Palin Derangement Syndrome

[jbg]

Countries and territories that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo (Democratic Republic), Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Korea (North), Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saint Christopher & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad And Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States Of America, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe

In US only fo rmurder and treason. Are those "ordinary crimes"? Are not our procedures a bit less arbitrary than almost all of the countries you have listed (with the honorable exceptions of Japan, Bahamas, Barbados)?

[WIP]

Just another small reason why "Palin Derangement Syndrome" is a justified reaction:

Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said.

Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...story?track=rss

[GostHacked]

There is a built in assumption in your argument that privacy rights are absolute. In the real world, there are always situations where there are competing rights, and a decision has to be made who's rights take precedence. The absolute pro choice argument assumes that a fetus has no properties to make a right to life argument valid at any stage of development -- even the day before delivery. The reason why this argument is losing is because what has been learned about fetal development that call into question drawing a line in the sand between the day before and the day after birth.

Since the feotus cannot speak for themselves, might be because they are not aware of their existence, pro choice does not assume the feotus has no rights. The Pro Choice argument is to give everyone a choice. It depends on the choice they make. I am not about to take that choice away from any woman out there. Again, with the advice of her doctor/family, she will be able to make the decision that is right for her.

No one else will know what your moral values are if you refuse to express objections to things that are immoral.

My morals do not come into play on this at all, unless it is involving me and my spouse in terms of what we want to do (to abort or not to abort) then together we will make a decision with the advice of our doctor. It is about the choice. Your choice, not mine or my views, or my morals.

As for the religious arguments,...

Religion does not play a role in my life .... but this does not equate to me having no morals.

Since that doctrine that a fertilized egg has had a soul dropped in at some point after the fertilization process is complete is the lynchpin of prolife ideology, I'd like to hear someone try to prove it is a rationally based argument instead of dealing with the same retreaded arguments of potentiality that are offered up as a 2nd place option.

If you can prove a human has a soul, let alone an unborn feotus, then I will consider the evidence.

If there is a basis for recognizing a right to life at a stage of fetal development where conscious awareness and a sense of pain is beginning, then that privacy right can't be regarded as an absolute value.

Is it really any of your business anyways? Again, show me the evidence.

If there is evidence that late term abortions are being selected in ways that may be detrimental to society as a whole, that also provides a valid reason to step in and apply some restrictions on that right.

I already stated that late term abortions are illegal in the US and Canada, however there are unique cases where this could be allowed.

There are enough other Palin threads running now to discuss every aspect of her newfound celebrity. But you can't blame the antiabortion supporters of Sarah Palin for focusing on the abortion issue, since her drastic stance of denying abortion rights to victims of rape and incest, and her personal story of having a Down's Syndrome baby at 44, instead of having an abortion, are the big reasons why they are so high on her in the first place.

I guess what it boils down to in this case, is the choice. Palin chose to have the baby.

I am not a doctor either, and I have no post-secondary education aside from taking a few night school classes over the years, but these are issues that society as a whole has to make decisions on.

Society does not need to make all the decisions. Some are best left up to the individual.

When we die, we won't miss being here any more than we did before we were born. Fear of death is primal and comes from a basic biological survival instinct. In response to it, most societies have created all sorts of elaborate doctrines (resurrection, reincarnation, eternal souls) to break the rules that seem apparent -- we are the only animals that are consciously aware that we will die, and this concept of trying to face death rationally without creating imaginary realms where we can live on afterwards, is a recent development and probably not one that can appeal to the majority of people.

We don't need more doctrines. We need more doctors.

Pro-lifers cannot seem to understand the Pro-Choice stance. I may not approve of abortion ect, but it is not my choice/decision to make when it comes to another's health. I would rather leave that choice up to the inviduals involved.

If you abort... your choice.

If you don't abort.... again your choice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

It is your choice, and I will not take that away from you.

[WIP]

I almost made the mistake of thinking the abortion debate was over!

