Palin Derangement Syndrome

[BubberMiley]

I dislike Obama's view of Infanticide because it's abhorrent, disgusting, and borderline evil.

That's funny. I think your characterization of Obama supporting infanticide is abhorrent, disgusting, and borderline evil.

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I was referring to the "beyond any reasoning" accusation, and I think that was made clear. You left off part of my quote, the "and her, for wanting to impose her hypocritical morals on the rest of us." If that's what she wants to believe as a private citizen, I wouldn't have any reason to have the same opposition as I do should she become VP. If you care as much about Joe Canada down the street as you do Harper, when all Joe Canada can have is an opinion vs. an effect on national policy, I'd say you're the one who has misguided concerns.

So I would disagree with Palin's views no matter what, but the fact that she could become POTUS and inflict them on the rest of us is why I feel so strongly about her and her views. Some seem to think that means I'm suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome, and that's the mindset that I am responding to.

By the same token, look how strongly you disapprove of Obama because of your take on his policy, yet the morons on the Right who refer to any strong disapproval of the Bush/Palin as BDS and now PDS give your strong disapproval of Obama a pass. It's juvenile beyond belief and makes one wonder just how juvenile their political beliefs are. It's really questionable whether anyone who thinks that simply has any deep political convictions.

[Guest American Woman]

That's funny. I think your characterization of Obama supporting infanticide is abhorrent, disgusting, and borderline evil.

Ditto. I also think it shows real ignorance as to what "infanticide" really is.

[Shady]

That's funny. I think your characterization of Obama supporting infanticide is abhorrent, disgusting, and borderline evil.

Almost as much as actually supporting it!

YouTube

Obama's right, can you imagine needing a second doctor in a matter so trivial as to a baby surviving an abortion?

But it's Palin's views people should be worried about!? Because she wants to be VP, while he only wants to be President.

Poor, poor, screwed up liberals. I almost feel sorry for you.

[BC_chick]

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.

And here, ladies and gentlement, we have proof that "derangment syndrome" is not exclusive to any particular side.

[stevoh]

Almost as much as actually supporting it!

YouTube

Obama's right, can you imagine needing a second doctor in a matter so trivial as to a baby surviving an abortion?

But it's Palin's views people should be worried about!? Because she wants to be VP, while he only wants to be President.

Poor, poor, screwed up liberals. I almost feel sorry for you.

A more accurate and less rabid analysis of the issue is here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html

Good for Obama for standing up for womens rights! He has never supported infanticide and in fact suports:

Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.

His fundamental reason for opposing the bills is that he believes they would have encroached on abortion rights (Roe vs Wade).

[Black Dog]

So it's not a "big tent" anymore? You're not in the club unless you support abortion access and vote left-of-center?

What "big tent"? Is that where "feminism is everything women do" holds their meetings?

Are there other issues people need to tow the party line on? Is it just abortion access and party affiliation, or is there more? Do you have to support a state-run daycare program? If you disagree with the enormous sham of statistics laughingly referred to as "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value", are you also "not a woman"?

First: it's "toe" the line. Second, I think the ability to choose when and how one wishes to reproduce is fairly central to women's equality.

'cuz she's got lots of kids? 'cuz she's not a Democrat?

One woman might believe that motherhood and professional success aren't mutually exclusive.

Another woman might buy into the view that children are an obstacle that a woman must either avoid or overcome.

Which one is *really* self-hating?

Palin is a woman who wants to climb the latter and then pull it up behind her. I don't know what your starwman dichotomy has to do with that.

So, I guess I'm just not ready for this new post-post-feminist feminism which seems to boil down entirely to abortion access.

As opposed to your brand of feminism where politics and ideology matter not at all.

I'm suggesting that this sudden interest in defining feminism on party lines and narrow issues doesn't really jive with the aforementioned complaint that feminism had been pigeonholed into an ideological realm that people don't relate to.

There's a world of difference between recognizing there are certain principles and values that constitute feminist thought and saying all feminists in that camp are man hating, hairy-legged dykes.

I don't actually know. I do know that she's a member of a group called "Feminists For Life". I don't know anything about the group, but I do know that there are people who don't see that "feminist" and "pro-life" are not mutually exclusive positions.

Good for them. I think they're wrong.

I think the mere existence of abortion provides men with a psychological get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to sexual responsibility and parental responsibilities. It becomes much too easy for men to just wash their hands of the whole thing, while the woman never gets to wash her hands of the whole thing whichever she chooses.

