Palin Derangement Syndrome

[WIP]

It doesn't change the point any. A fertilized egg results in a live birth about 80% of the time, if not deliberately terminated.

That 80% number is being pulled out of thin air, because the experts point out that most miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that most go undetected. It is more likely that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage

Determining the prevalence of miscarriage is difficult. Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant.

So the only argument you are advancing is not that a fertilized egg is a person, but that it has the potential to become a person. But the egg cannot realize its potential allon its own! It needs to live in its mother's uterus for nine months to grow and develope into a human being. And the argument that it is destined to become a person is invalidated every time a fertilized egg splits, and two identical twins grow as two people, instead of one. In very rare cases, two fertilized eggs in the uterus can merge together to create a chimera -- providing a strange phenomena where the genetic information that could have been used to produce two people, is instead combined to form one person. The zygote's potential can take many strange twists and turns, and be snuffed out entirely every time one is cannabalized by miscarriage!

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.

I'm not arguing that the skin cells have the potential to divide and create a new person -- although it is a possibility with human cloning -- every cell in our bodies can be switched to act as an egg cell and produce a complete copy of the organism. Regardless, my point is not about what there potentials are, but their present conditions -- the zygote is a collection of cells with no conscious activity -- no different than the skin cells!

No, not really.

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.

I provided the link, if you want to read it; it's only one page long. The fetus may be portable, but I recall that my wife had back pains, indigestion, fluid retention, even high blood pressure with the last one -- a whole lot of things besides the added weight to lug around everywhere that made it a less than comfortable experience. And these were all planned pregnancies! There is a denial of rights to expect women who do not want to spend nine months pregnant and go through the birthing process.

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

Maybe! I can't get inside the heads of the pro lifers. But, on the other hand I think it is totally obscene for people like Sarah Palin to say that woman who is pregnant as a result of rape, should have the ordeal reinforced by going through nine months of pregnancy being reminded every day about the rapist. Does a fetus's right to life include the right to the use of its mother's body for sustenance? The standard arguments of "it's your fault you got pregnant" don't apply in situations where no consent was given, and yet a woman who was impregnated by force, against her will, may be in turn forced by a pro life state to carry that baby to term and give birth to it! Instead of one crime being committed, two crimes would occur.

[moderateamericain]

Yeah Im going to have to go ahead and say forcing rape victims to have there babies is incredibly fucked up. Talk about a daily constant reminder of getting raped.

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah Im going to have to go ahead and say forcing rape victims to have there babies is incredibly fucked up. Talk about a daily constant reminder of getting raped.

It's totally ridiculous. Their life was already messed up big time and now it's supposed to be messed up more just to satisfy the selective morality of someone who has nothing to do with the rape victim or the child that results. They're supposed to risk their health to satisfy others' beliefs. And what about the child-- knowing they were the product of a rape, conceived not of love but of violence, and their existence totally unwanted by either parent. That's got to be a formula for success and happiness in life. And incest victims are usually children themselves, not to mention the fact that a baby born of incest is likely to have birth defects because of the genetic make up.

I've pointed out before that Sarah Palin has clearly stated that it was her daughter's decision to have her baby. The main word there is "decision." If she feels her daughter should be the one making that decision, and she seems to be saying that, it implies that she thinks her daughter has a right to make a decision, so it makes me shake my head in disbelief as to why she thinks others shouldn't have the chance to also make a decision. In effect, if she were to overturn Roe vs Wade, she would be taking that decision away from her daughter-- as she makes it known that it was her daughter's "decision" to have the baby. According to her line of thought, there should have been no decision to make; she should be saying 'there was no decision to make, she's having the baby and that is that.' Then she would be living her "values."

[moderateamericain]

This all really boils down to the federal government trying to dictate social norms. Which government has no business doing.

[Guest American Woman]

This all really boils down to the federal government trying to dictate social norms. Which government has no business doing.

I see it beyond being a social norm; I see it as a moral norm, and religion/morals are clearly supposed to be separate from the government. If a woman who is raped, a child who is the victim of incest, must carry the pregnancy to term, if the government dictates that, that's just totally -- as you stated-- fucked up. One could even say "deranged." And furthermore, I think anyone who wants to make the government involved in such decisions, who thinks the government should dictate such decisions, is pretty "fucked up" themself. So when someone who fits that bill has a shot at being my country's president, I feel strongly about it, and not "unreasonably so," but rightly so.

[Shady]

Some good news and bad news:

Although the overall U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since 1974, the drop has been far more dramatic for whites than for African Americans, who in 2004 had abortions at five times the rate of white women, according to a report released Monday.

