Palin Derangement Syndrome

[BC_chick]

Need I add more.

Why did you cut my quote off there? Oh ya, because the rest went like this:

Often when they have children as well, because if they are as confused as you say they are, their children can't take care of them either.

[Shady]

Undeniable Truth #24: Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.

So I agree, Sarah Palin can't be a feminist.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Shady

[Guest American Woman]

I'm pro-choice, but [...] I don't see how someone could say that abortion is murder but then accept it under circumstances that are irrelevant to the murder victim.

And I don't see how someone can pick and choose when "murder" is acceptable and when it's not. So if someone does see abortion as "murder," yet they support the death penalty, they are most defintely making exceptions for murder depending on the circumstances.

Palin: If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it.

How is that respecting the sanctity of life? It's totally hypocritical.

[Shady]

And I don't see how someone can pick and choose when "murder" is acceptable and when it's not. So if someone does see abortion as "murder," yet they support the death penalty, they are most defintely making exceptions for murder depending on the circumstances.

Palin: If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it.

How is that respecting the sanctity of life? It's totally hypocritical.

Not at all. It's farily simple to understand. Death for murderers and rapists, but not for unborn babies. Pretty logical if you ask me.

[Guest American Woman]

Not at all. It's farily simple to understand. Death for murderers and rapists, but not for unborn babies. Pretty logical if you ask me.

Yes, it is fairly simple to understand. Sometimes murder is ok, sometimes it's not. Like I said, totally hypocritical. So I repeat, it's not about the sanctity of life at all. It's all about what you all want, even when it comes to other people's personal/private choices. It's about imposing your hypocritical moral standards on others when you have no right to be forcing decisions on them.

[BubberMiley]

I think smart people, years ago, chose to have good marriages and to have children. This is the best guarantee of good care into old age.

I'm glad I'm not your kid.

[Liam]

watching this discussion go through all these gyrations is making me think that it's not only Sarah Palin's critics who can be accused of being deranged.

[Shady]

Yes, it is fairly simple to understand. Sometimes murder is ok, sometimes it's not. Like I said, totally hypocritical. So I repeat, it's not about the sanctity of life at all. It's all about what you all want, even when it comes to other people's personal/private choices. It's about imposing your hypocritical moral standards on others when you have no right to be forcing decisions on them.

One could flip your entire argument, and conclude that you, being agaist the death penalty for murderers and rapists, but for the killing of unborn babies, is also hypocritical. And let's be honest, the death penalty has nothing to do with this. If everyone in America agreed against capital punishment, you'd still support abortion, and you'd still deride pro-life supports. So you're point is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Guest American Woman]

One could flip your entire argument, and conclude that you, being agaist the death penalty for murderers and rapists, but for the killing of unborn babies, is also hypocritical. And let's be honest, the death penalty has nothing to do with this. If everyone in America agreed against capital punishment, you'd still support abortion, and you'd still deride pro-life supports. So you're point is irrelevant to the discussion.

My point is totally relevant to the discussion. Aborting a fetus is not "killing an unborn baby," that is merely your take on it. So I repeat. Pro-lifers who support the death penalty are only 'pro-life' in certain circumstances, and they want to impose their hypocritical morals on everyone.

On the other hand, my stand is for choice-- that's the pro-choice stand; for not telling other women what to do regardless of what I/we personally would or wouldn't do.

[Shady]

My point is totally relevant to the discussion. Aborting a fetus is not "killing an unborn baby," that is merely your take on it.

Fortunately, it's not just my take on it, it's also science's take.

[sharkman]

How did this thread end up being an abortion tirade?

This is about what it boils down to, Palin is seen as a threat to abortion rights, even though she'd be VP.

After 8 years of Bush, Roe v Wade is fine, and if it was struck down under McCain it would be decided at the State level. Each state would provide laws according to the wishes of their voters on the issue(and what do you think the voters would want? More abortions in most states, except for places like Utah). Striking it down would not mean the end of legal abortions. The abortion law would be made at the state level where it belongs, after all abortion rights are not provided for in the US Constitution(as has been pointed out and ignored).

[Guest American Woman]

Fortunately, it's not just my take on it, it's also science's take.

More like it's your take that it's science's take on it.