Oh? Why is that? I know women who have abortions are supposed to spend the rest of their lives wracked with guilt over the decision, but most do not.

August:

The State can contribute to a civilized society but we are gravely mistaken if we think that the State can substitute for family.

Who says that it can?

[GostHacked]

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.

BC_CHICK

And here, ladies and gentlement, we have proof that "derangment syndrome" is not exclusive to any particular side.

Funny how most of us knew about the other derangement syndromes before this thread even started

Shady

You know his view on infantacide is a product of right-wing-religious fanatics who want to paint Obama in any negative light they can? Yes it works both ways. Also, you know his support of infantacide are is not what you want to believe it to be.

Amercian_woman

It's juvenile beyond belief and makes one wonder just how juvenile their political beliefs are. It's really questionable whether anyone who thinks that simply has any deep political convictions.

Might be because 'thinking' is not a part of the religious-right's mentality. People who think are dangerous!!!

[JerrySeinfeld]

An interesting phenomenon indeed, if by "interesting" you mean "total nonsense." A much more logical explanation would be that people aren't that enthused about the prospect of a cultural reactionary like Palin getting her mitts on the keys to the Oval Office because of her views which are, down the line, straight out of the G.O.P. old boy's club playbook.

Hmm. Wierd. That's exactly what I just said. The idea of the first woman to "get her mitts on the keys to the Oval office" having views "straight out of the GOP's old boys club playbook" drives feminiazis bonkers. They always envisioned a pants-suit wearing man/woman like hillary "getting her mitts on the keys" first.

[Black Dog]

Hmm. Wierd. That's exactly what I just said. The idea of the first woman to "get her mitts on the keys to the Oval office" having views "straight out of the GOP's old boys club playbook" drives feminiazis bonkers. They always envisioned a pants-suit wearing man/woman like hillary "getting her mitts on the keys" first.

Nope. What you said was this:

I think the point here is that some hardcore feminists see Palin as a threat to their idealist view of a "woman", especially because she's been able to break glass ceilings without giving up on some of the more traditional definitions of what a woman contributes to society or what a woman believes in or prioritizes (eg. Having lots of kids and opposing the killing of unborn children).

In other words, it has nothing to do with plain's political beliefs and everything to do with them feminist dykes being jealous. It's the ideology, stupid.

[WIP]

Hmm. Wierd. That's exactly what I just said. The idea of the first woman to "get her mitts on the keys to the Oval office" having views "straight out of the GOP's old boys club playbook" drives feminiazis bonkers. They always envisioned a pants-suit wearing man/woman like hillary "getting her mitts on the keys" first.

Oh you got that right, that she is a tool of the old boys network! You Limbaugh wannabes call every woman who is concerned about issues like rape, incest, domestic violence, and reproductive choice a "feminazi," and you have another Ann Coulter clone with Sarah Barracuda, who show contempt for members of their own sex!

CNN's Jessica Yellin did a little background checking into that story about why the Wasilla police dept. was charging victims for their own rape kits, and it appears totally implausible that the mayor knew nothing of the story like Republican spinmasters are now trying to claim, since the chief was the most vocal opponent of a state bill to require

But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.

"I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," Croft said....................................

"Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."

Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.

"I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said. "It was eight years ago now, but they were sort of unrepentant that they thought the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that."

[Melanie_]

In the many threads regarding child care in the three years I’ve been on this forum, one of the recurring arguments from the right has been, “Why have kids if you aren’t going to stay home and take care of them? It’s worth the sacrifice of giving up your job to take care of your kids yourself.” And yet, it seems some of those same people are on this thread, defending Sarah Palin’s right to work. I’m glad to see it, and will bookmark this thread for future reference when child care comes up again somewhere else.

Actually, though, one of the things that I find interesting in this has been how quickly she returned to work after the birth of her child. In the States, there is no standard maternity leave – women generally just use up their sick time/holiday time, unless their employer chooses to give them time off. In Canada, we’ve recognized that women need time to adjust to their new role as a parent, and babies need time to bond with their mother; this is why we have 1 year of maternity/parental leave. I consider this a victory for feminists, who said loud and clear that it was important that they have time with their babies without running the risk of losing their jobs – you can be a mother and have a career, too. You don’t have to sacrifice one for the other. Sarah Palin didn’t get the luxury of maternity leave, but I’m glad to see that she has converted so many of the right wing to the idea that it is OK to be the working mother of an infant – and an infant with special needs at that.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Actually, though, one of the things that I find interesting in this has been how quickly she returned to work after the birth of her child. In the States, there is no standard maternity leave – women generally just use up their sick time/holiday time, unless their employer chooses to give them time off.....

