Palin Derangement Syndrome

[Riverwind]

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 can't think of any situation where one person isexpected, obliged, or required to provide 24x7 care for another. Edited September 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

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.

Did I say a woman shouldn't have the right to risk her life when faced with a risky pregnancy? She may want to take that risk, but I don't consider such a risk to be a rational choice, and if my wife wanted to take such a risk during pregnancy, I would have strongly advised against it. I thought you would get the point I was trying to make that such a decision is likely made in tandem with religious indoctrination and possibly even coercion

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

Not very well, and I'm not usually one to deliberately try to shock and offend people, but sometimes you have to try to shock people to their senses, especially campus leaders of the Young Republicans!

Seriously, I wouldn't have gone in that direction, but the forum started going extreme prolife in the last year that I was a member, and this kid was one of the most vocal anti-abortion bullies, using his life story as a tool to even attack women who were generally prolife, but believed that there are some extreme circumstances where abortion should be permitted.

I was getting disillusioned with all things conservative by this time, and siding more and more with the handful of liberals on the board, and this sort of implied argument that pregnant women must risk death rather than choose abortion was pushing me right over the edge.

[WIP]

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

And the point is that there is no difference to the fate of a fertilized egg whether it is terminated by induced abortion or spontaneous abortion! The fact that religious and political leaders of the prolife movement show little, if any concern for the fact that half of all "babies" are aborted by God or by nature, and direct none of their resources to prenatal health programs that would reduce the rate of spontaneous abortions reveals the hidden agenda that motivates patriarchs and church leaders to consider abortion a crucial issue -- it's about having control of women's fertility and keeping them occupied with having babies.

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.

And what difference is there, besides the capacity for rapid cell division? Do you consider a zygote to be a conscious human life that should be awarded full human rights? If so, on what basis should it be considered a human person at this stage, rather than what it appears to be under a microscope - a collection of cells.

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.

And once again, why not? You have indicated earlier, that you not only consider a fetus to be a human life, but you consider any fertilized egg that has finished recombining DNA strands to be fully human as well -- on what basis? This should be more than "I believe," you should have actual reasons why it should be regarded as unique human life, even at the earliest stage.

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

I'm not interested in tearing apart people's arguments. A sensible policy on issues like abortion will fall somewhere in between extreme positions. What you are advocating, is no different than absolute prochoice advocates who maintain that privacy rights have to be absolute, even in situations that are detrimental for society as a whole, such as abortion for sex selection, like in India and China, where it is leading to a shortage of females.

You're claiming that giving a woman the right to have an abortion in cases where she has become pregnant against her will, will lead down a slippery slope, because in that circumstance, giving the woman's right to decide what to do with her body a higher value than the right of an embryo or fetus to use her body to get a start in life, will jeopardize that right to life in other circumstances -- and maybe it will! The majority of people seem to fall in between the extreme positions of the advocacy groups for and against abortion. Most people are more likely to grant easy access to abortion in the early stages, and want restrictions limiting third trimester abortion to extraordinary circumstances such as risk to the mother's life, or sever birth defects.

Prolifers may trumpet that "life begins at conception" but most people have an intuitive sense that this argument is false and only supported by religious dogma. Conscious human life developes slowly and gradually, even after birth, but for legal purposes, deciding issues like abortion and stem cell research will require drawing an arbitrary line where most will agree that it is sufficiently human to be worthy of basic human rights.

[CANADIEN]

Did I say a woman shouldn't have the right to risk her life when faced with a risky pregnancy? She may want to take that risk, but I don't consider such a risk to be a rational choice, and if my wife wanted to take such a risk during pregnancy, I would have strongly advised against it. I thought you would get the point I was trying to make that such a decision is likely made in tandem with religious indoctrination and possibly even coercion

Not very well, and I'm not usually one to deliberately try to shock and offend people, but sometimes you have to try to shock people to their senses, especially campus leaders of the Young Republicans!

Seriously, I wouldn't have gone in that direction, but the forum started going extreme prolife in the last year that I was a member, and this kid was one of the most vocal anti-abortion bullies, using his life story as a tool to even attack women who were generally prolife, but believed that there are some extreme circumstances where abortion should be permitted.

I was getting disillusioned with all things conservative by this time, and siding more and more with the handful of liberals on the board, and this sort of implied argument that pregnant women must risk death rather than choose abortion was pushing me right over the edge.