Since the feotus cannot speak for themselves, might be because they are not aware of their existence,

A newborn baby is no more aware of its own existence than it is in earlier stages of development before birth.

pro choice does not assume the feotus has no rights. The Pro Choice argument is to give everyone a choice. It depends on the choice they make. I am not about to take that choice away from any woman out there. Again, with the advice of her doctor/family, she will be able to make the decision that is right for her.

Okay, so what are fetal rights and when do they restrict the woman's right to choose?

My morals do not come into play on this at all, unless it is involving me and my spouse in terms of what we want to do (to abort or not to abort) then together we will make a decision with the advice of our doctor. It is about the choice. Your choice, not mine or my views, or my morals.

Okay, you have moral views that you don't want to mention in public for some reason. If I remember correctly, I was asking if you had an opinion on the morality of a late term abortion for frivolous reasons like sex selection. Even if you want to follow a line of reasoning that privacy rights are absolute, you can still have an opinion on whether aborting a 32 week old fetus for being the wrong sex, or club-footed is either a proper or an immoral choice for a pregnant woman to make.

[GostHacked]

I almost made the mistake of thinking the abortion debate was over!

A newborn baby is no more aware of its own existence than it is in earlier stages of development before birth.

I would say a newborne baby is very aware of his/her existance. First thing they do is find out what they are (am I a boy or a girl?). Why is a newborne aware of the mother? Why does the newborn know and who his mother is. They are sure aware of what breathing is once they leave the womb, they may not understand it all, but they know right away, breathing is vital.

Okay, so what are fetal rights and when do they restrict the woman's right to choose?

I have no clue what fetal rights are, and the only way it will restrict a woman's right to choose, is if people like you want to make up their minds for them.

Okay, you have moral views that you don't want to mention in public for some reason. If I remember correctly, I was asking if you had an opinion on the morality of a late term abortion for frivolous reasons like sex selection. Even if you want to follow a line of reasoning that privacy rights are absolute, you can still have an opinion on whether aborting a 32 week old fetus for being the wrong sex, or club-footed is either a proper or an immoral choice for a pregnant woman to make.

Once I let you know of my opinions of morals, I can see them getting twisted for the sake of argument. So my morals will stay out of this in all cases, unless if affects me or my family. My morals are mine, and mine alone. You have your own, and others have their own morals.

[White Doors]

I already stated that late term abortions are illegal in the US and Canada, however there are unique cases where this could be allowed.

wrong. it is legal to have an abortion in Canada up to the moment of birth.

and saying 'it's none of my business' is a cop out.

That's like saying if a woman murders her husband, it is none of your business.

it was her 'choice' after all right? Who are we to judge?

[GostHacked]

wrong. it is legal to have an abortion in Canada up to the moment of birth.

Cite?

and saying 'it's none of my business' is a cop out.

It is not a cop out, because, it is none of my business. How a lady in Vancouver, or Miami, or even here in Ottawa decides is simply none of my business. It is not something I want to make my business.

That's like saying if a woman murders her husband, it is none of your business.

That is not a fair comparison at all. This sounds like a set up.

it was her 'choice' after all right? Who are we to judge?

Only if you are called for Jury Duty will you make a judgement that will matter.

[WIP]

I would say a newborne baby is very aware of his/her existance. First thing they do is find out what they are (am I a boy or a girl?). Why is a newborne aware of the mother?Why does the newborn know and who his mother is. They are sure aware of what breathing is once they leave the womb, they may not understand it all, but they know right away, breathing is vital.

That awareness takes a long time to develop. Many child psychologists would challenge your assessment since an infant is unable to localize pain and incorporate information from the senses to map out the boundary between its own body and the world outside. Consciousness developes slowly and gradually as the brain developes, and there is no magic marker line between late fetal stage and a newborn baby.

