she FOR birth control?? Did/has she talked to her daughter about birth control, or is she one of these parents that think, their child would never have sex if I told them I didn't want them to??? IF elected VP, will her daughter and soninlaw live with them in DC?

Until birth control came along in the 60's, this is how a lot of marriages happened: eventually a guy would get his girlfriend pregnant and do the honourable thing -- provided he didn't skip town over the intervening nine months. People like Sarah Palin want to take us all the way back to the good old days when girls got married at 16 or 17, sometimes too late to discover that the guys had deceived them about how much they loved them and how good their earning prospects were. And if the girl thought of getting an abortion, it was provided on the blackmarket where she could run the risk of dying from a septic infection or loss of blood. But those were the good old days!

[capricorn]

Do you think people should be less than honest when dealing with a nation's well being?

AW, the woman made a public statement which you brought attention to. Essentially, my response was she should not have been so candid in her public response given the family relationship. I accept that you believe that in her manner of response she did the right thing.

Do you think personal feelings trump a nation's well being? Because you left off this part of my quote: This isn't "personal" as I've already said, it involves the well-being of our nation.

You left this part off, too: Furthermore, I don't consider her stating her opinion to be "mouthing off," I consider it to be honestly answering a question.

Since when is answering a direct question truthfully "mouthing off?"

Why should I address points that are primarily your personal opinion in response to my personal opinion? I know nothing I bring forward will change your view on this. You see, I'm thinking outside the box.

[Guest American Woman]

Until birth control came along in the 60's, this is how a lot of marriages happened: eventually a guy would get his girlfriend pregnant and do the honourable thing -- provided he didn't skip town over the intervening nine months. People like Sarah Palin want to take us all the way back to the good old days when girls got married at 16 or 17, sometimes too late to discover that the guys had deceived them about how much they loved them and how good their earning prospects were. And if the girl thought of getting an abortion, it was provided on the blackmarket where she could run the risk of dying from a septic infection or loss of blood. But those were the good old days!

*sigh* "Those were the days, my friend ......."

Guess "abstinence only" education doesn't work so well.

[Argus]

Any US government that appeals the 2nd amendment is not a democracy. I would be honoring them for fighting to save it.

Oh come on. You're being silly. Are you saying that European countries are not democracies? That Canada and Australia and the UK and Ireland are not democracies because we don't let people have machineguns?

[WIP]

It looks like her daughter has chosen life.

I didn't know about this latest bombshell when I posted the comment, but I wonder if she has any regrets now about her stand against birth control information for high school students!

I guess you have heard what the bloggers were speculating about this birth.

I heard, but I wasn't sure whether to believe it since the alibi makes her look so dangerously wreckless and irresponsible. If it was her daughter's child, couldn't they have covered up the story about the birth for a few days so she could pretend to have it several days after she had returned from Texas? To me, the alibi sounds worse than the conspiracy theory that is floating around.

In regards to what Pain said on a variety of social issues in 2006.

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/...-candidate.html

And:

This woman is a total idiot!

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

JB: No.

SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

Didn't she know the phrase "Under God" was added in 1951, not by the Founding Fathers! Another stupid theocrat.

[Argus]

I'm surprised that if Palin is against abortion then is she FOR birth control?? Did/has she talked to her daughter about birth control, or is she one of these parents that think, their child would never have sex if I told them I didn't want them to??? IF elected VP, will her daughter and soninlaw live with them in DC?

She is against birth control, and from her religious attitude, she's likely also one of those people who is violently opposed to teaching kids about sex education in schools - and teaches them nothing at home but "Just say no". It's sad, really, because studies have repeatedly shown that districts controlled by people like Palin have higher rates of teen pregnancy, teen STDs and abortions. But nothing will ever convince them that teaching kids about sex education is not evil and won't inspire them to go out and have orgies.

Edited to add, after checking, that Palin indeed opposed sex education in schools, and favoured "abstinence only" education for teenagers.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

I love how everyone is saying Palin's daughter should be "off limits," too. I agree that no one should attack her, but I find it rather amusing in light of McCain's "joke" about Chelsea Clinton. Talk about a hypocritical.

Sorry, but while kids ought to be off-limits in most cases they won't be for Palin. The woman has based too much of who and what she is on her sense of Christian morality. The good Christian mother raising her dutiful children the good, Christian way, teaching them, presumably, good, Christian values. Only it turns out she wasn't such a good teacher. Opposed to sex education, and opposed to birth control, her teen daughter becomes pregnant. Who can resist the way the irony of that shows up Palin's beliefs as idiotic? Add in that she endangered her youngest child's life by flying home after her water broke - apparently more concerned with the optics of having a baby born in Alaska, and what's emerging isn't all that family friendly.