The abortion rate for Latinas was about three times that of whites.

The Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based research group that supports abortion rights but whose statistics are generally respected by antiabortion groups, analyzed 30 years of data since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

LA Times

So abortions are at their lowest rate since Roe vs. Wade, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the decline is coming from Whites. I guess Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood would be proud. Her promotion of "race hygiene" is coming to fruition. Add to this, that 90% of downs' babies are also aborted, and the "pro-choice" crowd has made great accomplishments. And when medical science can determine whether an unborn baby is homosexual, just wait for the glorious results. Pat yourselves on the back "pro-choicers", you done good work!

[Guest American Woman]

Pat yourselves on the back "pro-choicers", you done good work!

As long as the women involved had a choice, yeah, we indeed 'did good work.' Since you obviously don't get it, that's what it's all about. It's not about achieving any goals/results; it's about women having the opportunity to make a choice. No more, no less. Simple as that. In fact, so simple that "anti-choicers" should be able to get it.

[GostHacked]

I see it beyond being a social norm; I see it as a moral norm, and religion/morals are clearly supposed to be separate from the government. If a woman who is raped, a child who is the victim of incest, must carry the pregnancy to term, if the government dictates that, that's just totally -- as you stated-- fucked up. One could even say "deranged." And furthermore, I think anyone who wants to make the government involved in such decisions, who thinks the government should dictate such decisions, is pretty "fucked up" themself. So when someone who fits that bill has a shot at being my country's president, I feel strongly about it, and not "unreasonably so," but rightly so.

So it is the supporters of Palin that has the Palin Derannged Syndrome? If so, I agree with you.

[BC_chick]

So abortions are at their lowest rate since Roe vs. Wade, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the decline is coming from Whites. I guess Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood would be proud. Her promotion of "race hygiene" is coming to fruition.

Without knowing the stats, I always had a hunch that most pro-lifers don't care about "life" as much as they care about white lives.

Black and brown fetuses... meh, whatever.

[kimmy]

That 80% number is being pulled out of thin air, because the experts point out that most miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that most go undetected. It is more likely that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage

Determining the prevalence of miscarriage is difficult. Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant.

50% or 80%, the point remains the same.

I'm not arguing that the skin cells have the potential to divide and create a new person -- although it is a possibility with human cloning -- every cell in our bodies can be switched to act as an egg cell and produce a complete copy of the organism. Regardless, my point is not about what there potentials are, but their present conditions -- the zygote is a collection of cells with no conscious activity -- no different than the skin cells!

Well, what you said was:

"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 you're obviously someone whose done his homework on the subject, and you understand that there are very substantial differences between a zygote and some random skin cells, and I'm sure you're well aware that these differences are at the heart of the discussion.

I provided the link, if you want to read it; it's only one page long. The fetus may be portable, but I recall that my wife had back pains, indigestion, fluid retention, even high blood pressure with the last one -- a whole lot of things besides the added weight to lug around everywhere that made it a less than comfortable experience. And these were all planned pregnancies! There is a denial of rights to expect women who do not want to spend nine months pregnant and go through the birthing process.

I'm sure it's not a picnic, but clearly the analogy of being imprisoned in a hospital while providing life-support by IV to this comatose person fails. It's not a prison sentence, it's an inconvenience. A significant inconvenience in later stages, perhaps, but most women are able to live normal and active lives right up to the final days of their pregnancy.

The standard arguments of "it's your fault you got pregnant" don't apply in situations where no consent was given, and yet a woman who was impregnated by force, against her will, may be in turn forced by a pro life state to carry that baby to term and give birth to it! Instead of one crime being committed, two crimes would occur.

Someone who believes that a fetus is a human life would reply that 2 crimes will occur regardless of the outcome, and that the greater crime would be terminating an innocent human life.

If one is committed to the belief that a fetus is a human life, then one is committed to the belief that terminating it is immoral. Arguments about whether it's her "fault" that she got pregnant are irrelevant.

"It's her fault she got pregnant" is a lousy reason to make anyone carry a pregnancy to term whatever the circumstances of conception. We allow people to correct mistakes under almost every circumstance. If somebody makes a mistake while skiing, we don't tell them "yeah well it's your fault" and make them spend the rest of their life with a wrecked knee. If somebody shows up at an emergency room with a stomach full of toxic chemicals, we pump their stomach whether it was an accidental poisoning or an ill-advised attempt to get high. We don't make that distinction in any other medical situation, so why should it be a consideration as regards abortion? It shouldn't. It's a ridiculous distinction to make.

I would be all in favor of abortions in whatever situation a woman wants, any situation at all, whenever she feels like it, as surely as she has the right to get a wart frozen or a tattoo removed. Except that I can't convince myself that a fetus isn't a human life.