[kimmy]

Oh no, so you mean the Democratic machine is falsely accusing her of being anti-sex ed? Say it isn't so.

I don't actually know that the Democrats have been accusing her of that. I do know that some in the media have tried to make sex-education an issue, perhaps in an effort to justify the media feeding-frenzy around Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Is sex education actually an issue in the presidential campaign? Is educational curriculum determined in Washington, or in state legislatures? I always actually kind of assumed that it was in the sphere of state control, but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, the claim that she's for abstinence-only seems to originate from a questionnaire she replied to when she was campaigning to become governor:

MSNBC

By the way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

She actually dodges most of the question, not saying anything about abstinence only, or clinics or condoms in schools, just that she doesn't support "explicit" sex education programs.

LA Times: ok, so what does "explicit" mean, exactly?

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.

(...)

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

That would make her a hypocrit who says what she has to to fool the religious into getting their vote, but then does nothing to promote that lifestyle. Hmmm, what's worse, a blatant liar or a modern-day 'feminist' who does not believe in birth-control, sex-education or abortion.

Tough call if you ask me.

She is a definitely a politician.

-k

[BC_chick]

How did this thread end up being an abortion tirade?

I'll tell you what happened. August asks why the "left" doesn't like Palin. Some people said it's because she claims to be feminist when her views go against the things feminism has stood for in recent history. The discussion turned to whether or not one's views on abortion and birthcontrol make them a feminist.

August, OTOH, kept wanting to discuss whether or not Palin's views are "right" for society. I insisted we stay on topic, but those parts of my posts were repeatedly ignored and the responses were always about why Palin is right. After a few outrageous comments and deflections, I ended up biting.

It was by far the most relentless effort I've seen of anyone hijacking their own thread.

[kimmy]

I think the original argument was not that "the left" doesn't like Palin. (Obviously, the left shouldn't like Palin.)

The "Derangement Syndrome" part refers to the those who have gone far beyond the realm of rational, sensible political debate. There seem to be some people for whom Palin has provoked a furious reaction far beyond what you'd expect a VP candidate to cause. The opening post linked to some pretty good examples.

-k

[BC_chick]

I don't actually know that the Democrats have been accusing her of that. I do know that some in the media have tried to make sex-education an issue, perhaps in an effort to justify the media feeding-frenzy around Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Is sex education actually an issue in the presidential campaign? Is educational curriculum determined in Washington, or in state legislatures? I always actually kind of assumed that it was in the sphere of state control, but I don't know for sure.

Anyway, the claim that she's for abstinence-only seems to originate from a questionnaire she replied to when she was campaigning to become governor:

MSNBC

She actually dodges most of the question, not saying anything about abstinence only, or clinics or condoms in schools, just that she doesn't support "explicit" sex education programs.

LA Times: ok, so what does "explicit" mean, exactly?

She is a definitely a politician.

-k

So, what you're saying is that she dodges these questions, and that leaves it up to interpretation whether or not she would choose to impose her views onto others when/if elected.

But looking Palin, I don't see another Bush here who merely wants to fool the religious right into voting for him by bringing up hot-topic debates about amending the constitution about SSM, and then announcing FOUR WEEKS after the 2004 election that he will not, in fact, be doing so.

I see Palin as someone who, unlike Bush, has lived a fairly chaste life. She is not like Bush to live a life of "sin" and then suddenly repent when he wants to run for office.

Palin, IMO, is not an opportunist when it comes to her religious views. She is the real deal, and that's what makes her dangerous.

As you say, she dodges the questions, so we don't know. You may "feel" she won't impose her views, and that's your perogative. But I've met her type too often in life to agree with you.

[BC_chick]

I think the original argument was not that "the left" doesn't like Palin. (Obviously, the left shouldn't like Palin.)

The "Derangement Syndrome" part refers to the those who have gone far beyond the realm of rational, sensible political debate. There seem to be some people for whom Palin has provoked a furious reaction far beyond what you'd expect a VP candidate to cause. The opening post linked to some pretty good examples.

-k

Whatever. It's still a continuation of the discussion whether or not her views are hypocritical (as opposed to discussing the repercussions of abortion).

Edited September 21, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

That's kind of the same point too, BC Chick.