[capricorn]

Obama says families are off limits.

McCain’s Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, took note of speculation that rumors about the child were being fueled by liberal Internet activists and said, “I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits.”

---

"Our people were not involved in any way,” Obama told reporters in Monroe, Mich., noting that his mother gave birth to him when she was just 18. “And if I thought anyone in my campagin was involved in something like that, they’d be fired.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26486090/

I guess we know where Obama stands.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here's a tip, Einstein: 'keep families/children out of it' doesn't only apply to "knocked up" teenagers-- unless you're a hypocrite, so if the shoe fits........

Nonsense.....you and your ilk are happy to include children and families until it bites you in the ass....just ask Kerry and Edwards.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry, but while kids ought to be off-limits in most cases they won't be for Palin. The woman has based too much of who and what she is on her sense of Christian morality. The good Christian mother raising her dutiful children the good, Christian way, teaching them, presumably, good, Christian values. Only it turns out she wasn't such a good teacher. Opposed to sex education, and opposed to birth control, her teen daughter becomes pregnant. Who can resist the way the irony of that shows up Palin's beliefs as idiotic? Add in that she endangered her youngest child's life by flying home after her water broke - apparently more concerned with the optics of having a baby born in Alaska, and what's emerging isn't all that family friendly.

I think it's bizarre to say that people can't refute Palin's stand on 'abstinence only' education and opposition to birth control, yet it seems as if they are saying that to do so would constitute 'bringing her daughter into it.'

Here's the thing, though. The anti-choice/Christian crowd is saying 'isn't it wonderful that she's living up to her ideals.' Her daughter may be 17, unwed, and pregnant, but she didn't have an abortion and the couple is getting married, so isn't life grand?

As WIP has pointed out, it's a step back into the 50's, which is where it seems a lot of these "Christians" would like to see the U.S. at. Of course if it were a Democrat's non-religious teenage daughter pregnant out of wedlock, she would be a first class sinner and proof that America's morals are going down the crapper.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Here's the thing, though. The anti-choice/Christian crowd is saying 'isn't it wonderful that she's living up to her ideals.' Her daughter may be 17, unwed, and pregnant, but she didn't have an abortion and the couple is getting married, so isn't life grand?

That's right....the pro-abortion folks will have to move on to another victim.....they won't get to vacuum aspirate this baby Palin.

[moderateamericain]

Oh come on. You're being silly. Are you saying that European countries are not democracies? That Canada and Australia and the UK and Ireland are not democracies because we don't let people have machineguns?

Straw man argument, I'm not saying that the restricting automatic weapons and and bombs and military hardware is wrong. I'm talking rifles, handguns, shotguns. And were talking about disarming the population. Which is what I'm against. I don't think anyone needs a fully automatic AR 15, heck even the Military doesn't use fully automatic until you get to m60 or bigger. Number 1 its a waste of ammo, number two you can't hit shit fully automatic in small arms fire.

[Liam]

I am still waiting for someone on the conservative end of the spectrum to tell me that Palin was fully investigated and vetted by the McCain campaign and that she still represents the best he could have done. Anyone?

[MontyBurns]

Number 1 its a waste of ammo, number two you can't hit shit fully automatic in small arms fire.

But they are fun to use.

[Ontario Loyalist]

McCain must be kicking himself:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/09/01/palin-pregnant.html

[CANADIEN]

I asked this question before during the last abortion debate, but I'll use it again since it illustrates the fallacy of equating a partial design with the finished product: in 1991, I went to an architect to get a unique set of design plans to build a house out in the country. Were the blueprints of equal value to the finished house?

Life is not a house. it is not a product. It's LIFE.

And in that case, the blueprints were followed exactly to plan, but in biological organisms, that genetic blueprint that we have at birth is only a partial plan that guides the development of the creature. Environmental factors will weigh in right from the earliest stages of development and determine which genes are expressed and which ones are redundant and unused; so you have no way of determining the future outcome of a child if you're using that fertilized egg as an example of where personhood should start.

When a pregnancy goes to its term, the outcome is a child. Period.

