Women do NOT support Palin

[DroppinScience]

Nice to know the ladies are seeing through this ruse. NOW (National Organization for Women) normally seldom endorses a candidate, but Palin's Christian fundamentalism is too unsavory for them.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/17-11

Published on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 by The Independent/UK
'Hillary's Women' Reject McCain's VP Choice

by Leonard Doyle

America's largest women's rights organisation delivered a snub to Sarah Palin's history-making candidacy yesterday by endorsing Barack Obama and Joe Biden's bid for power.

Other women's rights organisations are also campaigning against Governor Palin, pushed along by a spontaneous anti-Palin movement among women.

In Alaska at the weekend, a Welcome Home rally for Mrs Palin was dwarfed by a demonstration organised by Alaska Women Reject Palin, which was held on the lawn of a downtown Anchorage library.

After triggering a huge surge of enthusiasm for John McCain's campaign and sending him into the lead over Barack Obama, Mrs Palin has come under intense scrutiny from the national media. The investigation known as "Troopergate" threatens to expose her as a bullying governor who fired Alaska's de facto police chief for family rather than professional reasons.

The controversy moved up a notch yesterday when Mrs Palin's campaign team announced her refusal to co-operate with the Troopergate investigation because it was "tainted" by politics.

NOW's decision to back Senator Obama when a woman is within striking distance of becoming elected is a bold step for the group and a setback for John McCain's hopes of luring the millions of women who supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

"The addition of Sarah Palin gave us a new sense of urgency," Kim Gandy, the head of NOW, told National Public Radio. "She is being portrayed as a supporter of women's rights... as a feminist when in fact her positions on so many of the issues are really anathema to ours.

"A lot of women think it's a great thing for a woman to be running for vice-president," she continued, "but they are completely dismayed when they find out her positions. The idea that she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest - those kinds of positions are completely out of step with American women and once they find out about those positions, they get a little less excited."

Last week, Alaska legislators ordered Mrs Palin's husband, Todd, as well as her chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to answer questions at the Troopergate inquiry. Several years ago, Governor Palin's sister went through a custody battle with her ex-husband Trooper Mike Wooten. Efforts to sack Trooper Wooten failed and Governor Palin sacked the safety director Walt Monegan instead. Mrs Palin's refusal to co-operate with the panel could raise more doubts her suitability as a national candidate in the minds of voters.

The governor's creationist beliefs have also emerged as a hurdle. In Wasilla, where she cut her teeth as a Republican mayor, the Rev Howard Bess, a Baptist minister and author of the book Pastor, I am Gay, says his work was on then Mayor Palin's "hit list" for removal from the town's library. "People in city government have confirmed to me what Sarah was trying to do," he said.

Another Wasilla resident, Phil Munger, a music composer and teacher, says she pushed an evangelical agenda in the town. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the [school] board. I bumped into her after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God [a church]. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism - your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.' I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Mr Munger also asked Mrs Palin if she believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime'."

[Dorothy Wood]

ha ha, I hope jesus does come back to earth, just to punch that dumb ass square in the nose. BAM!

HATE HER.

[100% ILL]

An opposing view from an equally biased source.


http://www.cwalac.org/article_755.shtml

Gov. Palin Proves Again - Embracing Unexpected Babies is the Best Choice
Many families can relate to the Palins' predicament

Washington, D.C. - "The surprise announcement that Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant provided another opportunity for the vice-presidential candidate to make a politically convenient choice or the right one. The family could have treated the innocent baby as a 'punishment' and secretly snuffed out the child's life to avoid a high-profile embarrassment. Instead, they are embracing this unexpected baby as a child worthy of love, a human being who deserves respect, a weak member of their family who needs their care. The Palins have opened their family's challenge for all the world to see, providing a beautiful example for other families, many who have faced the same predicament," said Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.




http://www.slate.com/id/2199255/

The Family Research Council praised her for "choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation." Cathie Adams of the Eagle Forum, a conservative women's group, called her "the kind of woman I've been looking for all along." The two difficult pregnancies—Palin's with a Down syndrome baby and now her unmarried teenage daughter's—is just proof that "they're doing everything right,".

[taquitos]

st8 up hobot

[RobMoney$]

Where's you get that article Lambert? Are you on NOW's mailing list?



You are, aren't you....Pfahahahaaaaaaa.
You're so evolved.

[Bob]

look at that little fag, being interested in women's rights, aaaahahahaha

brett you big homo

[100% ILL]

st8 up hobot

Interesting. I was simply pointing out that obtaining information from a source that is obviously biased is not a basis for posting a thread titled
Women do NOT support Palin. There are plenty of conservative women who DO support Palin. Unless I'm mistaken, the General Political Discussion board is a place where people........I dunno, discuss politics. Opposing views are a matter of fact, and not everyone is far left or right. I've been gone from the board for a while,so I suppose it is possible that it has denegrated to "The Liberal Only Discussion Board".

Anyway I was simply making a point.

[saz]

An opposing view from an equally biased source.

Where's you get that article Lambert? Are you on NOW's mailing list?



You are, aren't you....Pfahahahaaaaaaa.
You're so evolved.


common dreams picked up the story from the independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/) in britain. so much for being civil and being respectful eh.