I don't need to quote you stating that if you were married to a woman in a life-threatening situation she would have an abortion, right?

What is not rational is that "abortion is fine by me, as long as it is for reasons I do find acceptable" attitude of yours. There is nothing irrational in a woman in a risk pregancy, equipped with all the facts, deciding whose life shall be sacrificed.

[WIP]

I don't need to quote you stating that if you were married to a woman in a life-threatening situation she would have an abortion, right?

Here's the quote: 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!

You do understand the meaning of the word "persuade" don't you?

What is not rational is that "abortion is fine by me, as long as it is for reasons I do find acceptable" attitude of yours. There is nothing irrational in a woman in a risk pregancy, equipped with all the facts, deciding whose life shall be sacrificed.

You have a loose definition of rationality then! Do you consider Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions to be rational as well?

[moderateamericain]

It is not a question of whether or not abortion is moral. The real question is do we have the right to tell another person what to do with what could be a life changing experience. Having a kid should not be taken lightly. Women who get abortions usually have damn good reasons to not bring a child into this world. Usually involving ability to support it. In my opinion, we should not force are values on others.

[Shady]

Sorry, but there's no such thing as a woman's right to kill. Regardless of any "good reason" she may have.

[GostHacked]

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?

She does not become a martyr for anyone but the child. Never underestimate a mother's will to have the child survive, even if it means the end of her life. She is not fearing anything but the death of the baby. If she can give the child a fighting chance, then she will make the sacrafice. If it comes down to that choice.

But like Bush_cheney said .. this is the ultimate in pro choice. I give real props to those people.

And we have detracted from the topic once again.

Pro Choice is the most logical route to take, when it comes to abortion. Those who do not think it is right, will do what they think is right as long as it does not interfear with others and their beliefs. So this is the choice you make. If you want to abort, then abort, if not, then don't do it. This is all up to the indivual and every case should be treated different.

Prolife, by nature of the platform, does not give you the choice.

[Black Dog]

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 why wouldn't they? I can't figure out why you think people who, to put it lightly, don't share Palin's anti-choice backwoods ideology should be welcoming and even tempered. Aren't you simply advocating what is usually disdainfully called "political correctness"?

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?

Not rich, but not hardscrabble. Certainly white and middle class.

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?

In the context of a discussion of abortion rights, yes.

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.

I think one's stance on this issue is a bellwether of other beliefs.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Black Dog

[Shady]

Ok, this definitely needs to be filed under Palin Derangement Syndrome. I think Naomi Wolf needs some serious medical help. One can only hope she receives it.

Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah "Evita" Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.

Remember, Russia has Presidents; Russia holds elections. Dictators and gangs of thugs all over the world hold elections. It means nothing. When a cabal has seized power you can have elections and even presidents, but you have freedom.

I saw that she was even styled by the same skillful stylist (neutral lipstick, matte makeup, dark colors) who turned Katharine Harris from a mall rat into a stateswoman and who styles all the women in the Bush orbit --but who does not bother to style Cindy McCain

John McCain has a virulent and life-threatening form of skin cancer. It is the elephant in the room.

I believe the Rove-Cheney cabal is using Sarah Palin as a stalking horse, an Evita figure, to put a popular, populist face on the coming police state and be the talk show hostess for the end of elections as we know them.

If McCain-Palin get in, this will be the last true American election.

Under the coming Palin-Rove police state, you will witness the plans now underway to bring Iraqi troops to patrol the streets of our nation.

Huffington Post

See everbody. This is what we mean by Palin Derangement Syndrome. And this is by far the worst case I've seen.

[WIP]

She does not become a martyr for anyone but the child. Never underestimate a mother's will to have the child survive, even if it means the end of her life. She is not fearing anything but the death of the baby. If she can give the child a fighting chance, then she will make the sacrafice. If it comes down to that choice.

No doubt, but my contention is that the people around her should not be encouraging this choice!

But like Bush_cheney said .. this is the ultimate in pro choice. I give real props to those people.

Sorry, but I don't rank this choice in the same category as the Unitarian minister who stepped in front of a gunman down in Kentucky or somewhere, that walked into his church and started shooting people indiscriminately. Society as a whole should not rank the lives of unborn fetuses as equal to, or of greater importance than the mother. I mentioned before that in the days before modern medicine, a physician may have been faced with a straight choice during a perilous delivery of whether to crush the infant's skull and remove it, or perform a caesarean section, that would kill the mother. According to the Wiki article, even as late as 1865, 85% of women died from this operation. but it was still performed regardless, because the life of the mother was far from guaranteed greater worth than the life of the fetus.