There is a lot of evidence that consciousness is beginning before birth. There is published research claiming evidence for Fetal Awareness of Maternal Emotional States During Pregnancy:

The data from this study yielded a striking variety and quantity of detailed information about prenatal consciousness and a wide range of recalled prenatal experience by the offspring, as well as supporting information from the birthmother. The findings in this study indicated evidence of the existence of a greater consciousness in the prenate than has been acknowledged in the literature. The transcripts of the offspring revealed a prenatal consciousness that seemed self aware and environmentally cognizant. These findings suggested that there is a method to tap into our memories of prenatal experiences

I wish I had a subscription to read the research paper, but there have been similar studies showing growing conscious awareness that begins when the cerebral cortex is growing and becoming connected with the older brain regions, such as when nerve fibres from the Thalamus penetrate the Cortical Plate and make conscious awareness of pain a possibility.

I have no clue what fetal rights are, and the only way it will restrict a woman's right to choose, is if people like you want to make up their minds for them.

Once I let you know of my opinions of morals, I can see them getting twisted for the sake of argument. So my morals will stay out of this in all cases, unless if affects me or my family. My morals are mine, and mine alone. You have your own, and others have their own morals.

Well, Pro Choice is going to lose this debate if they don't engage and deal with ethical objections and new problems created by advanced fetal screening.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I just find it supremely odd that women - so nurturing and caring in many aspects (compared to men) are so quick to pull out the suction hose, disconnect the fetus from their body and suck a beating-heart thing right out of them. It's disgusting.

[Guest American Woman]

I just find it supremely odd that women - so nurturing and caring in many aspects (compared to men) are so quick to pull out the suction hose, disconnect the fetus from their body and suck a beating-heart thing right out of them. It's disgusting.

Really. You think it's a "quick" decision? Speaking of "disgusting," shows how much little you know.

[BC_chick]

I just find it supremely odd that women - so nurturing and caring in many aspects (compared to men) are so quick to pull out the suction hose, disconnect the fetus from their body and suck a beating-heart thing right out of them. It's disgusting.

... and I just it supremely odd that men - whom studies show almost never contribute equally to the raising of the child, even when the couple lives together - would be so quick to tell women what they should and shouldn't do with their reproductive organs.

[GostHacked]

I just find it supremely odd that women - so nurturing and caring in many aspects (compared to men) are so quick to pull out the suction hose, disconnect the fetus from their body and suck a beating-heart thing right out of them. It's disgusting.

I have sat here for 20 minutes trying to think of a response to this. I am almost speachless. ......... and I am a man.

[jbg]

I have sat here for 20 minutes trying to think of a response to this. I am almost speachless. ......... and I am a man.

Frankly, if the baby's father leaves the mother is stuck with raising it. Are any of these Christian fundamentalists or right-wingers offering to adopt all the babies that wind up being aborted?

I don't f*****g think so.

[Shady]

would be so quick to tell women what they should and shouldn't do with their reproductive organs.

No, we're not talking about your reproductive organs. We're talking about a body within a body. A body with seperate organs, brain, and a heart beating.

Frankly, if the baby's father leaves the mother is stuck with raising it. Are any of these Christian fundamentalists or right-wingers offering to adopt all the babies that wind up being aborted?

I don't f*****g think so.

Actually, waiting lists for adoption agencies are quite long. So your "what are we going to do with them" argument is moot. As if that's the standard we're to apply to whether someone is allowed to live or not anyways.

[Guest American Woman]

Frankly, if the baby's father leaves the mother is stuck with raising it. Are any of these Christian fundamentalists or right-wingers offering to adopt all the babies that wind up being aborted?

I don't f*****g think so.

Forget adopting them. Let them support them financially. A lot of women find giving up an actual live baby that they carried for nine months, got to know inside the womb, gave birth to, heard cry, harder to 'give up' than a fetus; to give up a baby to unknown people to raise is more difficult for some than aborting an embryo/fetus. If they're going to go through with carrying the baby to term, they don't want to give it up.