[RobMoney$]

look at that little fag, being interested in women's rights, aaaahahahaha

brett you big homo


Objection,...Leading.

[funk63]

dont tell me or my vagina what to do

[DroppinScience]

look at that little fag, being interested in women's rights, aaaahahahaha

brett you big homo

Haha! You made it to my signature. Congrats. (y)

[100% ILL]

common dreams picked up the story from the independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/) in britain. so much for being civil and being respectful eh.

Indeed. However it would not be a reach to say that the NOW organization is no more the voice of the majority of women than say, Concerned Women for America (CWA). Again, they are both more polarized in their respective views. For quite sometime however, the more conservative Pro-life view has been significantly overshadowed. I find it interesting to see a female candidate who takes this stance, not only in word, but in deed as well.

[QueenAdrock]

I've seen Obama's base be strengthened with Palin being on the ticket. Not only did he raise a ton of money the day she was announced ($11 million in one night, I believe), but every single female I know who was kind of between the two candidates is so sickened with the picking of Palin as an obvious political ploy that they're now 100% Obama.

I'm sure there's others out there who were between the candidates and chose McCain once they saw how anti-choice Palin was, but all I can say is that I'm glad I'm not friends with those ladies. ;)

[100% ILL]

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html

Abortion in the United States:
Statistics and Trends


The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
48,589,993
Total Abortions since 1973



Census 2000 Data for the State of New York

The population of New York on April 1, 2000 was 18,976,457

http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ny.html

[Dorothy Wood]

I think that pro-life people forget that even if you criminalize abortion, people are still going to have abortions. and these black market abortions will put people's lives in danger and create a disgusting baby-killing underground network of people who will perform them. or possibly also some well-meaning doctors that aim to help people in spite of the law.

I guess I understand giving the decision to individual states though.


100%ILL, where are your stats on the amount of abortions that happened before roe v. wade?

[kaiser soze]

Don't forget about the suffering of children of poor mothers if family focused programs are cut while abortions are banned.

Pro-life until the baby lands in the doctor's hands :(

my girlfriend does not like palin (y)

[taquitos]

Interesting. I was simply pointing out that obtaining information from a source that is obviously biased is not a basis for posting a thread titled
Women do NOT support Palin. There are plenty of conservative women who DO support Palin. Unless I'm mistaken, the General Political Discussion board is a place where people........I dunno, discuss politics. Opposing views are a matter of fact, and not everyone is far left or right. I've been gone from the board for a while,so I suppose it is possible that it has denegrated to "The Liberal Only Discussion Board".

Anyway I was simply making a point.

OH NO YOU DI'INT!

[rirv]

How far back do you go when classifying babykillers? Is contraception killing babies?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

If you don't want an abortion don't get one.

[RobMoney$]

Don't forget about the suffering of children of poor mothers if family focused programs are cut while abortions are banned.

Pro-life until the baby lands in the doctor's hands :(

my girlfriend does not like palin (y)

I think that pro-life people forget that even if you criminalize abortion, people are still going to have abortions. and these black market abortions will put people's lives in danger and create a disgusting baby-killing underground network of people who will perform them. or possibly also some well-meaning doctors that aim to help people in spite of the law.

I guess I understand giving the decision to individual states though.


100%ILL, where are your stats on the amount of abortions that happened before roe v. wade?


Yeah, what Dorothy said.
Being a Pro-Choice McCain/Palin supporter has given me an opportunity to listen to "the other side" of the argument. If these people in Southern, more religious States are so hell-bent on outlawing abortion, then maybe we should let them have their wish. This is America where it's "for the people, by the people".

Also, moden medicine has advanced past the abortion. We now have the day after pill, so there is an alternative to having illegal backroom abortions.

[Bob]

Yeah, what Dorothy said.
Being a Pro-Choice McCain/Palin supporter has given me an opportunity to listen to "the other side" of the argument. If these people in Southern, more religious States are so hell-bent on outlawing abortion, then maybe we should let them have their wish. This is America where it's "for the people, by the people".

and when the majority of the people want to deny a liberty to other people because life is precious, and god, and the bible, that's cool. can't we just be content to let the people who are morally opposed to abortion not get abortions, rather than deny the privilege to the people who are not opposed to it?

Also, moden medicine has advanced past the abortion. We now have the day after pill, so there is an alternative to having illegal backroom abortions.

you don't always notice the day after, though

[100% ILL]

I think that pro-life people forget that even if you criminalize abortion, people are still going to have abortions. and these black market abortions will put people's lives in danger and create a disgusting baby-killing underground network of people who will perform them. or possibly also some well-meaning doctors that aim to help people in spite of the law.

I guess I understand giving the decision to individual states though.


100%ILL, where are your stats on the amount of abortions that happened before roe v. wade?

http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

Obviously, no official record
of the number of illegal abortions exists. Pro-abortion public relations firms may make
such estimates of more than 1 million illegal abortions and 5,000 deaths annually. But
anyone who looks at the actual figures of abortions after 1973 and the number of all
pregnancy-related maternal deaths before 1973 would disagree. These statistics prove
that the pro-abortion estimates have no basis in either fact or logic.
During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand
nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, which surveys abortion
providers and compiles abortion statistics). If abortion supporters want to claim that more
than 1.2 million illegal abortions took place before 1973, then they must also explain why
the legalization of abortion caused an immediate drop of more than 450,000 in the
number of abortions!
The number of legal abortions did not reach 1 million until 1975, the third year of
legalization. It was not until 1977 - four years after Roe v. Wade and with 2,688 abortion
providers in operation - that the number exceeded 1.2 million, according to the
Guttmacher Institute. The total number of legal abortions today is more than 1.3 million
per year.

