Oh, really? Well please do share your oh-so-cogent analysis that leads you to come to such a conclusion. What makes her so embarrassing to the the human race?
What? Where did you get that from? Or are you making shit up now? Yes, I think you are. I have been civil to you thus far, but putting this many words in my mouth really ticks me off.
Are third trimester abortions really on the table here? This is a classic straw man argument. I think even most pro-choice women are against the idea of aborting a baby THE DAY BEFORE IT’S BORN, because that’s not an abortion and you damn well know it. So why muddy the waters of this issue? Just to alienate someone trying to have a rational debate with you?
Sarah Palin holds that belief because of her religion. She also in favor of abstinence only sex ed, thinks it would be OK to teach Creationism in schools, and believes you can pray away the gay. Thus, her feelings ARE religiously motivated, and her religious agenda has no place being legislated. Thus, it IS a church/state issue for this particular candidate.
Cite? I think maybe you should take a poll, because I don’t think you’re right here.
Sarah Palin, who is the topic of this thread, IS a religious nut.
If the fetus is viable outside the woman, then I have a problem with it. First trimester abortions? Not a baby yet. Once you start to get around the 6th month, that’s where I’d draw the line. And if I were in a position to legislate such things, I’d do some serious research before I drew it. Think Palin has? Have you?
Sure it does. Banning abortions will harm who? Low income women. Women who can’t fly to Mexico or Switzerland to get their abortions. What will they do? Unwind coathangers and pull out their own uteruses. Get back alley abortions that could maim or kill them. Or have kids they can’t care for, which creates other problems for society, which society has shown itself time and time again to be unwilling or unable to deal with. Unwanted pregnancies will not go away just because you outlaw abortion. What are conservatives doing to address these concerns? You can’t just ban abortion and then not address what you are going to do for these women stuck with pregnancies they can’t afford, babies they can’t raise properly, and the ensuing children. But you NEVER hear about that. Once the kid is born, fuck 'em. And if he winds up on death row, kill the bastard. Is that pretty close?
Demonize her? Aren’t you being a little hyperbolic here? Could you offer a cite of what you consider “demonizing” so I can judge for myself? Republicans seem to feel that anyone who criticizes Sarah Palin is demonizing her, so you’ll understand if this claim gets a :dubious: from me.
I think you are DEAD wrong about that. I don’t think they want abortion to be legal for the benefit of all the ambitious career women. No, it’s really the poor women and the young women without financial support, not the upwardly mobile types, that make me pro-choice. This the fact that always gets lost in this debate. Turns out, it’s a class issue as much as a gender issue. It’s the poor who would get screwed by a ban on abortion, and let’s face it-- conservatives have never been overly concerned about the plight of the poor. It costs $7,000+ a year to put one child in full-time day care. If you’re earning $10/hour, and you’re a single mom, how are you supposed to afford that? Would you have respect for a woman who stopped working and went on the dole in order to carry to term an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy and raise that unwanted child? And, more importantly, would you financially support her, or be in favor of our government doing so? Either put your money where your mouth is, or lay off Roe v. Wade.
But she does NOT support women’s rights or women’s issues. She is not paying it forward for other women. So why the fuck should NOW support her? Your argument boils down to, “because she is the candidate who has a vagina.” That’s not good enough. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
So we cannot pass any legislation, even with a secular purpose, if its proponents are religiously motivated?
Not sure I agree with you there.
Actually, she does. Just not the only one they care about, which is abortion on demand, no matter what.
Regards,
Shodan
Pretty sucky cite work, there, Shoddy. Ruby makes a pretty sensible suggestion, that most pro-choice types do not support infanticice. Well, of course not.
In rebuttal, you offer as a cite a fairly lengthy statement by the NOW president (dated about five years ago, one hastens to note…) that does not, to my eye, have any bearing on the question whatever.
So here’s what you do. If you have a cite to rebut a statement, you highlight and/or quote the segment of the quote most relevent to your rebuttal. Absent this sort of relevance, I might rebut one of your postings by linking to a recipe for coconut macaroons, and pretending I have answered your point.
Do try and keep up standards, won’t you? There’s a good fellow!
Having a partial birth abortion =/= aborting a baby the day before it’s born. I’m pretty sure you realize that. And partial birth abortions constitute less that .2% of abortions performed, so it seems to me like an extreme example of what pro-choice means, an inflammatory topic used to change the subject. Plus, you’ve proven my point for me. If NOW is strongly in favor of abortion on demand, and Sarah Palin is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest, wouldn’t it be ridiculous for NOW to endorse her? Might make them look biased, and blindly endorsing her solely because she has a vagina.