This is patently false....the Family and Medical Leave Act has been federal law in the United States since 1993, which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave on top of other employer provided benefits. Coupled with Short Term Disability Pay, many families are able to weather the loss in income quite well.

http://www.salary.com/personal/layoutscrip...amp;part=par092

[Oleg Bach]

This is patently false....the Family and Medical Leave Act has been federal law in the United States since 1993, which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave on top of other employer provided benefits. Coupled with Short Term Disability Pay, many families are able to weather the loss in income quite well.

http://www.salary.com/personal/layoutscrip...amp;part=par092

Palin is a woman of privledge and I am sure she is not dependent on social funding or corporate perks that allow a woman time with her new born. She's probably the typcial upscale super soccer mum who looks on career as her prime ego sustainer.

[August1991]

Delete - DP.

Edited September 25, 2008 by August1991

[August1991]

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.

I think I object most strongly to those statement, WIP.

IMV, women should not get into abusive relationships in the first place.

A woman (or a man) is free to choose their partner. People must face the consequences of their choices. If the State bails them out, it is just encouragement for tehem and other people to engage in more recklessness. (We have seen the same principle apply south of the border recently with financial markets.)

This is a very hard lesson that the modern North American Left must learn (and eventually it will). Incentives are paramount and giving people an out just gives them and others an incentive to engage in foolishness.

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.

I would never restrict the notion of family to the so-called "nuclear family". I also BTW dispute the kind of pseudo-science you cite.

For some reason, leftist university researchers are bent on proving that other species and other cultures are not monogamous. So what?

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?

Family arrangements vary around the globe and back into history. The underlying feature however is a socially sanctioned long term commitment.

OTOH, I suppose having a live-in mother-in-law may do more damage to family relationships than any leftist State policy.

August:

The State can contribute to a civilized society but we are gravely mistaken if we think that the State can substitute for family.

Who says that it can?

Too many Leftists, BD. Too many leftists.

I'll add an opinion. IMHO, many North American leftists were the unloved kid in their own families. Mom preferred the older brother and Dad preferred little Susie. The one left out becomes the leftist and develops a grudge against families. They want to substitute the Democratic State to correct for this fundamental injustice.

Sarah Palin reminds these leftists of everything they hate about family life and what it's like to be the kid left out, or the one Mom didn't really like.

Maybe this explains Palin Derangement Syndrome.

The idea of the first woman to "get her mitts on the keys to the Oval office" having views "straight out of the GOP's old boys club playbook" drives feminiazis bonkers. They always envisioned a pants-suit wearing man/woman like hillary "getting her mitts on the keys" first.

Similarly, I always thought the first black or woman into the Oval Office would be a Republican. I think Clinton referred to this as "triangulation", Wikipedia calls it Nixon in China.

[Oleg Bach]

Scientists that would like to further debase the devine human to a less than animal level by justifying mulitple mating with no offspring as normal - are men and woman who bring about great harm to our young - who are now programmed to believe that sex is like shaking hands and a partner for life is not a valuable option - Young people are all lonely and unhappy these days because marriage or informal long term partnerships are becoming a thing of the past. As the institution of mating and marriage is being dismantled by hateful overly educated social engineers..they replace it with nothing - hence - a morose female and male population that has lost hope and is open to depression - and all the medication in the world will not replace love and companionship!

[kimmy]

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.

It doesn't change the point any. A fertilized egg results in a live birth about 80% of the time, if not deliberately terminated. If you can find a single incident where skin-cells washed off of someone have grown into a complete human being, contact Agent Mulder immediately.

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.

No, not really.

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.

That argument, or your synopsis of it at least, has a rather glaring flaw: a fetus, even in the latest stages of pregnancy, is surprisingly portable. Unless this concert violinist weighs just a few pounds and can be carried conveniently about on the blood donor's waist, I think the comparison is highly melodramatic but not very compelling. Perhaps Dr Thompson's paper addresses this difficulty; I have not yet read it.

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.

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!

If one is committed to the belief that the fetus is a human life, then one is committed to the belief that terminating it is immoral. I question the real motivation of "pro-lifers" who think exceptions for rape or incest are fair. It seems to me like it doesn't come from genuine concern that a life is being terminated, but rather from a perspective of punishment, which is a completely messed up way to look at things.

