Palin Derangement Syndrome

[Shady]

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

Nope. You don't know whether or not someone will live a life of suffering or not. And again, that's not a circumstance that should be used as to whether or not someone is allowed to live or die. You guys are beating a dead horse. But at least that horse had a chance to live.

[Guest American Woman]

That's really pathetic. I mean, just how dumb can she come across as?

[guyser]

That's really pathetic. I mean, just how dumb can she come across as?

On the one hand she didnt lie about it....on the other hand she could have and should have, named at least a couple.

If they asked me...."Toronto Star and National Post"

What I would not have offered is I read the Star for the comics, and the Post for the great real estate and entertainment pages.

She doesnt seem to swift on her feet.

CNN was reporting that in the debate tonight Biden better not be "too hard" on her , and he should not jump on her errors should she make some since that is the job of the media to point out.

They also said Biden should keep his mouth from running off.

[Guest American Woman]

On the one hand she didnt lie about it....on the other hand she could have and should have, named at least a couple.

If they asked me...."Toronto Star and National Post"

What I would not have offered is I read the Star for the comics, and the Post for the great real estate and entertainment pages.

She doesnt seem to swift on her feet.

CNN was reporting that in the debate tonight Biden better not be "too hard" on her , and he should not jump on her errors should she make some since that is the job of the media to point out.

They also said Biden should keep his mouth from running off.

Yet Palin's plan is evidently to attack Biden.

Palin’s new plan: Go after Biden

I don't think Biden will run off at the mouth-- his plan is to stick to the issues and not get personal. He's been practicing with Michigan's governor Jennifer Granholm.

As for why Palin didn't name any newspapers-- I'm guessing she was afraid that Couric would ask her specific questions about what papers she named, such as what columnists she likes, for example, that she wouldn't be able to answer.

Edited October 2, 2008 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Nope. You don't know whether or not someone will live a life of suffering or not. And again, that's not a circumstance that should be used as to whether or not someone is allowed to live or die. You guys are beating a dead horse. But at least that horse had a chance to live.

If you are about pro-life, then you should have taken all that into consideration. If not, then you are Pro-Choice. Or you have no clue as to where you stand on the issue.

Amercian Woman

Sarah Palin Can't Name a Newspaper She Reads

That's really pathetic. I mean, just how dumb can she come across as?

I can forsee, no matter what she answers it will be used against her. But that is the scrutiny she must endure to be VP ... and heck .. it is JUST a VP job... nothing important anyways. We know the Pres does all the work. She just has to sit there and look good. I find her pretty hot, untill she opens her mouth to speak. Then that fantasy gets trashed.

[Guest American Woman]

Amercian Woman

I can forsee, no matter what she answers it will be used against her. But that is the scrutiny she must endure to be VP ... and heck .. it is JUST a VP job... nothing important anyways. We know the Pres does all the work. She just has to sit there and look good. I find her pretty hot, untill she opens her mouth to speak. Then that fantasy gets trashed.

If she were to give an intelligent, knowledgeable answer, it wouldn't be used against her.

Palin draws skepticism even in conservative South Excerpts:

John Thomas has lots of reasons to support John McCain for president.

But Thomas, a one-time supporter of President Bush, said McCain running mate Sarah Palin's recent interviews sealed his decision to vote for Democrat Barack Obama. [...]

"She's not prepared at all," Thomas, 70, said [...] He said listening to Palin argue that Alaska's proximity to Russia was a foreign policy credential "frightened me to death."

"I went out on the golf course Thursday and that was what everyone was talking about," Thomas said. "They're very frightened about McCain and his age ... and to have Palin a heartbeat away."

[WIP]

...

QUOTE(American Woman @ Oct 1 2008, 04:16 AM) *

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.

So, your concerns about the "sanctity of life" end once the baby pops out of the womb! Whether you realize it or not, you've just betrayed the prime motive why right wing politicians and religious authorities are so obsessed with the abortion issue: it has nothing to do with the saving unborn babies, and everything to do with maintaining the traditional patriarchal order that ranked King 1st., Priest 2nd., Man 3rd., and Women and Children a distant 4th. Patriarchy starts to break down when women can decide when and how many babies to have, and start playing an active role in running the society. They know full well that there are very few Sarah Palins, who will have the capacity to engage in public life after giving birth to five children( not that she's any help to other working mothers!). Most women with lots of kids have to forego career opportunities and other outside interests to look after the kids. It all fits under the umbrella of the "family values" campaigns that do nothing to improve the quality of life for most families.

QUOTE(American Woman @ Oct 1 2008, 04:16 AM) *

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.

Neither you, nor the pro life extremists have established that a fetus has a clear, absolute right to life. The right to life does not include the right to be given the means necessary for survival, especially when survival depends on directly living off of someone else and using their internal organs to survive. That was the lesson in Judith Jarvis Thompson's example of waking in a hospital bed to find yourself connected up to a Violinist, and his doctors are using your body to keep him alive.

Does the violinist have the right to use of your kidneys, or do you have the right to decide whether or not to remain connected? If he had the right to use your kidneys, that implies that the violinist's right to survival trumps your personal freedoms and the right to decide how to use your own body. If your right to decide how your body is used takes precedence, then the violinist has no right to demand the use of your body. Therefore, you are morally justified to unplug all of the wires and walk out of the hospital. You may not wish the violinist to die, but you are not obligated to have your body used to keep him alive.

If that's the case when dealing with adults who are fully conscious, then the argument that an embryo or even a fetus has the right to use its mother's body against her will has an even weaker case for right to life.

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

Well, a newborn isn't much more consciously aware after birth, than it is in the weeks before birth; the brain is growing and learning how to control the body, but a five year old has progressed much further. But, as the example of the violinist points out, the main difference is whether survival depends on the use of someone else's body; this certainly is not the case after a baby has been born, so it's not a valid comparison to make.

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.

Looks like you're the one who's stuck on stupid! It's not about guessing what sort of life they will have after birth; the main issue is whether you can demand recognition for a right to life that will require the use of someone else's body, even if it's against her will. That's the where this issue is decided.

In the case of putting restrictions on third trimester abortions, it still doesn't involve whether the fetus has a right to life or not. There is an issue of inflicting pain and suffering in the latter stages of pregnancy, so some medical ethicists argue that if a third trimester fetus has to be aborted, it should be anaesthetized first, which is required in some areas for operations on fetuses that will be brought to term. Even if there is no guaranteed right to be born, there is still a case to be made that the fetus has a right not to be subjected to pain and suffering.

There is also an issue of whether the woman's privacy rights are absolute, or may be subordinated if there are situations where an unchallenged use of third trimester abortion may affect the social order. The best example is found in China and India (which has restrictive abortion laws), where it seems that so many women have taken advantage of tests to determine the sex of the child, that they are using them to abort female fetuses and creating an imbalance in the population where, in some areas, there are twice as many boys as girls. This isn't a right to life issue, but it is one example of where advanced medical testing may lead mothers to abort fetuses that they feel may be less than perfect.