Not if it is going to harm people, no. And I do believe that banning abortion will harm people, even though I personally find abortion abhorrent. See how I can draw a line between my personal beliefs and the overall public good? Religion often makes it hard for people to do that. Sarah Palin in particular seems to have challenges in that area.
Such as? What women’s rights does she support and how has she demonstrated that support? You can’t just say, “No, you’re wrong” and then offer no evidence of your own. Well, I guess you can and have, but I won’t take you seriously.
Why isn’t it sufficient evidence for you, Rubystreak, that **Shodan **is a closed-minded and retarded tighty righty who engages liberal thought with demonic glee, who positively glows with glee the less evidence he offers, and who disagrees vehemently with every syllable that comes out of your filthy, lying liberal mouth? If that isn’t proof that he’s right and you’re wrong, I don’t know what would satisfy you.
A heartfelt and anguished apology would probably go a long way.
Oh, really? Abortion is the only right women care about?
Have you ever actually known any women?
Abortion is the only thing NOW cares about.
The right to make her own choices, and by making them. By disagreeing with the establishment, and making it stick.
You made a claim, that even pro-choice women would oppose partial birth abortion. You were wrong, and my cite showed that you were wrong.
Although, to give you credit, partial birth abortion isn’t really aborting the day before birth. More like thirty seconds.
Regards,
Shodan
That shows that she supports her own rights. Not women’s rights. There’s a difference.
So, she supports her right to make other women’s choices. Well, gee, when you put it that way, it does make you wonder why feminists don’t support her. :rolleyes:
I put no words in your mouth. I simply embraced your own logic. Here’s your post that I was responding to:
Please point out where what you wrote conflicts with, based on the reasoning you supplied, what I wrote. What conflicts with the idea that a woman should be able to have an abortion at 8 1/2 months? Please point to it. I was simply showing that your position is based on drawing arbitrary lines. I admit this and I’m pro-choice. Now, relax, think, and don’t get yourself in a tizzy.
That is abortion. If you don’t think it is, what DO you think it is? Is it murder? If so, where along the spectrum does abortion turn into murder? Why not a week or two earlier? Later?
And I’m not trying to alienate anyone. I’m trying to explain how others might see the issue. You seemed hell bent on refusing to acknowledge the admirable aspects of someone who disagrees with you on the issues.
That’s immaterial. If she held the position—because of her religion—that we should take care of the poor, would you automatically be against it. You seem hungry to make this a religious issue. It’s really not. It’s a moral and philosophical issue. Sure, religion speaks to that, but as I have explained, people can hold that 1) life begins at conception and that we shouldn’t take it upon ourselves to end an innocent human life without being religious in the least.
You’ll have to show me where she holds the views you claim. I’m pretty sure she advocates teaching abstinence, but is she also opposed to sex education in any regard? When you say Creationism, do you mean Young Earth Creationism? Or something more like Intelligent Design. From what I’ve heard and read she advocates teaching evolution and things the other should be discussed if it comes up. This seems perfectly reasonable to me for two reasons. One, in discussion evolutions and the origins of life it is likely that the discussion will move to an area that evolution is silent on. And that is, how was life started? Two, if kids are getting fed YEC at home, I’d welcome these kids bringing it up. I’d then lay out the evidence for each and tell them they’re free to believe either one. The evidence speaks for itself, and YEC gets exposed for what it is.
Well, here is a quote from an atheist website:
It is from here: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/politics.htm (sorry, the link tool is not working for me). And you’ll see that it says precisely what I said. Feel free to supply cite stating that a fetus or an embryo is not life.
I’ve already shown you that that doesn’t matter. I don’t agree with your assessment, and you have not shown that to be the case, but her being religious is immaterial. Now if you choose to discount her on the basis of religiosity, that is up to you. That’s a bias YOU have. But don’t try to paint her based on the hate and intolerance YOU have.
Sheesh. Look, you can do ll the research you want, but you cannot come up with a final answer as to where to draw the line. It is arbitrary. You lay down some parameters, try to apply some criteria as to when this life is a “human” life and then try to get a majority of people to agree with you. I think the person who needs to read up on this issue is not Sarah Palin or me.
Look, either start reading for comprehension or just shut the fuck up. You’re arguing here for a pro-choice stance. I am pr-choice, for some of the reason you mention. But the point is whether a pro-life stance is reasonable, non evil. That someone who who holds that view can still be respected.