-k

[kimmy]

Scientists that would like to further debase the devine human to a less than animal level

It seems fitting that you'd find your way to a thread about "derangement".

-k

[Oleg Bach]

The fetus is human. It is not a machine - it is not a carrot - it is not a puppy. The term terminate is distressing - to treat any form of life as expendable or akin to pressing the delete button on a keyboard is really quiet shallow and selfish. The term prolife is also a misnomer. Every last living human being and all life forms are naturally pro-life...if they were not they would be pro-death and would not exist. They would terminate themselves at the first opportunity. To view Palin as some sort of nut because she encouraged her daughter to bear a child .... reeks of envey...this act is a noble and generous act. To view Palin as an enemy to woman because she does not belive in abortion is utter foolishness...show me after 40 years of aborting - the value and personal wealth generated towards woman because of this so-called freedom of choice - This was NOT choice this was duping of the females in order to enslave them and thwart motherhood - and to rob them of their real wealth as human females....I have not met one aging woman who aborted that is happy - not one!

[kimmy]

First: it's "toe" the line.

Really, now. That' just petty.

Second, I think the ability to choose when and how one wishes to reproduce is fairly central to women's equality.

I was asking whether you think there are any other issues where someone's just not a woman if they disagree. I take that as a no?

Palin is a woman who wants to climb the latter and then pull it up behind her. I don't know what your starwman dichotomy has to do with that.

First, it's climb the "ladder".

Second, as I said, I'm fascinated at the description of her as "self hating". If abortion access is the "ladder" she's supposed to be pulling up behind her, then as far as I have heard she didn't climb that latter at all.

As opposed to your brand of feminism where politics and ideology matter not at all.

There's a world of difference between recognizing there are certain principles and values that constitute feminist thought and saying all feminists in that camp are man hating, hairy-legged dykes.

I'll ask again: which principles and values are central? Is abortion access the only one where they'll be calling for your uterus if you disagree?

Good for them. I think they're wrong.

So ultimately, someone's views on any other issue relating to womens' health and happiness in society are irrelevant if they're not pro-choice? And if someone's pro-choice, then their opinions on other issues don't matter?

Is that the real litmus test for a "feminist"?

Some hypothetical frat-boy whose stance on abortion access is determined by his belief that chicks are more likely to put out if they can get an abortion and/or that he's less likely to wind up paying child support if chicks can get abortions: a feminist!

Kimmy: not a feminist.

Oh? Why is that? I know women who have abortions are supposed to spend the rest of their lives wracked with guilt over the decision, but most do not.

I don't think I said she is "supposed" to feel any certain way. I certainly don't make any claim to know how "most" women feel after abortions. But she's not going into a McDonald's.

She is going to experience physical pain and medical risks (so it's a bit like McDonald's) and while I realize that some would liken it to having an appendix removed, I suspect most women feel differently about an abortion than they feel about an appendectomy.

-k

Edited September 23, 2008 by kimmy

[Oleg Bach]

Really, now. That' just petty.

I was asking whether you think there are any other issues where someone's just not a woman if they disagree. I take that as a no?

First, it's climb the "ladder".

Second, as I said, I'm fascinated at the description of her as "self hating". If abortion access is the "ladder" she's supposed to be pulling up behind her, then as far as I have heard she didn't climb that latter at all.

I'll ask again: which principles and values are central? Is abortion access the only one where they'll be calling for your uterus if you disagree?

So ultimately, someone's views on any other issue relating to womens' health and happiness in society are irrelevant if they're not pro-choice? And if someone's pro-choice, then their opinions on other issues don't matter?

Is that the real litmus test for a "feminist"?

Some hypothetical frat-boy whose stance on abortion access is determined by his belief that chicks are more likely to put out if they can get an abortion and/or that he's less likely to wind up paying child support if chicks can get abortions: a feminist!

Kimmy: not a feminist.

I don't think I said she is "supposed" to feel any certain way. I certainly don't make any claim to know how "most" women feel after abortions. But she's not going into a McDonald's.

She is going to experience physical pain and medical risks (so it's a bit like McDonald's) and while I realize that some would liken it to having an appendix removed, I suspect most women feel differently about an abortion than they feel about an appendectomy.

-k

I like babies..and woman - if I was younger I would have ten more - and maybe two more wives....all this abortion stuff is really quite useless - how can freedom come from killing your own underdeveloped offspring? I just don't see the profit in not re-producing....I don't get the abortion advocates - who act like they are providers of some great wealth and freedom - these abortion providers are takers not givers....admit it ladies - those that abort end up poorer in the long run in every way - Nothing sader than a childless old woman living with a dog that is supplied place matts.