Palin seems to have chosen her husband well - and maybe other women (and men) should also choose their partner carefully. The State (certainly not the federal government) is not there to clean up our mistakes in life. If it attempts to do this, it first just encourages more bad choices. But second, it also gives a false sense of security. Eventually, it can't provide complete security. Lastly, the State causes so many other problems unless its activities are narrowly directed.

Rather than talk political philosophy, Palin is an individualist who has chosen to make her own life her own way. Like an adult, she assumes responsibility for her choices.

I didn't have time to comment on this point yesterday, but I want to go back to this because you have, perhaps unintentionally highlighted the key reason why social conservatives -- who favour intrusive government when it comes to controlling behaviour -- act like libertarians when it comes to economic issues; in brief, the system of patriarchy, where women are dependent on men for the care and raising of children, doesn't work if government comes to the aid of families in distress.

Easy to say, after the fact, that Sarah Palin chose well by picking a husband who has been a stay-at-home dad that has enabled her to pursue her driving political ambitions -- and from brief appearances on TV, doesn't appear to be a guy with a whole lot to say, so he is a perfect match for an overbearing, ambitious woman who big personal goals. But what if he got sick of playing second fiddle to a control freak, and had ambitions of his own that didn't include being married to the mayor, governor, vice president, president? who knows! -- the point is that her political ambitions likely would have hit the rocks, along with her marriage, and she would have been in the same boat as many other divorced mothers with young children.

And that's the strange dichotomy of the Sarah Palins and Phyllis Schlaflys of this world -- they want to weaken government support to strengthen the "family," -- which means women with children, stuck in bad marriages, will have to stick it out at least until the children are grown.

Since social conservatives want to go back in time, it might be worth revisiting the reasons why welfare programs were created during the Great Depression in the first place; there were so many men who abandoned families entirely, when they rode the rails, looking for work, that the governments started feeling pressure to do something to help prevent starvation in cases where women may not have chosen their husbands as well as they thought! This has allowed for a degree of freedom from patriarchy and enabled the "breakdown of the family," but it's better than the alternative that social conservatives, like Sarah Palin, want to return to!

[WIP]

If one believes that a fetus is a human life, then making exceptions in cases of rape or incest is not a sensible position.

The dead skin cells that wash off or flake off every day are human life too if we use the rules of absolute antiabortion proponents, who want to give a fertilized egg or an embryo the same legal recognition as a baby or an adult person, for that matter. But there is no basis for claiming it to be conscious human life until at least week 23, when brain development is high enough to enable the fetus to survive outside the womb. Even in later stages of fetal development, conscious awareness is unlikely, but it's absurd to give an embryo with no brain the same moral weight as babies and adults, unless someone is willing to advance an argument based on an argument that our consciousness does not come from brain function, but is instead from an immaterial soul -- a concept that gives ground with every new mental activity that can be correlated with brain function.

I can respect the pro-choice position. I can respect the pro-life position. But I can't respect the kinda-maybe-sometimes compromise that makes exceptions in certain situations depending on the circumstances of conception.

How does one arrive at the headspace to decide that a fetus is a human life, and yet some of them don't have the same rights as others due to the circumstances of their conception? The logic underlying exceptions for victims of rape and incest is fundamentally abhorrent.

In economic issues, conservatives and libertarians complain that leftists and socialists are unrealistic utopians, yet when it comes to life issues, social conservatives aren't able to grasp the problem that some life has to be given higher value than other life! Most hardline antiabortions are forced to blink when the decision must be made between saving the fetus or saving the mother's life (this wasn't always the case), and that is an indication that even the most rabid prolife zealot has to acknowledge that there are circumstances where the interests of the fetus have to be over-ridden. What about the next step down -- why should a girl who is pregnant by rape or incest be forced to carry the fetus to term (as Sarah Palin believes), why should that not be another instance where fetal rights are secondary to the rights of the pregnant woman?

[August1991]

August, OTOH, kept wanting to discuss whether or not Palin's views are "right" for society. I insisted we stay on topic, but those parts of my posts were repeatedly ignored and the responses were always about why Palin is right. After a few outrageous comments and deflections, I ended up biting.

It was by far the most relentless effort I've seen of anyone hijacking their own thread.