Maybe I give NOW too much credit. I assumed that as an organization at the vanguard of the feminist movement that they were interested in women not being held back by having to fit into traditional roles. That a woman is just as capable as a man and should push herself as far as she wants to. I thought their position on abortion had something to do with the fact that a having a baby while in high school correlates with a not too bright future for young woman. I assumed that they would believe that there’d be some benefit to ending a life? That a woman shouldn’t be forced to live out the next eighteen years, and greatly jeopardize her future, because she is carrying a baby she might not want. But maybe I give them too much credit.
“Paying it forward”?! Oh give me a break with the platitudinous pablum. And if you had been reading for comprehension you would have digested the fact that I have not taken them, or anyone, to task for not supporting her ticket. I do take them and you, and other’s with similarly closed minds, and what I see now as only a very superficial understanding of the abortion debate, to task for not being able to admire her for her accomplishments while simply disagreeing with her politics. An honest observer, some of whom have made an appearance in this thread can simultaneously admire her for what she has accomplished, think her to be a terrific role model for young woman, AND strongly disagree with her politics.
The fact remains that she is an extraordinary woman. She has accomplished a great deal regardless of her success. Take her gender into account and it becomes even more impressive. And that’s just to be Governor. Than she cleaned up a great deal of corruption while earning the highest approval rating of any governor.
There really is no end to your blatant, bald-faced dishonesty, is there?
It would appear that NOW has indeed endorsed quite a few Republican candidates. I don’t know if the unspoken codicil to the assertion otherwise was “… for US President”, perhaps?
It is hardly NOW’s fault that the Republican party keeps fielding deplorable Presidential candidates.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. But then again, neither do you, so we’re even.
Things I find ironic about magellan01’s post:
“Now, relax, think, and don’t get yourself in a tizzy.”
Ha. Considering the spittle-flecked, ad hominem, totally wrong-headed, straw man-filled diatribe to follow, I think my irony detector just blew up.
“And I’m not trying to alienate anyone.”
Well, I’m glad we got the biggest lie out of the way first. Hold onto that sentiment for when he calls me full of hate, close minded, intolerant, and unable to read.
“I simply embraced your own logic.”
No, you took my words and twisted them beyond recognition.
"What conflicts with the idea that a woman should be able to have an abortion at 8 1/2 months? "
How often does that actually happen? And what are the circumstances under which a woman would want to do this? Give specific, clear examples, please. Do not dodge this question, either. Or, you can just admit that you were sacrificing an honest discussion with me for the sake of a pathetic attempt scoring points.
“I’m trying to explain how others might see the issue. You seemed hell bent on refusing to acknowledge the admirable aspects of someone who disagrees with you on the issues.”
Right, you’re just trying to explain how others see the issue. But you’re requiring that I admire some politician simply because she’s a successful woman regardless of the content of her character, or else I’m a hateful cunt. Do you admire every successful person in the world just because they’re successful, or do you have actual criteria for deciding who you will admire?
Guess what? There are very few politicians, liberal or conservative, whom I admire, and she ain’t one of them. I don’t simply disagree with Sarah Palin about abortion. I have ample reasons for thinking she’s not a particularly stellar person in other ways, ways that transcend mere partisan politics. There are a plethora of threads devoted to these other topics, many of them on the first page of his very forum. I’m not going to rehash them yet again.
Hilariously, "You’ll have to show me where she holds the views you claim. I’m pretty sure she advocates teaching abstinence, but is she also opposed to sex education in any regard? When you say Creationism, do you mean Young Earth Creationism? "
It doesn’t matter. There is no room for religion in science class rooms. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this.
“Now if you choose to discount her on the basis of religiosity, that is up to you. That’s a bias YOU have. But don’t try to paint her based on the hate and intolerance YOU have.”
Hate and intolerance? I don’t want to live in another person’s theocracy. The founding fathers didn’t want me to have to either. I have the right to live free from religion. How is that a hateful sentiment? I don’t dislike her because she is religious. I dislike her because her religion could become public policy if she is elected. Are you demonizing someone who simply disagrees with you and Mrs. Palin? Funny how that happens, but it’s not closemindedness or hatefulness when you do it.
“I assumed that as an organization at the vanguard of the feminist movement that they were interested in women not being held back by having to fit into traditional roles”
They are that, but it’s critical that abortion remain legal *not just *so that ambitious women won’t be held back from their careers by a baby. There is a class issue here that I notice you’ve absolutely refused to acknowledge. Read for comprehension yourself: people who want to ban abortion are showing a stunning disregard for the poor, and a short-sightedness based on religion. You want to ignore that and keep chanting, “You must admire Sarah Palin, and if you don’t you’re closeminded! And hateful! And intolerant!” When really, it’s Mrs. Palin’s closeminded intolerance that makes it impossible for me to admire her.
“Sheesh. Look, you can do ll the research you want, but you cannot come up with a final answer as to where to draw the line. It is arbitrary.”