But I don't even see the Christian Conservatives pushing to give all kids health coverage, the benefit of medical care, so we won't see anything more than their continual effort to force their Christian 'values' on others.

[Guest American Woman]

No, we're not talking about your reproductive organs. We're talking about a body within a body. A body with seperate organs, brain, and a heart beating.

Actually, waiting lists for adoption agencies are quite long. So your "what are we going to do with them" argument is moot.

No, it's not moot. Some of these unwanted babies end up in the foster care system when they are no longer newborns. There's no waiting lists to adopt these children, and the Christian Conservatives should care as much about them when they get older as they do when they are an embryo/fetus. That's the point that was being made; that if they want to force others to have these babies, they should be willing to step up to the plate and see that they are cared for. Let them take responsibility for the lives they are insisting enter this world. Until they are willing to do that, they have no right to tell others that they have to bring unwanted babies into this world.

[WIP]

I just find it supremely odd that women - so nurturing and caring in many aspects (compared to men) are so quick to pull out the suction hose, disconnect the fetus from their body and suck a beating-heart thing right out of them. It's disgusting.

I guess you've already been told, but there would be no abortion debate if men were having babies! Easy to take shots at women who want a choice over whether to go through with nine months of pregnancy or not, when you're just sitting in the peanut gallery and don't have to worry about dealing with this sort of dilemma.

[WIP]

No, we're not talking about your reproductive organs. We're talking about a body within a body. A body with seperate organs, brain, and a heart beating.

And that "body within a body" can't survive on its own; it is totally dependent on the mother's body, therefore it should not be accorded individual human rights that are granted to people who are dependent on life support machines to survive. It is a parasite; and you can't save it without denying the mother's right to decide whether to bring it to term.

Actually, waiting lists for adoption agencies are quite long. So your "what are we going to do with them" argument is moot. As if that's the standard we're to apply to whether someone is allowed to live or not anyways.

They can't be adopted out unless you require the mother to spend nine months in pregnancy, and then to give birth to the child. But, you don't see how that is an infringement on the woman's freedoms!

[WIP]

No, it's not moot. Some of these unwanted babies end up in the foster care system when they are no longer newborns. There's no waiting lists to adopt these children, and the Christian Conservatives should care as much about them when they get older as they do when they are an embryo/fetus. That's the point that was being made; that if they want to force others to have these babies, they should be willing to step up to the plate and see that they are cared for. Let them take responsibility for the lives they are insisting enter this world. Until they are willing to do that, they have no right to tell others that they have to bring unwanted babies into this world.

Right! The demand is for babies, not children and especially not teenagers! The foster child does not share the parents' genetic heritage, so they will not only look different, they will also develop different temperaments and other personality characteristics. This can be a source of friction on its own, and if the parents are able to later have one or two children naturally -- lookout! The adopted children become the unwanted stepchildren and often end up back in foster care or group homes when they get older.

I do some volunteer work with group-home teenagers; they start out in the foster care system, and if they aren't adopted by the time they're about three years old, they never will be; and when they get in their teen years, they are too old for foster care and end up in group homes. It is a difficult challenge to give kids who've been bounced from one foster care family after another through a number of group homes, a purpose in life. Most seem to drift along aimlessly, showing little interest in school, getting involved in drugs and petty crime, with no goals or aspirations for their futures. And when they are too old for the group homes, many of them end up on the street or in jail. If the prolifers dream of an absolute ban on abortion became reality, the numbers of unwanted and hard to place children would skyrocket!

[GostHacked]

No, we're not talking about your reproductive organs. We're talking about a body within a body. A body with seperate organs, brain, and a heart beating.

And that body within the body came from reproductive organs, both the male and the female.

Actually, waiting lists for adoption agencies are quite long. So your "what are we going to do with them" argument is moot. As if that's the standard we're to apply to whether someone is allowed to live or not anyways.