Even if you did want to give rights to a zygote, should those rights supercede the wants or desires of the woman who has become pregnant? If would be one thing to guarantee human rights to a fertilized egg if you were to extract it and place it in some artificial womb (maybe that will happen in the future), but the demand to regard this collection of less than 100 cells as a person also carries with it the demand that the woman give up her freedom to decide whether it has enough value to require her to carry it around for nine months, sapping her energy and interfering with whatever else she is doing in her life. To me this is an absolute unreasonable request that no man would accept for himself, and it's offside to demand that women give up their rights and freedoms to make it possible.

The most important human right is the right to live. So except when there is a risk for the life of a mother that right to live does indeed supersedes any other right. This is human life we are talking about, not just a collection of cells. The only unreasonable demand is that the definition of who is worthy enough to be allowed to live be strickly a matter of individual choice.

I don't know how many prolifers think through all of the ethical problems of the place where they say life begins

and I don't know how many "pro-choicers' think through all the ramifications of letting who should or should not live be a personal decision.

but the way it's carried out in real life indicates that the desire has more to do with trying to control women's fertility, deciding when and when not they should have babies, and a distant secondary consideration is "the sanctity of life." Otherwise there would be more focus on the excess supply of fertilized eggs created in fertility clinics, more money spent to prevent miscarriages and certainly a lot more money would be spent on children after birth. The big knock against pro life conservatives is that they respect the sanctity of life until it comes out of the womb, and cutting aid to single mothers on welfare for example, indicates that they feel it is more important to punish single women who get pregnant, than it is to worry about the health or quality of life of the child they have given birth to. As the pro lifers say when excusing their refusal to allow abortions in cases of rape: "the child is a victim and should not be punished." But they are not reluctant to punish the children after they're born.

So-called "pro-lifers" who oppose adequate funding for accessible health care, decent social programs, effective education (especially early childhood education), measures to reduce poverty at home and abroad, measures to preserve the environment; those who approve of the death penalty; those who support illegal and immoral wars - those people are little more than hypocrites.

Edited September 1, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Shady]

she's likely also one of those people who is violently opposed to teaching kids about sex education in schools

Nice. So she's "likely" one of those people? And, not only opposed, but violently opposed? Yes, I'm sure teachers fear for their lives.

The woman has based too much of who and what she is on her sense of Christian morality

In your opinion. I would argue that her public service is as much a part of who and what she is, as her social/reglious views and beliefs. And so what if she's Christian? America (and Canada) were founded on Judeo-Christian values. Would it be better if she were Muslim? Probably, because at least the left-wingers would treat her with kid gloves.

As WIP has pointed out, it's a step back into the 50's, which is where it seems a lot of these "Christians" would like to see the U.S. at.

Not at all. The biggest issue with "sex education" is that some parents would like to have a say in what age "sex education" is taught to their children, and what the curriculum is composed of. And an even bigger issue is that leftists have turned "sex education" into homosexual/lesbian/trans-gender education, which goes far beyond sexual reproduction.

I think it's bizarre to say that people can't refute Palin's stand on 'abstinence only' education and opposition to birth control, yet it seems as if they are saying that to do so would constitute 'bringing her daughter into it.'

Yes, because her daughter got pregnant because she didn't know of the existence of birth control.

Ok, you people need to stop. It's perfectly acceptble to criticize her resume. And it's perfectly acceptable to claim she's not experienced enough to be Vice President. But the progression towards very personal attacks is at the very least inappropriate, and bordering on disgusting.

[Shady]

Even if you did want to give rights to a zygote, should those rights supercede the wants or desires of the woman who has become pregnant? If would be one thing to guarantee human rights to a fertilized egg if you were to extract it and place it in some artificial womb (maybe that will happen in the future), but the demand to regard this collection of less than 100 cells as a person also carries with it the demand that the woman give up her freedom to decide whether it has enough value to require her to carry it around for nine months, sapping her energy and interfering with whatever else she is doing in her life. To me this is an absolute unreasonable request that no man would accept for himself, and it's offside to demand that women give up their rights and freedoms to make it possible.

I'd be willing to compromise. How about when an unborn baby develops a heart-beat? Can we at least say then, that it constitutes human life?

[Liam]

Ok, you people need to stop. It's perfectly acceptble to criticize her resume. And it's perfectly acceptable to claim she's not experienced enough to be Vice President. But the progression towards very personal attacks is at the very least inappropriate, and bordering on disgusting.

I wish this discussion would get away from abortion, particularly as it applies to Palin and her own life choices. It's a total canard and, frankly, whether or not Palin decided to have her child and/or how she decided to act during her pregnancy is her own damn business. Isn't that what "choice" is about?!