You’re right. I can only draw the line arbitrarily, where I feel comfortable drawing it for myself, and you can only do the same. We draw it in different places, and feel differently about it. I am not trying to legislate my opinion to take away other people’s rights to draw that line where they need to, but Sarah Palin is. Yet somehow I’m the close-minded one? I fail to see how that is possible.
And this, from the guy who claims he is not trying to alienate anyone:
“Look, either start reading for comprehension or just shut the fuck up. You’re arguing here for a pro-choice stance. I am pr-choice, for some of the reason you mention. But the point is whether a pro-life stance is reasonable, non evil. That someone who who holds that view can still be respected.”
No, YOU shut the fuck up. I never used the word “evil.” That is YOU putting more words in MY mouth, AGAIN. A pro-life stance is reasonable and not evil. LEGISLATING the pro-life stance, even in cases of rape and incest? Not so reasonable. Failing to provide adequate funding for poor pregnant women and later, their children, while taking away a woman’s right to opt out of an unwanted pregnancy? Not reasonable. Whether simply holding a pro-life stance is reasonable and not evil is so incredibly not the point of this conversation, nor the point in discussing NOW’s endorsement of Obama over Palin, and if you think it is, either you are disingenuous as hell or just unable to understand the nature of this debate. We are not talking about simply holding a belief here. We are talking about taking away other people’s rights because of those beliefs. Get it?
And then there’s this gem:
““Paying it forward”?! Oh give me a break with the platitudinous pablum. And if you had been reading for comprehension you would have digested the fact that I have not taken them, or anyone, to task for not supporting her ticket. I do take them and you, and other’s with similarly closed minds, and what I see now as only a very superficial understanding of the abortion debate, to task for not being able to admire her for her accomplishments while simply disagreeing with her politics”
Substitute “pay it forward” for “using her success to help other women be successful.” She doesn’t give a shit about other women. I’m not close minded, I simply do not agree with Palin on myriad issues and think she’s a dirty politician who wants to promulgate her personal agenda and who is unqualified to be Vice President for so many reasons. I do not have to admire her just because she is Governor of Alaska and has a vagina, and I find her accomplishments to be not as admirable as you think they are. I would feel the exact same way about her if she were a Democrat.
I apologize for the lack of quote tags in my previous post. I’m not really up to speed with his new interface. Sorry if it makes my TLDR post even harder to read.
Not according to our local chapter of NOW, here in Minnesota.
For candidate endorsement, they list these 6 core issues:
[ol]
[li]ratification of an unamended Equal Rights Amendment[/li][li]repeal of all laws restricting safe, legal abortion[/li][li]protection of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender civil rights[/li][li]eliminating racism[/li][li]freedom from violence[/li][li]opposition to punitive welfare reform[/li][/ol](Cite here.) And they specifically state that a candidate can get a “B” or “C” rating by being solid on only 5 or 4 of these 6 core issues.
I see you’ve found yourself unable to accomplish this. And that’s fine, except failure with that second item affects the ability to have a meaningful debate. The proof of which is painfully evident in your entire post. So, I will reply to this next point and leave it at that.
Please try to follow this: you offered a rationale for your position on abortion. I pointed out the position you put forth is also an argument for aborting an eight or none month-old fetus. You claimed I put words in your mouth. I EXPLAINED that I was not, but was just pointing out that your position could be used to support a position you vehemently disagree with. I then reposted what you had offered as an explanation and asked you to point to where it might conflict with the rationale for aborting a nine month old. You didn’t even attempt to do so. I take it that’s because you see that your rationale does, in fact, support the aborting of a nine-month-old fetus. I admit I’m being optimistic here. Because I fear that the real reason you didn’t address it is that you cannot see the relationship between a position and its rationale.
If you’d care to continue with this discussion with me, I’ll have to ask you to take the trouble to understand what is being debated. If you are unclear, feel free to ask.
Actually, they mention specifically that a candidate has to toe the line on every one of those issues to get their endorsement -
Although you are correct that, in theory, they may donate money to a candidate who only agrees with them on 4 or 5 of the issues. Could you produce a cite of all the pro-life candidates for Presidents that they have donated money to?
Regards,
Shodan
Could you produce a cite to a “pro-life” candidate who agrees with 4 or 5 of the listed criteria?
No, which is probably the key to the whole thing. Pro-choice candidates often buy into the other stuff as well.
Except for 4 and 5, which are either meaningless or codespeak for some other notion that NOW is pushing. Unless you think that they might donate money to someone who supports racism and violence but is pro-ERA and anti-welfare reform and so forth.
Regards,
Shodan