Yes, I guess that I am guilty as charged. But this is not "my" thread. I just happened to have started it. And a thread wondering off in strange directions would hardly be a first on this forum, particularly during an election.

And anyway, Palin's position on abortion was bound to be a major point. On "officially" feminist forums, the general consensus seems to be that "feminism" and "pro-life" are mutually exclusive.

I still don't get why Palin inspires such an extreme reaction. Malick's piece for example is OTT.

I didn't have time to comment on this point yesterday, but I want to go back to this because you have, perhaps unintentionally highlighted the key reason why social conservatives -- who favour intrusive government when it comes to controlling behaviour -- act like libertarians when it comes to economic issues; in brief, the system of patriarchy, where women are dependent on men for the care and raising of children, doesn't work if government comes to the aid of families in distress....

Cripes. What a slanted, anti-family tirade.

WIP, the institution of the family has been around for several hundred thousand years at least if not millions. We conduct many of our daily affairs through close family relations. The world would be far poorer and we'd be far worse off if families didn't exist.

But for family to work, people must give it some thought before getting involved. The essence of family is that it's a long term commitment.

The State, private corporations and markets are no substitute for family. Family encourages cooperation in a way that is impossible to reproduce in any other institution.

Family offers the best way to provide child care, caring for elderly parents and caring for disabled individuals. The commitment and devotion and in particular the protection of an individual's rights are best done through a family. The homeless people you see on city streets, usually men, are typically without family.

I agree that friendship can sometimes duplicate or provide for the services usually obtained through family but freindship lacks the critical requirement of a long term commitment. Freindship is not an enforceable contract. Marriage and family ties are.

The State can contribute to a civilized society but we are gravely mistaken if we think that the State can substitute for family. For example, to negotiate Canada's health system requires some one your side. Older people need a daughter or son or a niece or nephew. A friend can manage but the worst is to rely on a even a well-intentioned bureaucrat.

A loving son or daughter will fight for an ill parent's rights in a hospital unlike anyone else. Did you see the movie Les invasions barbares? This is patently obvious to anyone who is getting older.

----

I guess I'm now guilty of not only hijacking the thread but I've commandeered the jet to Cuba.

Edited September 22, 2008 by August1991

[kimmy]

The dead skin cells that wash off or flake off every day are human life too if we use the rules of absolute antiabortion proponents, who want to give a fertilized egg or an embryo the same legal recognition as a baby or an adult person, for that matter.

I've never heard of sloughed off skin cells growing into a complete human being, so trying to equate a fetus with sloughed off skin cells strikes me as pretty inane.

But there is no basis for claiming it to be conscious human life until at least week 23, when brain development is high enough to enable the fetus to survive outside the womb. Even in later stages of fetal development, conscious awareness is unlikely, but it's absurd to give an embryo with no brain the same moral weight as babies and adults, unless someone is willing to advance an argument based on an argument that our consciousness does not come from brain function, but is instead from an immaterial soul -- a concept that gives ground with every new mental activity that can be correlated with brain function.

Nobody has been able to arrive at a universally accepted definition of when a human life begins. There's not a concensus among scientists, or medical professionals, or ethicists, or philosophers. I doubt that we're going to accomplish anything here.

However, I have to point out that some research indicates that a considerable amount of who we are is determined in our genetics. Everything about you, including your personality, is defined to a considerable degree by your DNA.

And, if there was a comatose patient whose doctor had a high degree of confidence would fully recover within a matter of months, the doctor wouldn't let that patient be euthanized.

In economic issues, conservatives and libertarians complain that leftists and socialists are unrealistic utopians, yet when it comes to life issues, social conservatives aren't able to grasp the problem that some life has to be given higher value than other life!

It is easy to think of situations where some lives deserve higher priority than other lives.

I don't have any trouble at all with the idea that, for instance, somebody should have shot Vincent Li if there were a chance to save Tim McLean. Easy choice to make. I'd put a much higher value on Tim McLean's life than on Vincent Li's. If we had one donor organ, and two patients who needed it to survive, I would hope that the patient with the best chance of living longer and healthier would get the organ.

But those are situations where there are clear determinants, and mutually exclusive outcomes. Both patients can't get the organ, Vincent Li and Tim McLean can't both survive.

However, I see no clear determinants at all in choosing one fetus over another. And there's no need to value one fetus over another, because there's no reason why they can't both live.