[kaiser soze]

Yeah, what Dorothy said.
If these people in Southern, more religious States are so hell-bent on outlawing abortion, then maybe we should let them have their wish. This is America where it's "for the people, by the people".



How about they just choose NOT to have an abortion and keep abortion legal for those who choose to have an abortion

[Dorothy Wood]

http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf

Obviously, no official record
of the number of illegal abortions exists. Pro-abortion public relations firms may make
such estimates of more than 1 million illegal abortions and 5,000 deaths annually. But
anyone who looks at the actual figures of abortions after 1973 and the number of all
pregnancy-related maternal deaths before 1973 would disagree. These statistics prove
that the pro-abortion estimates have no basis in either fact or logic.
During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand
nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, which surveys abortion
providers and compiles abortion statistics). If abortion supporters want to claim that more
than 1.2 million illegal abortions took place before 1973, then they must also explain why
the legalization of abortion caused an immediate drop of more than 450,000 in the
number of abortions!
The number of legal abortions did not reach 1 million until 1975, the third year of
legalization. It was not until 1977 - four years after Roe v. Wade and with 2,688 abortion
providers in operation - that the number exceeded 1.2 million, according to the
Guttmacher Institute. The total number of legal abortions today is more than 1.3 million
per year.


you can skew the statistics to your bias all you want, but all that stuff you just wrote is a bunch of gobbledy guck. what about the illegal abortions that happened when abortions were legalized?

bah, there's no reasoning with a pro-lifer. seriously. you think killing babies is wrong, I get it. but the situation isn't black and white.

also, I guess the states rights thing was a little libertarian. It just seems like the majority of states would keep it legal and that people in pro-life states don't want to have abortions anyway, but I guess it comes down to whether or not the government should regulate people's bodies. and it shouldn't. I don't think. I don't know, I don't like the idea of abortion but I also see it as necessary in certain situations.

maybe we should just let the babies grow and kill dumb people instead? so the world can be filled with these miracle babies that escaped the chopper. one of them is bound to be the next einstein, right?

[afronaut]

Being a Pro-Choice McCain/Palin supporter .

Okay, I haven't been here for a while. RobMoney is officially a republican now?

[100% ILL]

you can skew the statistics to your bias all you want, but all that stuff you just wrote is a bunch of gobbledy guck. what about the illegal abortions that happened when abortions were legalized?

bah, there's no reasoning with a pro-lifer. seriously. you think killing babies is wrong, I get it. but the situation isn't black and white.


http://www.popline.org/docs/0212/751542.html

Prior to the Supreme Court decisions on abortion in 1973, deaths from illegally induced abortions accounted for the largest percentage of abortion related mortality in the U.S. The Center for Disease Control gathered national data on abortion deaths from the period 1972 through 1974. Deaths from abortion numbered 88 in 1972, 56 in 1973, and 47 in 1974. Abortion mortality decreased because fewer women died as a result of illegally induced abortions. Deaths due to illegal abortion decreased from 41 to 21 to 6 during this 3 year period. The annual number of legal abortion deaths remained about the same. Nearly all of the illegal abortion deaths which occurred were concentrated in the eastern half of the U.S. Almost all the illegal abortions took place in the woman's state of residence. For the years 1973 and 1974, women who died as a result of illegal abortions were more likely to be older and of nonwhite races than those dying in 1972, prior to the increased availability of legal abortions. A recent survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute revealed that many women, particularly the poor and those from non metropolitan areas, have limited access to low cost abortions. Presumably differences in characteristics of women dying from illegal as compared to legal abortions partially reflect this discrepancy between access to legal procedures. The larger percentage of nonwhite women dying from illegal abortion may represent an index of lower socioeconomic status along with the existing racial discrimination. Since the illegal procedures generally occurred in the state of residenc e, it appears that women who could not afford to leave their states stayed home for illegal abortions.

[Dorothy Wood]

you're not very good at getting your point across.

copy pasting an abstract from 33 years ago doesn't really bolster your argument, in fact I think it supports mine. I don't really know what you're trying to say.

I was asking how many abortions there were before 1973. since you're so concerned that number of dead babies has accumulated to 2.56 times the population of New York (in 2000) in the last 35 years. you said, "the consequences of roe v. wade", but did not display any sort of prior data on abortions performed before that.

:rolleyes:

[100% ILL]

you're not very good at getting your point across.

copy pasting an abstract from 33 years ago doesn't really bolster your argument, in fact I think it supports mine. I don't really know what you're trying to say.

I was asking how many abortions there were before 1973. since you're so concerned that number of dead babies has accumulated to 2.56 times the population of New York (in 2000) in the last 35 years. you said, "the consequences of roe v. wade", but did not display any sort of prior data on abortions performed before that.