BTW, next time you get into an argument over abortion, this is something you should press them on. You'll quickly find out whether they have the courage of their convictions. It seems to me that once somebody goes down the path of saying it's ok if it wasn't the woman's fault she's pregnant, they've opened a huge hole in their logic that you can easily tear apart the rest of their argument.

-k

[the janitor]

Without knowing the stats, I always had a hunch that most pro-lifers don't care about "life" as much as they care about white lives.

Black and brown fetuses... meh, whatever.

Unless you have some hard evidence to back up that hunch, you are just appealing to an irration bias against people who are pro-life. Conversely, you are implying everyone who isn't white is pro-choice.

Making unfounded statements like that against specific groups or races encourages prejudice against them. By definition, that qualifies as hate speech. Hitler made alot of unfounded statements against the Jews in the 1930s. By 1945, six million of them were dead.

Shame on you.

[Black Dog]

August1991

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.

A society that doesn't provide people with avenues to better themselves and circumstances is nothing more than a dog-eat-dog, social Darwinist construct that should have gone the way of the horse and buggy and steam locomotive.

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.

August, your endless dime-store psychoanalyses offer little insight into anything save your own pompous, vacuous windbagggery. It's tiresome.

kimmy:

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?

I think you are literal-minded to the point of pedantry (and I'm petty?) Plain is obviouslya woman. Whether she is a feminist in a meaningful sense of the word is another story.

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 don't know how hard this is to understand. Palin, as a woman of privilege, was able to make certain choices in her life. She wants to deny other choices to women whose circumstances are not conducive to living la vida Palin.

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?

You don't see why reproductive rights might be a significant issue for women?

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?

Didn't say that. I personally don't think you can call yourself a feminist if you believe in forced pregnancy.

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!

Because that's an issue.

Kimmy: not a feminist.

If you say so.

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.

You suspect? But you don't know. There's a lot of rubbish pseudoscience and misinformation out there about the after effects of abortion, both physically and mentally, I can't help but think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've talked to a few women who've had abortions and felt strange afterwards because they didn't feel bad like they had been told they would.

[Melanie_]

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

Yes, “eligible employees” are entitled to twelve weeks unpaid leave. Who is an “eligible employee”?

The U.S. Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration's Wage and Hour Division enforces FMLA. FMLA applies to all public agencies, including state and local governments, and local education agencies such as schools. In the private sector, FMLA also applies to employers with 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite, who are employed 20 or more workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Most federal and congressional employees are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or Congress.

There are guidelines to who is eligible for FMLA benefits. An eligible employee is one who works for a "covered" employer and has worked for 12 months or more.

If I’m reading this correctly, FMLA is not universal – it seems there are many women who would not be covered under this legislation.

Many save their sick time and holiday time to use during this time, so that they are not without pay for the full twelve weeks. From your link:

Under most circumstances, an employee may elect or the employer may require the use of any accrued paid leave (vacation, sick, personal, etc.) for periods of unpaid FMLA leave.

The graphs at the bottom show that the benefits they do receive, in the form of short term disability (since when is having a baby a disability?), are completely dependent on the employer. So I don’t think my comment regarding maternity leave in the States was too far off the mark.

[Guest American Woman]

I would be all in favor of abortions in whatever situation a woman wants, any situation at all, whenever she feels like it, as surely as she has the right to get a wart frozen or a tattoo removed. Except that I can't convince myself that a fetus isn't a human life.

I say anyone who feels this way shouldn't have an abortion. By the same token, others who don't think an abortion is "killing a baby" should be free to act according to their beliefs. That's all that "pro-choice" is-- letting people decide for themselves. So. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. But don't force your beliefs on others; don't demand that others be forced to act according to your beliefs. Simple as that.

[BC_chick]

Unless you have some hard evidence to back up that hunch, you are just appealing to an irration bias against people who are pro-life. Conversely, you are implying everyone who isn't white is pro-choice.

Making unfounded statements like that against specific groups or races encourages prejudice against them. By definition, that qualifies as hate speech. Hitler made alot of unfounded statements against the Jews in the 1930s. By 1945, six million of them were dead.

Shame on you.

Um, did you see the quote to which I was responding?

[the janitor]

Um, did you see the quote to which I was responding?

Yes. It still doesn't justify your comment.

[stevoh]

I would be all in favor of abortions in whatever situation a woman wants, any situation at all, whenever she feels like it, as surely as she has the right to get a wart frozen or a tattoo removed. Except that I can't convince myself that a fetus isn't a human life.