Most hardline antiabortions are forced to blink when the decision must be made between saving the fetus or saving the mother's life (this wasn't always the case), and that is an indication that even the most rabid prolife zealot has to acknowledge that there are circumstances where the interests of the fetus have to be over-ridden. What about the next step down -- why should a girl who is pregnant by rape or incest be forced to carry the fetus to term (as Sarah Palin believes), why should that not be another instance where fetal rights are secondary to the rights of the pregnant woman?

It appears as you you'd like to slippery-slope the one exception everybody agrees on (namely that abortion should be available if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in danger) into other exceptions, but there's not a slippery-slope connection between the situations, there's a cliff.

-k

[WIP]

WIP, the institution of the family has been around for several hundred thousand years at least if not millions. We conduct many of our daily affairs through close family relations. The world would be far poorer and we'd be far worse off if families didn't exist.

This all depends on your definition of "family." The concept of a nuclear family is a relatively modern system. Hunter/gatherers travelled in family groups that contained several generations of close kin; polygamy was much more common than monogamy in traditional societies:

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

And it needs to be mentioned that until recent history (and it's still the case in many third world countries) marriage was an economic partnership arranged between the parents of the bride and the groom -- not a love match.

But for family to work, people must give it some thought before getting involved. The essence of family is that it's a long term commitment.

The State, private corporations and markets are no substitute for family. Family encourages cooperation in a way that is impossible to reproduce in any other institution.

That shouldn't be too difficult to achieve! We are genetically hardwired to favour family over people who are unrelated.

Family offers the best way to provide child care, caring for elderly parents and caring for disabled individuals. The commitment and devotion and in particular the protection of an individual's rights are best done through a family. The homeless people you see on city streets, usually men, are typically without family.

My mother-in-law lived with us for about six years, and that made me even more aware that this is an anomaly; I didn't know anyone else personally who had parents or in-laws living with them! If the family is the best way to care for the elderly, why are the majority of retirees living in seniors apartment buildings and nursing homes?

I agree that friendship can sometimes duplicate or provide for the services usually obtained through family but freindship lacks the critical requirement of a long term commitment. Freindship is not an enforceable contract. Marriage and family ties are.

The State can contribute to a civilized society but we are gravely mistaken if we think that the State can substitute for family. For example, to negotiate Canada's health system requires some one your side. Older people need a daughter or son or a niece or nephew. A friend can manage but the worst is to rely on a even a well-intentioned bureaucrat.

A loving son or daughter will fight for an ill parent's rights in a hospital unlike anyone else. Did you see the movie Les invasions barbares? This is patently obvious to anyone who is getting older.

Nope, never heard of the movie, but I get that as government institutions have made us less economically dependent on family members, there will still be a supporting role for family and relations.

I guess I'm now guilty of not only hijacking the thread but I've commandeered the jet to Cuba.

Well, if this has any connection with Sarah Palin, it would be that her elevation to the status of leader of the social conservative - religious right movement makes her the standard bearer for defending the family from being weakened by the larger role that government and other institutions play in the modern world. We went down this track because you stated that government shouldn't be helping people who have made mistakes like marrying the wrong person and ending up divorced and raising children by themselves. There's no getting around the fact that this philosophy of eliminating the welfare state would force more women to stay in abusive relationships for the sake of the children. And it certainly seems you have an ally in Sarah Palin for the cause of turning back the clock and going back to the days when women were barefoot and pregnant.

[WIP]

I've never heard of sloughed off skin cells growing into a complete human being, so trying to equate a fetus with sloughed off skin cells strikes me as pretty inane.

Where did you find the word "fetus" in my quote? I said fertilized egg or an embryo -- and I was referring to the beginning stage of life (maybe zygote would be more accurate) when you have a collection of undifferentiated cells with no brain, nervous system or anything that could even be considered the beginning of conscious activity.

Nobody has been able to arrive at a universally accepted definition of when a human life begins. There's not a concensus among scientists, or medical professionals, or ethicists, or philosophers. I doubt that we're going to accomplish anything here.

For legal purposes, an arbitrary line will have to be drawn, but the reason there is non universally accepted definition is because human life, especially brain development, gradually develops slowly in the womb.