So why do we have so many children in foster homes who cannot find a proper home? And the point is relevant. If you want to bring a life into this world, (most caring responsible adults do) you have to be prepared for a long term commitment. If you say abortion is illegal, and force the mother to have the baby (see again this is not a Pro-Choice,, well maybe imposing your choice on her) then you must be prepared to see to it that the child gets the best care possible.

If pro-lifers do not consider the long term care for the abandoned child, then they should not be telling others what to do. Because you made the choice to force the mother to give birth, you must be prepared for the consequences. If you are not ready for it, sit down, shut up, and let people make up their own minds (PRO CHOICE).

Maybe it is because the adopters are being selective as well? Maybe the systems is so messed up, the unwanted child is still left unwanted in a foster home. Your tax dollars at work. Imagine how much time and money and suffering we would all save if abortion did not have the stigmatism associated with it. Imagine being that unwanted child left at the foster home.

So, where is the Palin Derangement Syndrome now?

[Shady]

No, it's not moot. Some of these unwanted babies end up in the foster care system

I don't care where they end up, because it has absolutely no relevance to someone's right to life.

Let them take responsibility for the lives they are insisting enter this world. Until they are willing to do that, they have no right to tell others that they have to bring unwanted babies into this world.

You people just don't get it. Somebody's right to life has nothing to do with anyone else's actions or inactions. The fact that unborn babies, with beating hearts are being destroyed, isn't determined to be just, because somebody somewhere doesn't fund a government program, or don't care about them after they're born. It really shouldn't be this difficult to understand.

And that "body within a body" can't survive on its own; it is totally dependent on the mother's body

The same can be said of any baby up to age of 5.

I do some volunteer work with group-home teenagers; they start out in the foster care system, and if they aren't adopted by the time they're about three years old, they never will be; and when they get in their teen years, they are too old for foster care and end up in group homes.

That's all probably true. But it's still no basis on deciding whether somebody lives or not. You people are stuck on stupid.

So to sum up the pro-choice view as has been stated by the above individuals. It's alright to kill unborn babies, because the circumstances they may be born into, aren't necessarily ideal.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Shady

[jbg]

No, it's not moot. Some of these unwanted babies end up in the foster care system when they are no longer newborns. There's no waiting lists to adopt these children, and the Christian Conservatives should care as much about them when they get older as they do when they are an embryo/fetus.

AW, you see that you and I agree on some issues.

Maybe time to "bury the hatchet" and not between each others' ears.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't care where they end up, because it has absolutely no relevance to someone's right to life.

Proof that you don't care at all about their lives-- only imposing your religious "values," your beliefs, on others.

[CANADIEN]

I have sat here for 20 minutes trying to think of a response to this. I am almost speachless. ......... and I am a man.

You are almost speechless? So am I by what he wrote and I am pro-life.

[GostHacked]

I don't care where they end up, because it has absolutely no relevance to someone's right to life.

Then you have no say in how they are (or IF they are) brought into this world. Maybe it is the right to a good life.

You people just don't get it. Somebody's right to life has nothing to do with anyone else's actions or inactions.

Your inaction will leave this abandoned child in a foster home, without proper funding to make sure the life you wanted to save IS saved. Just because they are born does not

The fact that unborn babies, with beating hearts are being destroyed, isn't determined to be just, because somebody somewhere doesn't fund a government program, or don't care about them after they're born.

Try being a foster child. Instead of being just dead, they are dead inside and a burden on society because people liek you are not willing to step up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is.l You must consider what kind of life that abandoned child will live. You made the decision for someone else to have the child, but you do not want to take repsonsibility for your actions. This is a cop out.

It really shouldn't be this difficult to understand.

No kidding

That's all probably true. But it's still no basis on deciding whether somebody lives or not. You people are stuck on stupid.

So to sum up the pro-choice view as has been stated by the above individuals. It's alright to kill unborn babies, because the circumstances they may be born into, aren't necessarily ideal.

By your stance, it is better to have a lifetime of suffering than not to have lived at all.