BTW, next time you get into an argument over abortion, this is something you should press them on. You'll quickly find out whether they have the courage of their convictions. It seems to me that once somebody goes down the path of saying it's ok if it wasn't the woman's fault she's pregnant, they've opened a huge hole in their logic that you can easily tear apart the rest of their argument.

-k

So, if giving birth would almost certainly result in the death of the mother, due to medical reasons, which human life do we decide to keep?

[bush_cheney2004]

So, if giving birth would almost certainly result in the death of the mother, due to medical reasons, which human life do we decide to keep?

Many mothers in such circumstances want their infant's life saved over their own if it comes down to that. Now that's what I call "Pro Choice" with a bag of chips.

[the janitor]

Many mothers in such circumstances want their infant's life saved over their own if it comes down to that. Now that's what I call "Pro Choice" with a bag of chips.

If a grown woman and infant both fall overboard from a boat into deep water which one would you try to grab hold of first?

Pro-life rocks!

[WIP]

Many mothers in such circumstances want their infant's life saved over their own if it comes down to that. Now that's what I call "Pro Choice" with a bag of chips.

And this is the wrong choice, and in such cases, her husband should try really hard to persuade her not to take such a risk!

I quit a U.S. conservative forum last year after having a nasty dustup with some young republican shit who was really into the abortion issue and bragged that his mother had him even though the doctors said she had less than a 20% chance of survival if she carried the pregnancy to term. My response was "you wouldn't be here today, if I was married to your mother, since bringing your life into this world, wasn't worth the extreme risk your mother took to stay true to her prolife convictions, and you wouldn't have been here to ponder what might have happened."

When such an unfortunate woman dies during childbirth, she becomes a martyr for the prolife movement. Is she making a complete free will choice in such cases? Or is she motivated by fear of transgressing the rules of the religious establishment?

[WIP]

Some good news and bad news:

Although the overall U.S. abortion rate is at its lowest level since 1974, the drop has been far more dramatic for whites than for African Americans, who in 2004 had abortions at five times the rate of white women, according to a report released Monday.

The abortion rate for Latinas was about three times that of whites.

The Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based research group that supports abortion rights but whose statistics are generally respected by antiabortion groups, analyzed 30 years of data since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

LA Times

So abortions are at their lowest rate since Roe vs. Wade, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the decline is coming from Whites. I guess Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood would be proud. Her promotion of "race hygiene" is coming to fruition. Add to this, that 90% of downs' babies are also aborted, and the "pro-choice" crowd has made great accomplishments. And when medical science can determine whether an unborn baby is homosexual, just wait for the glorious results. Pat yourselves on the back "pro-choicers", you done good work!

The race hygiene thing is a crock since the same religious right people like Pat Buchanan, are bitching out of the other side of their mouths about blacks and coloureds outnumbering whites!

The decline correlates with sex education and access to birth control incidently! You'll find that the U.S. statistics show that states which push "abstinence" education have the highest rate of teen pregnancies -- which also make more abortions. So, if you want fewer abortions, support birth control!

Most rational thinking people don't start recognizing a right to life until there is actual conscious human life in the third trimester of pregnancy. But as long as religious institutions keep their flocks paralyzed with ignorant, outdated concepts like "ensoulment," it's impossible for society as a whole to grapple with problems like aborting fetuses for minor birth defects or a desire to choose the sex of the baby. The improvement in medical and DNA testing is bringing new ethical issues into the abortion debate that didn't exist before; but it's going to be impossible to decide when the state should intervene as long as there is this stonewalling by the pro life groups who are trying to make all abortions criminal offenses.

[bush_cheney2004]

And this is the wrong choice, and in such cases, her husband should try really hard to persuade her not to take such a risk!

It's not your choice to make or pass judgement on. Sheeeesh.....

I quit a U.S. conservative forum last year after having a nasty dustup with some young republican shit who was really into the abortion issue and bragged that his mother had him even though the doctors said she had less than a 20% chance of survival if she carried the pregnancy to term. My response was "you wouldn't be here today, if I was married to your mother, since bringing your life into this world, wasn't worth the extreme risk your mother took to stay true to her prolife convictions, and you wouldn't have been here to ponder what might have happened."

Great....another reference to your USA wannabe / coulda been status, if only as a conservative forum member. His mother made a choice, with or without the father's support, just like the "choice" to vacuum aspirate.

When such an unfortunate woman dies during childbirth, she becomes a martyr for the prolife movement. Is she making a complete free will choice in such cases? Or is she motivated by fear of transgressing the rules of the religious establishment?

So it's the wrong "choice" when you disagree.....please......your position isn't even half baked.