And we have detracted from the topic once again.

Pro Choice is the most logical route to take, when it comes to abortion. Those who do not think it is right, will do what they think is right as long as it does not interfear with others and their beliefs. So this is the choice you make. If you want to abort, then abort, if not, then don't do it. This is all up to the indivual and every case should be treated different.

Prolife, by nature of the platform, does not give you the choice.

But as prenatal testing, especially DNA testing improves, the prospect of designer babies and sex-selection calls into question the absolute prochoice argument. A responsible solution will fall somewhere in between two extreme postions on this issue, if a rational debate of the issue can be conducted.

[Guest American Woman]

She does not become a martyr for anyone but the child. Never underestimate a mother's will to have the child survive, even if it means the end of her life. She is not fearing anything but the death of the baby. If she can give the child a fighting chance, then she will make the sacrafice. If it comes down to that choice.

But like Bush_cheney said .. this is the ultimate in pro choice. I give real props to those people.

Why do you give "real props" to a woman who decides to end her life for an unborn baby's life? Why is that "the ultimate" in pro choice?

If a woman chooses her baby's life over her own, it's simply her choice. Same as it's the choice of another not to choose the unborn baby's life over her own. You think if the woman has other children, children who are going to be motherless, she's "selfless?" Don't their lives, their feelings, their well being count?

If a woman wants to make this choice, fine. But I'm not nominating her for sainthood for her decision. It's simply a CHOICE that she makes, and it's because she thinks it's the right choice. Another woman might make another decision, and it's because she thinks that's the right choice. The key word in both instances is "choice," and that's what pro-choice is all about. It's all that it's about.

Some are criticizing WIP for making judgments regarding a woman choosing an unborn life over her own, but claiming it's the "ultimate in pro choice," giving "real props" to those who make that choice, is judgment as surly as WIP's opinion was.

Pro Choice is the most logical route to take, when it comes to abortion. Those who do not think it is right, will do what they think is right as long as it does not interfear with others and their beliefs. So this is the choice you make. If you want to abort, then abort, if not, then don't do it. This is all up to the indivual and every case should be treated different.

Prolife, by nature of the platform, does not give you the choice.

Pro-life is really either anti-abortion or anti-choice. In order to be "pro life," people have to be anti-death penalty and a pacifist. Otherwise they are not "pro life," but simply "anti abortion," which is much different from being pro life.

[sharkman]

Ok, this definitely needs to be filed under Palin Derangement Syndrome. I think Naomi Wolf needs some serious medical help. One can only hope she receives it.

Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah "Evita" Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.

Remember, Russia has Presidents; Russia holds elections. Dictators and gangs of thugs all over the world hold elections. It means nothing. When a cabal has seized power you can have elections and even presidents, but you have freedom.

I saw that she was even styled by the same skillful stylist (neutral lipstick, matte makeup, dark colors) who turned Katharine Harris from a mall rat into a stateswoman and who styles all the women in the Bush orbit --but who does not bother to style Cindy McCain

John McCain has a virulent and life-threatening form of skin cancer. It is the elephant in the room.

I believe the Rove-Cheney cabal is using Sarah Palin as a stalking horse, an Evita figure, to put a popular, populist face on the coming police state and be the talk show hostess for the end of elections as we know them.

If McCain-Palin get in, this will be the last true American election.

Under the coming Palin-Rove police state, you will witness the plans now underway to bring Iraqi troops to patrol the streets of our nation.

Huffington Post

You know, I love that Sarah Palin ticks off all of the people that irritate me.

American woman, there is an error in your premise. When a woman opts to have a child which endangers her own life, she is not choosing one life over another even though that may be the final outcome.

[August1991]

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

Fine. A fetus (foetus?) is a human life. What's wrong in aborting it?

Mentioned elsewhere in this thread is the incidence of miscarriage. If a woman, early in pregnancy for example, is active physically and by chance miscarriages, is she guilty of "murder"? Should we charge her? Should we force all preganant women to lie in bed and not move because of the risk of miscarriage?

I have no problems at all with admitting that a fertlized egg in a woman's body is a potential life or even life itself. And yet I don't oppose abortion. I have no problem in arguing, on perfectly ethical grounds, that in some circumstances we preserve life and in other circumstances we don't.