:rolleyes:

As I've already posted, there are no official numbers on abortions prior to 1973, at least none that I could find anyway. By "consequences" of Roe v. Wade, the 48 million aborted fetuses is what I was trying to say. The fact that one third of the pregnancies since 1973 have been terminated. That's one third of my generation or should I say potential generation gone.
I'm a survivor

[RobMoney$]

How about they just choose NOT to have an abortion and keep abortion legal for those who choose to have an abortion

Let the religious kooks have their way in their own state. Living in Pennsylvania, a traditionally Democratic state and being next to NJ and NY, I'm fairly confident my area will remain Pro-Choice.

Maybe it will be a solution to put the debate to an end for a while so that we can move on to bigger and better issues.

[RobMoney$]

you don't always notice the day after, though

unless you were date raped, I think you'd know if you had sex the next day and you'd take the pill as a routine.

[RobMoney$]

Okay, I haven't been here for a while. RobMoney is officially a republican now?


I'm a democrat who's not buying into Obama-mania.
Wouldn't go so far as to call myself a republican though.

If that makes any sense...

[QueenAdrock]

A lot of pharmacists are refusing to give the morning-after pill to patients because it goes against their own personal religious beliefs, and there's legislation currently out there in support of those pharmacists not having to give the morning after pill if they don't want to.

Back alley abortions will still continue if their access to the morning after pill/ safe abortions is denied.

[Dorothy Wood]

As I've already posted, there are no official numbers on abortions prior to 1973, at least none that I could find anyway. By "consequences" of Roe v. Wade, the 48 million aborted fetuses is what I was trying to say. The fact that one third of the pregnancies since 1973 have been terminated. That's one third of my generation or should I say potential generation gone.
I'm a survivor



okay, what I'm saying is that roe v. wade didn't cause abortions. the number isn't a "consequence" if you have nothing to compare it to. I'm fully willing to believe that abortions increased, but if there's no hard data, it's hard to say how much.

seriously, if you believe in God or the rule of nature or whatever, if those babies were supposed to live, they'd live. but, whatever, I'm a fatalist. and I think that if you're willing to kill a baby living inside you, then you're probably not suitable to be a parent at that time anyway. I know there's adoption and all that, and in a perfect world that would be the way things went...but it's not a perfect world and people make mistakes or get raped and 12 year olds and crack heads get pregnant sometimes and making a baby is hard work. too hard for some.

my dad wanted to abort me, so I guess I'm a survivor too. doesn't mean I don't think my mom's life would've been better off if I wasn't born. (However, she maintains I was a blessing)

[Documad]

also, I guess the states rights thing was a little libertarian. It just seems like the majority of states would keep it legal and that people in pro-life states don't want to have abortions anyway, but I guess it comes down to whether or not the government should regulate people's bodies. and it shouldn't. I don't think. I don't know, I don't like the idea of abortion but I also see it as necessary in certain situations.
I'll just repeat what I said in the last abortion thread:



Is it okay for one state to decide that employers can discriminate on the basis of race and only hire white employees?

Would it be okay for some states to outlaw birth control?

Until recently, some states were legally allowed to outlaw homosexual sex. That was overturned by the US SCT because homosexuals have basic human rights that are protected by our federal constitution. Women also have federal constitutional rights.

I'll add that I have a close family member who had an abortion in Mexico prior to Roe v. Wade. It was very difficult and scary for her to do that by herself as a college student.

[Documad]

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
48,589,993
Total Abortions since 1973
I have a thing about people who misrepresent facts via statistics. Are you aware that some states had legal abortions prior to Roe? Do you know how many people left their home state to get an abortion each year prior to Roe? Do you know how many women had legal and illegal abortions every year prior to Roe?

Not that the answers to any of those questions matter to me. Even if your statistics are true, I'm fine with cutting down on the number of unwanted children.

[yeahwho]

Stupid issue to debate while our current foreign policy is murder and our domestic policy is attacking the constitution with somewhat of an success rate.

The abortion troll. Or should we say the "We would like to impose our beliefs upon your body and make it illegal to think or act differently than us" posters.

The Republicans hate us for our freedoms.

[Dorothy Wood]

documad, thanks for putting things in a different perspective. I sometimes just think if people want to live somewhere where there are no abortions and no gay people and no non-white people, fine, do it, get out of my face and create your "perfect" community without trying to force everyone to be like you. but it definitely shouldn't be sanctioned under our government's law. and for that I retract my statement about state's rights.

I think where it gets sticky is the question of whether or not humans have a right to take a life. it's the same problem I have with the death penalty and war. you can't tell people that "killing humans is wrong...sometimes".

as it stands, there are billions of people suffering in this world who weren't aborted and I think we should take care of those people first. and like I said, I'm a fatalist. I believe there is an order to things and that nature works itself out. for every action, there is a reaction and I believe that although there is free will, there is an overarching system that evens things out no matter what. so I doubt we'd be any better or worse off if those 48 million babies were still alive. they aren't. and it's futile to speculate what it'd be like if they were.

[100% ILL]

Stupid issue to debate while our current foreign policy is murder and our domestic policy is attacking the constitution with somewhat of an success rate.

The Republicans hate us for our freedoms.