[CANADIEN]

And this is the wrong choice, and in such cases, her husband should try really hard to persuade her not to take such a risk!

I quit a U.S. conservative forum last year after having a nasty dustup with some young republican shit who was really into the abortion issue and bragged that his mother had him even though the doctors said she had less than a 20% chance of survival if she carried the pregnancy to term. My response was "you wouldn't be here today, if I was married to your mother, since bringing your life into this world, wasn't worth the extreme risk your mother took to stay true to her prolife convictions, and you wouldn't have been here to ponder what might have happened."

When such an unfortunate woman dies during childbirth, she becomes a martyr for the prolife movement. Is she making a complete free will choice in such cases? Or is she motivated by fear of transgressing the rules of the religious establishment?

Nice to see that for you a woman's choice doesn't include her right to decide by herself, knowing the facts and the risk, to got through with her pregnancy. Danger to the life of a mother is one case where I feel her decision to abort is justified, but so is her decision to bring a new life to the world no matter the risks.

Abd I wonder how the kid reacted to you basically telling him tpo his face in didn't deserve to be alive.

Edited September 23, 2008 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

So, if giving birth would almost certainly result in the death of the mother, due to medical reasons, which human life do we decide to keep?

"We" don't decide that.

But she should certainly have the option of choosing to save her own life. I can't think of any situation where a person is expected, obliged, or required to risk grievous harm or death to assist another.

I say anyone who feels this way shouldn't have an abortion. By the same token, others who don't think an abortion is "killing a baby" should be free to act according to their beliefs. That's all that "pro-choice" is-- letting people decide for themselves. So. Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. But don't force your beliefs on others; don't demand that others be forced to act according to your beliefs. Simple as that.

For the benefit of those joining us late, I'll fire up the WABAC machine and transport us back to the thrilling days of earlier this week:

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for either position. I guess I am "pro-choice" in the sense that I would not choose to have an abortion but am unwilling to advocate that other women shouldn't either.

-k

Simple as that, indeed.

-k

Edited September 24, 2008 by kimmy

[kimmy]

kimmy:

I think you are literal-minded to the point of pedantry (and I'm petty?) Plain is obviouslya woman. Whether she is a feminist in a meaningful sense of the word is another story.

I keep making mention of that choice of words because it captures the vitriol of the authors' remarks.

What the authors (of the quotes I referenced back in post #47 were expressing was not simply a disagreement with Palin's political opinions. And they were not expressing a sincere belief that she might actually be a dude in drag. They were expressing a sense of betrayal, and of scorn and contempt for a woman that doesn't share their political agenda. This is what piqued my attention. This was not a couple of women advancing a feminist view of Palin's merits, this was Johnny Cochrane calling Christopher Darden "Uncle Tom". And while you'd like to brush off those comments as a "poor choice of words", I am not as forgiving. Because it wasn't a poor choice of words: they said what they meant to say.

And you're too smart to have thought I was being literal-minded in repeating their "not a woman" comment, so why don't you take your accusation of pedantry and go drive into a wall. (I leave it to you to decide whether to interpret that figuratively or literally.)

I don't know how hard this is to understand. Palin, as a woman of privilege, was able to make certain choices in her life. She wants to deny other choices to women whose circumstances are not conducive to living la vida Palin.

Are things really so tough out there that a commercial fisherman and a sports reporter are now considered "people of privilege"? I mean, this is where they were at at the point in time when they began raising their children, yes? Her parents are schoolteachers, right? His family are also fishermen? This is the Alaska version of the Hearst family or something?

What exactly does "privilege" mean in this context, anyway? Is a woman who has a stable marriage to a guy with a regular job "privileged" for purposes of this discussion?

You don't see why reproductive rights might be a significant issue for women?

I certainly do. However, I'm perplexed at the idea that abortion access is the sole "women's issue" of note, or that for most women it's anywhere near the most pressing issue facing them. It borders on monomania.

Because that's an issue.

I was hoping to illustrate that your litmus test kind of sucks.

You suspect? But you don't know. There's a lot of rubbish pseudoscience and misinformation out there about the after effects of abortion, both physically and mentally, I can't help but think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've talked to a few women who've had abortions and felt strange afterwards because they didn't feel bad like they had been told they would.

Well, I am happy that your friends are happy. Personally, I haven't conducted research into the subject. I don't presume to know how most, or many, or some, or even a few women who've had abortions felt afterward. I saw a CBC (?) news feature on it at one point or another, in which those interviewed explained that it was a decision they didn't make lightly and weren't certain of either before or afterward. Beyond that, I don't know anything beyond how I'd feel if faced with that decision.

-k