However, I have to point out that some research indicates that a considerable amount of who we are is determined in our genetics. Everything about you, including your personality, is defined to a considerable degree by your DNA.

But, the future isn't written in our genes! The old nature/nurture arguments have become largely obsolete as biologists and neuroscientists have come to the realization that environmental factors can determine which genes are activated, and which will remain dormant. Research into neuroplasticity is revealing that life experiences such as learning new languages, to play a musical instrument, play a sport etc. can affect brain development and alter its organization.

And, if there was a comatose patient whose doctor had a high degree of confidence would fully recover within a matter of months, the doctor wouldn't let that patient be euthanized.

It is easy to think of situations where some lives deserve higher priority than other lives.

The difference between the fetus and the comatose patient is that the person in a coma is not directly dependent on someone else's resources to remain alive. They may be dependent on expensive medical treatment, but to make it an equivalent analogy, you need a situation where the patient is dependent on another person to remain alive.

In a paper defending the right to privacy, American moral philosopher named Judith Jarvis Thompson created a thought experiment called "The Violinist" mainly to give men opposed to abortion a little bit of insight into what they were expecting from women to be denied a choice over whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full term:

in brief, you wake up in a hospital bed to find yourself connected by an I.V. tube to a famous concert violinist, and are informed that you, and you alone, are the only person with a matching blood type. Are you obligated to keep him alive, if you have been hooked up without your consent? And if you decide that you do not feel you should be given this burden and want your freedom back, and unplug the tubes -- are you violating the violinist's right to life or depriving him of something that he had no right to in the first place - the use of your body.

In the case of the comatose patient, no one is being directly obligated, except of course for the health insurance system, but in the case of the fetus, someone has to have their rights encumbered upon to give that fetus a right to life in the first place.

I don't have any trouble at all with the idea that, for instance, somebody should have shot Vincent Li if there were a chance to save Tim McLean. Easy choice to make. I'd put a much higher value on Tim McLean's life than on Vincent Li's. If we had one donor organ, and two patients who needed it to survive, I would hope that the patient with the best chance of living longer and healthier would get the organ.

But those are situations where there are clear determinants, and mutually exclusive outcomes. Both patients can't get the organ, Vincent Li and Tim McLean can't both survive.

However, I see no clear determinants at all in choosing one fetus over another. And there's no need to value one fetus over another, because there's no reason why they can't both live.

It appears as you you'd like to slippery-slope the one exception everybody agrees on (namely that abortion should be available if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in danger) into other exceptions, but there's not a slippery-slope connection between the situations, there's a cliff.

-k

Well, at one time, the risk to the mother's life didn't merit the abortion option either! But in cases of rape or incest, why should a woman (in these cases we're likely dealing with young teenage girls) be obligated to carry the offspring of her rapist to term, and go day by day for nine months with the growing reminder of the crime committed against her, growing in her belly!

[Guest American Woman]

Palin, IMO, is not an opportunist when it comes to her religious views. She is the real deal, and that's what makes her dangerous.

As you say, she dodges the questions, so we don't know. You may "feel" she won't impose her views, and that's your perogative. But I've met her type too often in life to agree with you.

I agree. I shake my head when people say we dislike her 'beyond any reasoning.' I think the fact that she could become POTUS is reason enough for people to strongly dislike her views, and her, for wanting to impose her hypocritical morals on the rest of us.

Like you said, people "feeling" that Palin wouldn't impose her views means nothing, and it's not a gamble anyone should be willing to take. She most definitely would be one heartbeat away from POTUS should McCain win, and people better take her seriously politically. It's not about whether she is a nice person or a good mom or anything other than what kind of POTUS she would make. Furthermore, I'd say Cheney had plenty of political power as 'only' VP.

[Shady]

I agree. I shake my head when people say we dislike her 'beyond any reasoning.' I think the fact that she could become POTUS is reason enough for people to strongly dislike her views,

So the fact that she could become POTUS is the reason to dislike her views? How about disliking her views because you disagree with them? Your first reason makes absolutely no sense. I dislike Obama's view of Infanticide because it's abhorrent, disgusting, and borderline evil. The fact that he could be President is irrelevant to why I disagree with his policy. And that goes for many of his other extremist views as well.