I personally do not hate anyone for their freedoms. I think our government has failed us on many levels,which is nothing new. I served in the Army for eight years, I've experienced "foreign policy" first hand. I remember thinking back then, that no one seems like they know what they're doing. Usually I would be told "You don't see the big picture." I'm pretty sure it has to do with money and oil. In the end anyone who is powerful will do whatever it takes to remain powerful. At the RNC more than once they mentioned NOT LOSING THE WAR! Obviously a ploy to bolster those ignorant enough to believe there's any sort of winnable objective; and even if there were we would not take advantage of it i.e. Afgahnistan in the 1980s


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

[DroppinScience]

"State's rights" is about the stupidest euphemism for things such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. It's just a way to turn a blind eye to a particular state's misdeeds. It happened with segregation, slavery, sodomy, you name it.

[yeahwho]

I personally do not hate anyone for their freedoms. I think our government has failed us on many levels,which is nothing new. I served in the Army for eight years, I've experienced "foreign policy" first hand. I remember thinking back then, that no one seems like they know what they're doing. Usually I would be told "You don't see the big picture." I'm pretty sure it has to do with money and oil. In the end anyone who is powerful will do whatever it takes to remain powerful. At the RNC more than once they mentioned NOT LOSING THE WAR! Obviously a ploy to bolster those ignorant enough to believe there's any sort of winnable objective; and even if there were we would not take advantage of it i.e. Afgahnistan in the 1980s


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

I think the real advantage to continue with this war is to justify in a perverted sense the whole so called "mistake" of being there in the first place. "No bid" contracts and oil liberation.

In the end, as I have said since the beginning of Iraq, after tens of thousands of deaths, trillions in debt, we will have to provide a no fly zone sanctioned by a NATO treaty to keep the civil war and bordering countries from cannibalizing the mess we left them.

The world will not be a better place due to the war nor will the USA be any safer from a terrorist threat.

[Documad]

"State's rights" is about the stupidest euphemism for things such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. It's just a way to turn a blind eye to a particular state's misdeeds. It happened with segregation, slavery, sodomy, you name it.

You're right. There is a good side to state's rights, but unfortunately the people who use that mantra rarely intend to invoke the good side. For me, state's rights will always equal Jim Crow.

The good side to state's rights is evidenced when the State of California decides to have a higher emissions standard than the feds. Of course, the feds under republican administrations seem to crack down on states that are trying to give their citizens greater protection than the feds provide.

[Documad]

documad, thanks for putting things in a different perspective. I sometimes just think if people want to live somewhere where there are no abortions and no gay people and no non-white people, fine, do it, get out of my face and create your "perfect" community without trying to force everyone to be like you. but it definitely shouldn't be sanctioned under our government's law. and for that I retract my statement about state's rights.
I live in a state where the citizens tend to value individual rights. It was one of the first states to have a wide variety of civil rights in the workplace for instance. And in housing. Sometimes I forget that other states are not so lucky, but I'm usually reminded by someone who moved here from another state because of the liberal environment.


Anyhow, in 2008, in most other states it is perfectly legal for an employer to refuse to hire someone for being gay.

Things have been changing fast though, and I'm sure they will get better. There are so many young women who are fairly ignorant of the history, but at the end of the day they won't stand for politicians who want to turn back the clock. There have been big changes even since I started working, and little changes too. A big change is that (in my state) there are professionals who are out of the closet. When I went to grad school, there was only one out of the closet gay guy in my class and I actually worried about him--I worried about whether he would ever be able to find a job. You never saw a partner at a firm who was out of the closet. Now you see one or two out of 300 lawyers. :rolleyes: You see a fair number of females in positions of power, but truth be told, they won't be in the highest paying jobs. They'll tend to be doing family law rather than antitrust litigation.

There are little changes too. Just 7-8 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to do my job in pants. The required uniform always involved a skirt, pantyhose, and pumps. Some of the young women I work with have never worn pantyhose to work. :p

[DroppinScience]

You're right. There is a good side to state's rights, but unfortunately the people who use that mantra rarely intend to invoke the good side. For me, state's rights will always equal Jim Crow.

The good side to state's rights is evidenced when the State of California decides to have a higher emissions standard than the feds. Of course, the feds under republican administrations seem to crack down on states that are trying to give their citizens greater protection than the feds provide.

See, if "state's rights" was used to mean something like California's environmental example, then I'd be in favor of it. But the moment a politician invokes "state's rights," you know they're up to no good.

[afronaut]

I'm a democrat who's not buying into Obama-mania.
Wouldn't go so far as to call myself a republican though.

If that makes any sense...

Yeah. I mean, it's your vote, but you really think an old establishment type and a fundamentalist christian are better than Obama? I'd vote for just about anything before I'd lend my support to a fundamentalist of any type. Palin in the white house literally scares the shit out of me. McCain I merely disagree with. But it's still not clear whether or not Palin thinks the earth has existed longer than 5000 years.

That, and the economy is in a crisis. Since when has trickle down/supply side economics been successful? At least in dealing with the types of economic problems we face now. You can argue that this type of economic thought could be useful after the economy has been straightened out, on purely theoretical terms, but this failed economic theory offers absolutely nothing in dealing with these problems today. McCain/Palin can't even decide whether their position is more economic regulation or less. It seems to depend on whoever they're addressing. Give me a fucking break.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with Palin and women.

[NoFenders]

I think where it gets sticky is the question of whether or not humans have a right to take a life. it's the same problem I have with the death penalty and war. you can't tell people that "killing humans is wrong...sometimes".