It is absurd to argue that Palin or Bush or even the Pope believes in the sanctity of human life. Through their actions and choices, they clearly don't. We all make choices and some of those choices invariably mean that we typically increase or decrease the chance of others living or dying.

Is it any different if I condemn a man to die with certainty or I condemn a man to die based on the flip of a coin? Now then, am I guilty if I take decision where a man's life is at risk in one chance out of a thousand? Out of a million?

Yet, we make these kinds of decisions all the time. How many of us have taken a risk while driving and endangered lives of innocent pedestrians?

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.

This is in reference to my comment that women should not get invoilved in abusive relationships in the first place.

BD, can the State make for better marriages? Can State regulators improve on the choices we ourselves make?

At bottom, I think not. When the State intervenes into something as complex as the intimate relationship between two people, no good will come of it. As Trudeau famoulsy said, the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. In a civilized society, that's true.

Moreover, family is capable of accomplishing certain activities that no other institution - certainly not the State - can accomplish. The State is no substitute for family.

It is the success of Palin's family that really irritates Leftists. Leftists invariably portray families as dysfunctional or non-existent. Leftists want the State to become the family they probably never knew or never had.

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.

Add a European Leftist class view into the mix. Palin is a "woman of privilege". By all accounts, she's not. And she certainly seems to resonate more with working class Americans than that child of "affirmative action" privilege Obama. Edited September 25, 2008 by August1991

[Shady]

Palin Derangement Syndrome is spinning out of control.

(CNN) – Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

CNN

[BubberMiley]

Moreover, family is capable of accomplishing certain activities that no other institution - certainly not the State - can accomplish. The State is no substitute for family.

It is the success of Palin's family that really irritates Leftists. Leftists invariably portray families as dysfunctional or non-existent. Leftists want the State to become the family they probably never knew or never had.

Add a European Leftist class view into the mix. Palin is a "woman of privilege". By all accounts, she's not. And she certainly seems to resonate more with working class Americans than that child of "affirmative action" privilege Obama.

John McCain values family to such an extent, he wouldn't settle for less. When he got bored with his first one, he deserted it to start a new, much wealthier one.

But Obama didn't state his skin colour on his Harvard application form. So much for being a child of privilege. He risen solely by his own merit, not by playing the POW card over and over and over...

[kimmy]

And why wouldn't they? I can't figure out why you think people who, to put it lightly, don't share Palin's anti-choice backwoods ideology should be welcoming and even tempered. Aren't you simply advocating what is usually disdainfully called "political correctness"?

Political correctness is when you've got a black boxer and a white boxer in the ring, and the commentator is differentiating them by the color of their trunks. Political correctness is when Crimestoppers tells you that Tran Ho Nguyen is 5'10, 170 pounds, has dark hair and was last scene wearing a leather jacket.

Making a vicious attack on someone because she holds a particular view, that's an attack on everybody who holds the view, which is in this instance a significant portion of the population. It's being belligerent to a point that merits inclusion in a thread on "derangement."

Imagine how mad you'd be if this came from Ezra Levant and was directed at swarthy folk, and that's about how I feel about this.

Not rich, but not hardscrabble. Certainly white and middle class.

White? I suppose the argument is that since she's white (and presumably, being attractive helps) she was able to succeed despite children, while a woman who is black (or perhaps a fat or unattractive woman) would be less able to?

I think one's stance on this issue is a bellwether of other beliefs.

It's a great bellweather! For example, in India abortion is wildly popular, demonstrating that the country has such a strong feminist tradition! "A few hundred rupees now could save you thousands of rupees later!" One can only envy the women of India and all the ladder-climbing they'll be doing. (low blow? whatever. you deserved it.)

Statistically, there might be some amount of correlation between support for abortion access, and (for example) support for employment quotas or support for equal pay for equal work legislation. Who shivs a git? A "bellweather" is only relevant if you're trying to predict the behaviors of statistically significant groups of people, and I can't imagine why that would be relevant to anything being discussed in this thread.

-k

[kimmy]

Mentioned elsewhere in this thread is the incidence of miscarriage. If a woman, early in pregnancy for example, is active physically and by chance miscarriages, is she guilty of "murder"? Should we charge her? Should we force all preganant women to lie in bed and not move because of the risk of miscarriage?

The argument that since miscarriages are statistically quite common, abortion is not inherently wrong? That's about as sensible as saying that since old people have a fairly significant chance of dying soon, killing 'em isn't really that big a deal.