[BC_chick]

IMHO, many North American leftists were the unloved kid in their own families. Mom preferred the older brother and Dad preferred little Susie. The one left out becomes the leftist and develops a grudge against families.

[...]

Maybe this explains Palin Derangement Syndrome.

What happened to the 'right'? Did they get recycling bins thrown at them by poor gay immigrants?

Edited September 23, 2008 by BC_chick

[WIP]

I think I object most strongly to those statement, WIP.

And why is that? You consider state assistance to be interfering with the harmonious working of the "family." It seems like a simple causal relationship to me -- the more that outside support is cut back, the more women with children will have to stay in abusive relationships.

IMV, women should not get into abusive relationships in the first place.

That is just being stupid and unrealistic if you think that every woman should be able to identify whether the guy who's bullshitting his way through trying to win her over is going to be a misogynistic, abusive creep when he no longer feels the need to impress her. If you do a little study of this problem, you're going to find that many girls who have grown up with abusive fathers are the most vulnerable for making the wrong choices for boyfriends and husbands when they get older.

A woman (or a man) is free to choose their partner. People must face the consequences of their choices. If the State bails them out, it is just encouragement for tehem and other people to engage in more recklessness. (We have seen the same principle apply south of the border recently with financial markets.)

Bad example, considering that the most wreckless financial institutions that took advantage of deregulation are the ones going to the government looking for a bailout!

I'm still waiting for you to specifically define what you mean by "facing the consequences." Does that mean: closing down crisis centers, cutting single mothers off of support payments -- and there is no recognition that young children are usually caught up in whatever bad choices you think were made. Is it okay to punish them also?

This is a very hard lesson that the modern North American Left must learn (and eventually it will). Incentives are paramount and giving people an out just gives them and others an incentive to engage in foolishness.

Yeah, I know! Sometimes people take advantage of benefits that are available. But the Right considers punishment and retribution more important than alleviating suffering or giving people a second chance!

I would never restrict the notion of family to the so-called "nuclear family". I also BTW dispute the kind of pseudo-science you cite.

For some reason, leftist university researchers are bent on proving that other species and other cultures are not monogamous. So what?

Well, some of us are able to maintain longterm monogamous relationships, whereas others should have never tried marriage in the first place! What works for one, doesn't necessarily work for others. Fortunately, our modern world offers a degree of flexibility of lifestyles that were never possible before the modern age. Let people live the way that suits them best, instead of trying to straightjacket everyone into following the same social norms.

Family arrangements vary around the globe and back into history. The underlying feature however is a socially sanctioned long term commitment.

That sounds like a pretty open-ended definition! I guess you do understand after all that the economic needs and environmental pressures that a group of people were living under, played a large part in determining their family structures. If we strip away the enchanted mumbo jumbo about family values, our JudeoChristian cultural heritage began with nomadic tribes where women ranked low in status, and were bought and sold into marriage. If you read your Old Testament, marriage was a property transaction between a man and the father of the bride, and depended on him paying the bride price. Nothing romantic about it! It was essentially no different than buying a horse, an ox, sheep or goats! If he could afford it, he could buy as many wives as he could afford, and have many sons -- which would allow him to start his own tribe and give him real status in the eyes of his countrymen. It was a much different world than present day concepts of "sanctity of marriage" and "family values."

[Guest American Woman]

If one is committed to the belief that the fetus is a human life, then one is committed to the belief that terminating it is immoral. I question the real motivation of "pro-lifers" who think exceptions for rape or incest are fair. It seems to me like it doesn't come from genuine concern that a life is being terminated, but rather from a perspective of punishment, which is a completely messed up way to look at things.

And I question the real motivation of "pro-lifers," even in the instance of rape and incest, who support the death penalty and excuse "collateral damage." It seems to me their rigid "anti-choice" stance doesn't come from genuine concern about life, but from a perspective of punishment, which is a completely messed up way to look at things. "Murder," ie: taking a life, is immoral in one instance, while it's actually desirable, sought out, in another; or in the case of collateral damage, it's excused because the final goal is to protect us.

Like I said, it's not a matter of living up to a moral standard for these "pro-lifers," it's a selective moral standard and it's pure hypocrisy and they have no right to impose their selective moral standards on others.

Edited September 23, 2008 by American Woman