Well, it's all in how you look at it. A person on death row has already had a chance to be a member of society. He/she decided to against the flow and most likely kill somebody else. He/she had their chance, now it's over. The baby never had a chance, even against it's own mother. Very big difference there.





:)

[hellojello]

Well, it's all in how you look at it. A person on death row has already had a chance to be a member of society. He/she decided to against the flow and most likely kill somebody else. He/she had their chance, now it's over. The baby never had a chance, even against it's own mother. Very big difference there.





:)

I'm not sure it's fair to compare a fetus with an independent fully functioning (in mental capacity otherwise hopefully they WOULDN"T be on death row, despite whatever heinous crime they committed to get there) member of society. I think taking away a life that doesn't yet actually exist is different from taking away a life that is already established.

[NoFenders]

Well that again depends on when you consider life to begin. When they get a social security #?












:cool:

[afronaut]

Well that again depends on when you consider life to begin. When they get a social security #?












:cool:
I don't know, are you defining when life begins on an ancient book?

Equating abortion to murder is quite a stretch once you actually become informed on the subject. It's an abstract moral issue. And since when has it been the case that it's not the governments job to regulate the economy, but it is the governments job to regulate an individuals moral decisions?

[hellojello]

Well that again depends on when you consider life to begin. When they get a social security #?












:cool:

Well that's absolutely right. A lot of people will say something that's living is a life, however in my opinion it's not a 'life' until it takes it's first breath, before then it is completely and utterly dependent on the mother for life and therefore whilst it may be living, it doesn't technically have a life.

[yeahwho]

I think McCain and Palin should get a room and conceive the American Dream child. Next June, Win or Lose, little Slush McCain will arrive to redeem the American Dream for all the future voters in 2048.

[Whatitis]

Well that's absolutely right. A lot of people will say something that's living is a life, however in my opinion it's not a 'life' until it takes it's first breath, before then it is completely and utterly dependent on the mother for life and therefore whilst it may be living, it doesn't technically have a life.


A heartbeat is usually a good indication of life and that happens way before the first breath happens. And I didn't use or don't need an ancient book to tell me that.

[hellojello]

A heartbeat is usually a good indication of life and that happens way before the first breath happens. And I didn't use or don't need an ancient book to tell me that.

Well I would rephrase that to say a heart beat is a good indication that something is living. It doesn't mean it has a life, it cannot survive on its own and has no cognitive ability. Machines can simulate living in someone that is braindead but it doesn't mean that the person on those things actually has a life at all, which is why, they're often turned off so the person just dies.

[NoFenders]

Well that's absolutely right. A lot of people will say something that's living is a life, however in my opinion it's not a 'life' until it takes it's first breath, before then it is completely and utterly dependent on the mother for life and therefore whilst it may be living, it doesn't technically have a life.

Ok, I'm lost. But I totally understand where these thoughts come from. I just don't agree.


:cool:

[NoFenders]

Well I would rephrase that to say a heart beat is a good indication that something is living. It doesn't mean it has a life, it cannot survive on its own and has no cognitive ability.

A newborn baby can not survive on it's own, and has no cognitive ability either.










:(

[NoFenders]

I don't know, are you defining when life begins on an ancient book?

Conception.

Equating abortion to murder is quite a stretch once you actually become informed on the subject.

In order to be informed on abortion, I think all you have to do is be human.






:cool:

[ms.peachy]

In order to be informed on abortion, I think all you have to do is be human.


Having had one, I feel pretty informed. And human.

[yeahwho]

In order to be informed on abortion, I think all you have to do is be human.






:cool:

Having had one, I feel pretty informed. And human.

(y)

[QueenAdrock]

A newborn baby can not survive on it's own, and has no cognitive ability either.

A newborn baby can survive on its own in the fact that it no longer needs the mother's body to physically stay alive. I agree that once a fetus reaches the age that it doesn't need to be attached to the mother and is a physical, independent being, that is life. Before that, it requires the mother to survive and needs her body, so it is her decision whether or not she should allow it to be inside of her. So, it depends how far along in the stages...I believe that's around 5ish months.

And yes, newborns have cognitive abilities too. Researchers definitely agree the newborn comes into the world not as a passive receiver, but as a participant, ready and eager to interact with the environment. For example, although by adult standards the newborn has extremely poor vision, he can still discriminate between light and dark and focus on objects from 8 to 12 inches away. Babies' intellects are working, and working very well, long before they can talk. They perceive a great deal, and they have decided preferences as well.

Furthermore, afronaut is correct in his saying likening abortion to murder is incorrect. The definition of murder is "unlawful killing of a human person with malice." I have NEVER met someone who had an abortion who went into the abortion clinic with malice against the fetus. No one ever says "Yeah, fuck this fetus, I want it fucking dead." It's a hard decision to make, and they are not murderers for their decision. Not to mention it's perfectly legal to do so in this country. So, while fundamentalist Christians like to throw around the word "murder" because it is an emotionally charged word, it's incorrect.

[Bob]

A newborn baby can survive on its own in the fact that it no longer needs the mother's body to physically stay alive. I agree that once a fetus reaches the age that it doesn't need to be attached to the mother and is a physical, independent being, that is life. Before that, it requires the mother to survive and needs her body, so it is her decision whether or not she should allow it to be inside of her. So, it depends how far along in the stages...I believe that's around 5ish months.