[bush_cheney2004]

I am still waiting for someone on the conservative end of the spectrum to tell me that Palin was fully investigated and vetted by the McCain campaign and that she still represents the best he could have done. Anyone?

Of course she was vetted, and Governor Palin's selection really has nothing to do with the best of anything, except political manuevering for favor with particular voters. None of these nominated/soon-to-be nominated candidates are the best choices possible. But that is not what this exercise is about.

[Guest American Woman]

I wish this discussion would get away from abortion, particularly as it applies to Palin and her own life choices. It's a total canard and, frankly, whether or not Palin decided to have her child and/or how she decided to act during her pregnancy is her own damn business. Isn't that what "choice" is about?!

Of course it was her choice whether or not to have the baby. I totally respect that.

But people have a right to question/criticize her views when it involves their private lives and their families. She has no business telling people what decisions they can or can't make in that regard either, yet she wants to legislate her views (ie: overturn Roe and Wade) and she only wants to fund what she personally believes in when it comes to things like sex education.

If she wants to teach her children abstinence, that's her business. But when as a public official she uses her personal beliefs to decide that only abstinence should be supported/funded, then people have a right to criticize. In other words, it becomes a public issue. Just because her 17 year old daughter is pregnant doesn't mean we should tip-toe around her archaic "abstinence" stand. If Palin doesn't believe in birth control that's her business; but it's not her place to withhold educating other young people about it, and I won't be "stopped" from saying it, and pointing out that teaching "abstinence only" doesn't work just because it happens to hit home with Palin.

[jdobbin]

I am still waiting for someone on the conservative end of the spectrum to tell me that Palin was fully investigated and vetted by the McCain campaign and that she still represents the best he could have done. Anyone?

ABC World New Tonight reports that McCain is sending many of its top people to forestall the media that is pouring into the state to look into every aspect of Palin's life. I'm sure we'll be hearing more in the next week. George Stephanopolous revealed that privately some Republicans are saying that Palin was not fulled vetted.

From the respected Charlie Cook:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/...080901_7688.php

What is clear is that McCain found himself with fewer options than he wanted, and, and that reality, along with his overwhelming desire to shake things up, led him to the last-minute selection of Palin, who he had met only once (in February at a National Governors Association meeting) before the vetting process began. Some McCain advisers are now saying that she was fully vetted, but others are sending signals that she underwent only the briefest and scantest of scrutiny.

Edited September 1, 2008 by jdobbin

[Liam]

Of course she was vetted, and Governor Palin's selection really has nothing to do with the best of anything, except political manuevering for favor with particular voters. None of these nominated/soon-to-be nominated candidates are the best choices possible. But that is not what this exercise is about.

If this is vetting, then I'd really hate to see what a President McCain would do with a national security briefing that contradicts a conclusion he's already made.

Get real. She's a small state governor who is on record as having no interest in global matters. She has no positions on domestic affairs. Her only knowledge of the surge comes from what she learned on the local news. Her main position on Iraq is solely about having an exit strategy (contrary to McCain's). She is on record as having lied about the poster-child of bad government pork (the bridge to nowhere), but then she took the money and spent it on the road to the bridge to nowhere. Look it up. She is under investigation for abusing the power of her political office to settle an internal family score. She is on record as having no idea what the VP does. This possible future commander in chief got her first passport at age 43 when she went to visit those Alaska National Guard troops under her command in Kuwait -- which was her national security bona fide per the GOP. And now an underage, unwed pregnant teenage daughter. This was the candidate who passed McCain's stringent vetting process? Cripes, what was in Mike Huckabee's closet if she passed the test and he didn't???

This is not about Palin. She is who she is. She may be lovable for all her faults, she may be vilified for the idiocy of her policy positions. Frankly, part of me wants to like her, but this isn't about her. The past 72 hours says all you need to know about the impulsive, sloppy, radical, imbalanced and irrational nature of the McCain campaign and, by extension, his potential presidency. His political calculations makes him as bad as the Clintons, for god's sake. Actually, worse, because the Clintons actually appointed effective people.

It must be very reassuring to know that someone like McCain is going to be appointing similarly qualified and similarly vetted people in his administration. We've already had eight years of "deciders" directing policy decisions to fit political needs. McCain is only showing himself to be more like Bush than ever. This is enough.

So, yes, pat yourself and McCain on the back for picking someone the evangelicals will love on election day. How fantastic. But look inside and ask what you'd be saying if Obama's vetting process and his choice for VP was equally risky. Seriously, what would your reaction be?

Edited September 1, 2008 by Liam