-k

[kimmy]

See everbody. This is what we mean by Palin Derangement Syndrome. And this is by far the worst case I've seen.

That one isn't Palin Derangement, that's just plain Derangement.

Palin Derangement Syndrome is spinning out of control.

(CNN) – Rep. Alcee Hastings told an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.”

CNN

Ok, this one sounds like Palin Derangement. Quickly! Call the Moose-Boat Veterans For Jews!

-k

[BC_chick]

It is the success of Palin's family that really irritates Leftists. Leftists invariably portray families as dysfunctional or non-existent. Leftists want the State to become the family they probably never knew or never had.

No, we don't. You made an earlier reference to this, and you even had a personal hypothesis about your generalisation. While I responded with sarcasm, I was merely trying to parody your argument by responding equally simplistically.

August, I have a great relationship with my parents and family and so do most of my liberal friends. Some conservatives I know get along great with their family, some don't. From what I have witnessed in life, there is absolutely no correlation between political leanings and personal family relationships.

Please don't confuse accepting people's CHOICES in life with a desire to have some sort of personal relationship with 'the state'...

If people get married, good for them. If they don't, that's fine too.

That's not to say the family unit is dynfuctional or non-existent. It just means it's not for everyone and we shouldn't look down on those who do not wish to, or fail at, living their lives as such.

The real question is, how can you say it's the 'norm' when given the chance, 50% of the people choose their lives differently?

Edited September 25, 2008 by BC_chick

[Shady]

I can't figure out why you think people who, to put it lightly, don't share Palin's anti-choice backwoods ideology

As I've already stated, there's no such thing as a woman's right to kill. You can sugarcoat it with so-called choice all you want. And the only backwoods ideology, comes from people who rely on science from the 50's and 60's, to back up a legal desicion created in the 70's. It's neanderthal thinking, similar to that of blacks being only two-thirds of a human being asserted in the pre-emancipation constitution of the United States.

Instead of nigger, it's zygote or parasite.

[BC_chick]

there's no such thing as a woman's right to kill

...always the woman's fault, eh? Never the man.

Anywaaaay.....

For the life in me I can't take the pro-life argument seriously from anyone who is not a vegan. How can you feel life is bloody precious and then turn around and eat anything with a face on it?

[August1991]

The argument that since miscarriages are statistically quite common, abortion is not inherently wrong? That's about as sensible as saying that since old people have a fairly significant chance of dying soon, killing 'em isn't really that big a deal.

-k

That's precisely what I'm saying Kimmy and if you don't understand this, then you don't know how Canada's hospital administrators, for example, make decisions concerning use of their facilities.

It's a question of choice, and degree.

Have you ever heard the famous quote attributed to George Bernard Shaw?

"Best joke about prostitution ever done was by Bernard Shaw. He was at a party once and he told this woman that everyone would agree to do anything for money, if the price was high enough. `Surely not, she said.' `Oh yes,' he said. `Well, I wouldn't,' she said. `Oh yes you would,' he said. `For instance,' he said, `would you sleep with me for... for a million pounds?' `Well,' she said, `maybe for a million I would, yes.' `Would you do it for ten shillings?' said Bernard Shaw. `Certainly not!' said the woman `What do you take me for? A prostitute?' `We've established that already,' said Bernard Shaw. `We're just trying to fix your price now!'

Some link

In the case of life and abortion, it's not money - but it might as well be. We all daily make choices involving costs and risks.

When the Pope chooses to travel abroad, he takes risks that mean others may die. When the Pope chooses to celebrate outside Mass, that means he chooses to devote those resources to a task other than saving lives.

Edited September 25, 2008 by August1991

[jbg]

I have nothing against Palin being a woman VP, I question her ability to be PRESIDENT!! McCain has had cancer and at 72 the possibility of him having a stroke or heart or even the cancer coming back especially under the stress of running for President is a REAL possibility Palin could become President.

Harry Truman's qualifications were being a failed haberdasher and running a corrupt Missouri county. Yet he turned out to be one of our greatest Presidents.

Keep that in mind.

P.S. I deliberately decided to address the beginning of the thread seeing as how the end, so far, has degenerated into juvenelia (sp).

[sharkman]

Well I for one appreciate the attempt, jbg. People also seem to forget about how old Reagan was.

You earlier mentioned how you did not care for Palin personally and I never asked you to elaborate. What about her turns you off?