And yes, newborns have cognitive abilities too.

Furthermore, afronaut is correct in his saying likening abortion to murder is incorrect. The definition of murder is "unlawful killing of a human person with malice." I have NEVER met someone who had an abortion who went into the abortion clinic with malice against the fetus. No one ever says "Yeah, fuck this fetus, I want it fucking dead." It's a hard decision to make, and they are not murderers for their decision. Not to mention it's perfectly legal to do so in this country. So, while fundamentalist Christians like to throw around the word "murder" because it is an emotionally charged word, it's incorrect.

malice aforethought really just means "premeditation" though, it doesn't really refer to your emotional state. mercy killing can be murder, or if you're trapped on a boat and you have to kill someone and eat them to stay alive, that can be murder too. you don't have to be mad at the person, you just have to do it in cold blood. in fact, the madder you are at the person, the more likely it's going to be manslaughter instead of murder

me, i'm not opposed to abortion because i hate babies

[QueenAdrock]

So what's the definition of 'cold blood' then?

[Bob]

So what's the definition of 'cold blood' then?

(first of all if i'm wrong about this someone come in and correct me...beth, if you read the political forum i'm looking at you)

it just means intent, basically. if you kill someone in the heat of passion because you're enraged, or you're in a fight that gets out of hand, it isn't murder (depending on how good your lawyer is). but if your goal from the commencement of your actions up until the end is to kill the person, it's premeditated, it's murder.

it's been a while since criminal law, i recall the distinction being fairly complicated the closer you get to the line between manslaughter and murder, but that's basically it. if fetuses were people it would pretty much be murder, there's really no arguing that abortion isn't premeditated. i don't believe fetuses are people, though, not anymore than sperm and egg are on their own.


edit: i'm a nerd so i've been looking up what murder means, legally; the "unlawful" part means the absence of excuse or justification (excuse meaning that society doesn't like what you did but they can't condemn you for doing it, justification meaning that society approves of what you've done, for example self defense). i'm not aware of any law that discusses whether abortion is justified or excusable (because it isn't homicide so there's no need to reach that question) but that there's an argument to be made, for sure

[Randetica]

Well, it's all in how you look at it. A person on death row has already had a chance to be a member of society. He/she decided to against the flow and most likely kill somebody else. He/she had their chance, now it's over. The baby never had a chance, even against it's own mother. Very big difference there.





:)

yes (y)

[yeahwho]

Well, it's all in how you look at it. A person on death row has already had a chance to be a member of society. He/she decided to against the flow and most likely kill somebody else. He/she had their chance, now it's over. The baby never had a chance, even against it's own mother. Very big difference there.





:)

yes (y)


How fucking involved do you two want to be in governing our bodies and endangering your fellow citizens health? Bush has been a nightmare and the McCain/Palin ticket seems bent on being even more medieval towards Women's rights.

Your ideology is yours and I respect your beliefs (until that creationism shit is espoused) but currently keep your thoughts out there and realize the freedoms we have been able to keep are what your attacking. Safe medical procedures are in place, medical science has given women the choice of whether they want to give birth to a damaged fetus or downs syndrome child.

So fuck all of the medical advances and fuck all of those who believe in "Real Freedom".

You say your protecting the unborn, I say your just protecting one of about 20 religious beliefs, the others like gun ownership, alcohol, gambling, war etc. they all can lead to demoralization of society too. But fuck them because they're only killing the ones you can see. Where is the outrage on these items?

I just hear people who would like to take away freedoms and rights.

Whats next?

Is the Republican Party going to build a 300 foot high wall around my girlfriends vagina?

That is what I hear. Prove me wrong.

[SobaViolence]

i was never asked to be brought into this world. i would have objected if the terms and conditions were properly explained to me.

conception/having children is a choice, most times, between the parents (whether they are 'adults' is another discussion) but the child doesn't have a say. won't someone please think of the children?

most children suck, and some grow up to be know-it-all, narrow-minded, condescending, assholes, like a lot of republicans.

[Randetica]

im no fan of baby killings, sorry and abortion is nothing less than that

[funk63]

So you dont think abortions ok under any curcimstance?

[yeahwho]

im no fan of baby killings, sorry and abortion is nothing less than that

In your perception and doctrine. Yet in a free society the choice of planned parenthood and female rights exist today. I have never heard of anybody abusing abortion. I have never heard of a woman who habitually gets abortions and if they do exist it must be one of the smaller segments of society. So I would agree with you that chronic abortion abuse would be a problem. To purposely impregnate yourself for the thrill of abortion.

Other than that everyone I've ever heard of that has had an abortion is discreet, quiet and really would like to be left alone. It is a traumatic decision if you worship the Beelzebub, Jesus or the NY Yankees. So believe away in your mind whatever you want, feel free to do so. Feel free to protest, feel free to post and feel free to espouse whatever you like.

Don't take away the safe medical procedures and counseling for those who disagree with you. Disagreeing with you on a legal issue is what we're doing here.

I disagree vehemently on your above statement. It is much more/less than that.

[Randetica]

for some abortions dont seem to be a big deal anymore, sadly

[Documad]

I doubt that the discussion of criminal law is going to go anywhere. Criminal law in the US is a product of statutes. The statutes use different words in various US states. In my state you can commit third degree murder when you kill a person without intent to kill, if you were really really negligent (that's not the legal definition). The classic example given in school is the defendant who fires a gun into a crowd of people. You didn't intend to kill anyone in particular but you were a dumbass and disregarded the significant risk that you would kill SOMEONE. We used to commonly think of first degree murder as a murder committed with intent and premeditation (planning). But today, most states have all kinds of other first degree murder definitions. If you kill a cop it's first degree murder whether you premeditated it or not. Also probably if you kill someone while raping them etc. It's all a product of what your legislature thought was a good idea.

And anyhow I don't want women who abort fetuses to be tried with a lesser crime like assault. Even when abortion was illegal, it was a lesser crime than murder. But the point is that it shouldn't be any sort of crime at all.

Abortion is legal (in my opinion) because a fetus is not yet a person. It's usually illegal to kill a person. It's usually not illegal to kill a fetus. It doesn't even come down to viability to me. It comes down to the born female who is caring the fetus/baby to be having superior rights to the fetus.

The tricky part is explaining why a crack mom can be charged with hurting her baby by using drugs while it was a fetus. As a matter of public policy I'm fine with that. As a matter of logic? Not so much.

[Randetica]

Abortion is legal (in my opinion) because a fetus is not yet a person. It's usually illegal to kill a person. It's usually not illegal to kill a fetus. It doesn't even come down to viability to me. It comes down to the born female who is caring the fetus/baby to be having superior rights to the fetus.


i think the fetus is a person already and not just trash made for trashcans
and youre just the home for the baby which doesnt mean it's your ownage and that you can treat it however you want, it's a living being and not something like your organs and it's not YOUR bones that get broken due an abortion but whatever

[Documad]

i think the fetus is a person already and not just trash made for trashcans
and youre just the home for the baby which doesnt mean it's your ownage and that you can treat it however you want, it's a living being and not something like your organs and it's not YOUR bones that get broken due an abortion but whatever

Well we disagree and that's no surprise. I will never encourage you to have an abortion. Your choice.

[QueenAdrock]

and youre just the home for the baby which doesnt mean it's your ownage and that you can treat it however you want, it's a living being

I sure hope you never get tapeworms.

[Bob]

so apparently as mayor of wasilla, sarah palin was in favor of a policy whereby rape victims would have to pay for their own rape kits (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=sarah+palin+rape+kit&btnG=Search+News). i'd make a new thread about it but i haven't found any proper news sites reporting the story so i don't want to jump the gun

but if it's true, damn

[russhie]

unless you were date raped, I think you'd know if you had sex the next day and you'd take the pill as a routine.

What if your contraception failed? In these instances, you probably wouldn't notice something is up until you miss your period, and unless this happens within 72 hours of you having sex the morning after pill ain't going to work.

[Bob]

What if your contraception failed? In these instances, you probably wouldn't notice something is up until you miss your period, and unless this happens within 72 hours of you having sex the morning after pill ain't going to work.

then congratulations, you have to have a baby

[taquitos]

Women do NOT support Palin

...that must be why tanning salons do so much business!

[Randetica]

I sure hope you never get tapeworms.

thats my plan b in case im not able to get preggies

[yeahwho]

thats my plan b in case im not able to get preggies
Excellent choice, who will you vote for this coming November? Have you made up your mind who you think will make the best next President out of the candidates?

[Randetica]

i dont have to care cause im no american but next sunday i might vote for our green politican group cause the black and red ones can suck it (no nazi)

[yeahwho]

i dont have to care cause im no american but next sunday i might vote for our green politican group cause the black and red ones can suck it (no nazi)

Sure, let me rephrase the exact same question, between McCain and Obama who do you think Americans should vote for come this November?

You must have some opinion on this, you have very strong opinions on abortion.

[Randetica]

well sure not palin cause i hate hypocritical sluts

[yeahwho]

well sure not palin cause i hate hypocritical sluts

I like you. :)

[Randetica]

so fucking vote for me!

[100% ILL]

well sure not palin cause i hate hypocritical sluts

Sell out. I'd never vote for you.

[Randetica]

thank god

[yeahwho]

Just to clarify a few numbers that may have been skewered or needed to be updated here is the latest study findings from the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/) as reported to the US media today, September 23,2008.

Study Finds Major Shift in Abortion Demographics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

The analysis confirmed previous reports that the abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, dropping 33 percent from a peak of 29 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 in 1980 to 20 per 1,000 in 2004.

During that period, the proportion of abortions obtained by women younger than 20 dropped steadily, falling from 33 percent in 1974 to 17 percent in 2004. For those younger than 18, it fell from 15 percent of all abortions in 1974 to 6 percent in 2004. At the same time, the proportion of abortions obtained by women in their 20s increased from 50 percent to 57 percent, and the share done for women age 30 and older rose from 18 percent to 27 percent.

Although abortion rates have declined among all racial and ethnic groups, large disparities persist, with Hispanic and black women having the procedure at rates three to five times the rate of white women.

This can help with some perspective in regard to which demographic is being targeted. The whole concept of this being a good enough reason to accept somebody as lame as Palin into possibility of being our next president is ludicrous. Because let's be honest, what else has she brought to this serious presidential race?